ANA 787 makes emergency landing due 'battery fire warning'
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another great job by paper pushers and bean counters
dlcmdrx:
Organizational issues...
Kudos for important information presented by a young guy!
We may expect other issues?
Organizational issues...
Kudos for important information presented by a young guy!
We may expect other issues?
The discouraging thing, is that there is probably way too much concern over how to "play" it, rather than solve it.
An aviation analyst was interviewed on the radio this morning. In addition to the battery, fuel leak and other problems of the past week, he mentioned the other electrical incidents that the 787 has suffered. And that the FAA will be looking at a possible root cause for all of them. Specifically, a systemic problem in Boeing's engineering process.
Once the customers become dissatisfied with Boeing's performance, this will start to look like the three-way gunfight in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
atakacs:
It appears the video has been edited, changing the order.
You'll notice the pilots waiting at the front slide while some people leave 2nd door. Then it shows the pilots leaving. Then back to some people leaving the 2nd -- with the pilots still at the front exit.
It appears the video has been edited, changing the order.
You'll notice the pilots waiting at the front slide while some people leave 2nd door. Then it shows the pilots leaving. Then back to some people leaving the 2nd -- with the pilots still at the front exit.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question from a non(-professional) pilot:
From the video, the evacuation is on the taxiway. If an evacuation is required, wouldn't they want to stop as soon as possibly and evacuate on the runway?
It seems like the runway is shut down either way, given the passengers and equipment in the area.
This is curiosity not criticism. I recall a recommendation in a Canadian TSB report a number of years ago on a 737 engine fire on takeoff in Calgary.
From the video, the evacuation is on the taxiway. If an evacuation is required, wouldn't they want to stop as soon as possibly and evacuate on the runway?
It seems like the runway is shut down either way, given the passengers and equipment in the area.
This is curiosity not criticism. I recall a recommendation in a Canadian TSB report a number of years ago on a 737 engine fire on takeoff in Calgary.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an evacuation is required, wouldn't they want to stop as soon as possibly and evacuate on the runway
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the video, the evacuation is on the taxiway. If an evacuation is required, wouldn't they want to stop as soon as possibly and evacuate on the runway?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: France
Age: 60
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"FAA grounds Boeing 787s, issues emergency AD to cover risk of battery fires"
From the Dallas Morning News:
"The Federal Aviation Administration issued a statement ordering operators of Boeing 787s to ground those airplanes until they prove that the batteries onboard are safe.
The action comes after Japan carriers All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines parked their airplanes temporarily in response to a battery fire on an ANA flight Wednesday:
Here’s the FAA statement:
“As a result of an in-flight, Boeing 787 battery incident earlier today in Japan, the FAA will issue an emergency airworthiness directive (AD) to address a potential battery fire risk in the 787 and require operators to temporarily cease operations. Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.
“The FAA will work with the manufacturer and carriers to develop a corrective action plan to allow the U.S. 787 fleet to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.The in-flight Japanese battery incident followed an earlier 787 battery incident that occurred on the ground in Boston on January 7, 2013. The AD is prompted by this second incident involving a lithium ion battery.
“The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes. The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.Last Friday, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787’s critical systems with the possibility of further action pending new data and information.
“In addition to the continuing review of the aircraft’s design, manufacture and assembly, the agency also will validate that 787 batteries and the battery system on the aircraft are in compliance with the special condition the agency issued as part of the aircraft’s certification.
“United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes in service. When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive, it also alerts the international aviation community to the action so other civil aviation authorities can take parallel action to cover the fleets operating in their own countries.”
"The Federal Aviation Administration issued a statement ordering operators of Boeing 787s to ground those airplanes until they prove that the batteries onboard are safe.
The action comes after Japan carriers All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines parked their airplanes temporarily in response to a battery fire on an ANA flight Wednesday:
Here’s the FAA statement:
“As a result of an in-flight, Boeing 787 battery incident earlier today in Japan, the FAA will issue an emergency airworthiness directive (AD) to address a potential battery fire risk in the 787 and require operators to temporarily cease operations. Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.
“The FAA will work with the manufacturer and carriers to develop a corrective action plan to allow the U.S. 787 fleet to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.The in-flight Japanese battery incident followed an earlier 787 battery incident that occurred on the ground in Boston on January 7, 2013. The AD is prompted by this second incident involving a lithium ion battery.
“The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes. The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.Last Friday, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787’s critical systems with the possibility of further action pending new data and information.
“In addition to the continuing review of the aircraft’s design, manufacture and assembly, the agency also will validate that 787 batteries and the battery system on the aircraft are in compliance with the special condition the agency issued as part of the aircraft’s certification.
“United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes in service. When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive, it also alerts the international aviation community to the action so other civil aviation authorities can take parallel action to cover the fleets operating in their own countries.”
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EEngr,
That is about right. As a regulator, the FAA has no liability. The FAA validates the aircraft manufacturers self certification.
The FAA's job is to look at the data that Boeing submitted, and make sure that it meets or exceeds the criteria, and that the data provided is reasonable for that assumption.
The significant issue here is that the FAA will now look into Boeings processes, testing methods, and certification procedures. The FAA's subject matter subcontractors will be looking at the process as well. It is already noted that the Naval Labs are looking at the batteries.
Agencies in other States will be looking at this as well, so the FAA will have to at least meet or exceed their efforts...given the liability, loss of service claims, and competition significance, the level of detail should be very, very extensive...
This appears routine to the general public, but looking at the engineering and certification process, this is very very significant.
That is about right. As a regulator, the FAA has no liability. The FAA validates the aircraft manufacturers self certification.
The FAA's job is to look at the data that Boeing submitted, and make sure that it meets or exceeds the criteria, and that the data provided is reasonable for that assumption.
The significant issue here is that the FAA will now look into Boeings processes, testing methods, and certification procedures. The FAA's subject matter subcontractors will be looking at the process as well. It is already noted that the Naval Labs are looking at the batteries.
Agencies in other States will be looking at this as well, so the FAA will have to at least meet or exceed their efforts...given the liability, loss of service claims, and competition significance, the level of detail should be very, very extensive...
This appears routine to the general public, but looking at the engineering and certification process, this is very very significant.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About batteries.
Unlike other battery types, Lithium batteries require electronic monitoring for both charging and discharging. Usually each cell voltages are monitored in order to achieve maximum battery performance and avoid damages and early battery death because of slight difference in battery cells.
If certain limits are reached then battery monitoring system stops or limits battery currents, activates battery cooling or warming. So it is a tricky business with a Li battery in high current applications like in electric cars. Battery usage envelope must be maintained at any cost. If battery monitoring system fails, it should switch off the battery itself or limit battery usage considerably.
If Li batteries are over charged they will start to overheat andat certain point they are not able to contain their own charge and self discharge adds to overheating with rapidly rising temperatures starting to boil highly flammable organic electrolyte which usually burst battery container and creates flames which again usually overheat neighbour cell causing same reaction. if not cooled down fast enough and boiled off organic electrolyte safely vented, the whole battery burns down in a chain reaction emitting huge amount of heat if oxygen is allowed to contact overheated battery parts.
How these problems are solved in aircrafts I do not know. But it seems like huge fire was avoided, as closed Li cells can violently explode and burn. It could be that some of battery cells broke down while being operated in specified envelope. Due to unexpected paremeter change during normal aging. Li batteries can withstand many thousand cycles.
At the same time NiMH batteries are much more forgiving. but are twice as heavy too. And even more expensive.
Unlike other battery types, Lithium batteries require electronic monitoring for both charging and discharging. Usually each cell voltages are monitored in order to achieve maximum battery performance and avoid damages and early battery death because of slight difference in battery cells.
If certain limits are reached then battery monitoring system stops or limits battery currents, activates battery cooling or warming. So it is a tricky business with a Li battery in high current applications like in electric cars. Battery usage envelope must be maintained at any cost. If battery monitoring system fails, it should switch off the battery itself or limit battery usage considerably.
If Li batteries are over charged they will start to overheat andat certain point they are not able to contain their own charge and self discharge adds to overheating with rapidly rising temperatures starting to boil highly flammable organic electrolyte which usually burst battery container and creates flames which again usually overheat neighbour cell causing same reaction. if not cooled down fast enough and boiled off organic electrolyte safely vented, the whole battery burns down in a chain reaction emitting huge amount of heat if oxygen is allowed to contact overheated battery parts.
How these problems are solved in aircrafts I do not know. But it seems like huge fire was avoided, as closed Li cells can violently explode and burn. It could be that some of battery cells broke down while being operated in specified envelope. Due to unexpected paremeter change during normal aging. Li batteries can withstand many thousand cycles.
At the same time NiMH batteries are much more forgiving. but are twice as heavy too. And even more expensive.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Telegraph article about the grounding shows a picture of the battery removed from the Boston aircraft, it's near the end. :
Europe, Japan and India ground Dreamliner indefinitely - Telegraph
Europe, Japan and India ground Dreamliner indefinitely - Telegraph
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding Wednesday (16th) flights to and from FRA, NH203 operated by a 787 arrived on time, and NH204 that was showing as departed on time by both FRA airport departure messaging and flightaware is now showing as cancelled at ANA. Presumably, there is now a Dreamliner sitting in FRA.
Flight status as of 17:42 (Japan Standard Time)
Date Flight No. Departure Airport Arrival Airport 16 January, 2013(Wed) ANA 204 Frankfurt Tokyo(Haneda) To receive Certificate of Cancellation/Delay/Diversion, click flight number.
(Certification of delay will not be provided when delayed time of arrival is within 15 minutes.) Flight No. Flight Status Delay Time Remarks ANA 204 Canceled - Due to inspection of the cause of the Boeing 787 aircraft malfunction
NH203 today was operated by a 772.
Flight status as of 17:42 (Japan Standard Time) Date Flight No. Departure Airport Arrival Airport 16 January, 2013(Wed) ANA 204 Frankfurt Tokyo(Haneda) To receive Certificate of Cancellation/Delay/Diversion, click flight number.(Certification of delay will not be provided when delayed time of arrival is within 15 minutes.) Flight No. Flight Status Delay Time Remarks ANA 204 Canceled - Due to inspection of the cause of the Boeing 787 aircraft malfunction
NH203 today was operated by a 772.
Last edited by BRE; 17th Jan 2013 at 07:49.
Presumably, there is now a Dreamliner sitting in FRA.
"Four dreamliner aircraft operated on [ANA] domestic routes have reportedly been grounded, while the remaining two will ground to a halt (sic) on their return from Paris and Frankfurt."
Presumably sans pax.
More Countries Ground Boeing-787 Dreamliners Until Safety Assured
Fzz - I'm not either but I recall the BA Airtours fire at Manchester and what happened after the off runway stop inadvertently put the fire upwind of the cabin which was rapidly penetrated and destroyed with serious loss of life.
I am not a pilot but it is obvious that in the event of fire stop and get out asap. If this is on the runway so be it.
I once was first on the scene after a serious hang glider crash. Number one priority, separate the pilot from the aircraft (no fire risk but might have been lifted off by the wind).
I once was first on the scene after a serious hang glider crash. Number one priority, separate the pilot from the aircraft (no fire risk but might have been lifted off by the wind).
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BBC now reporting the Dreamliner is being grounded worldwide.
Dreamliner: Most Boeing 787 planes grounded on safety fears
Leithen Francis, Aviation Week: 'Some 787 operators will ask for compensation from Boeing
What's the impact on Boeing?
Dreamliner plane review ordered
Airlines and regulators have grounded the majority of Boeing's flagship 787 Dreamliner planes amid continuing safety concerns.
Airlines in Chile and India have temporarily halted 787 flights, following a US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directive.
European regulators have also followed suit, ordering that planes be grounded.
BBC News - Dreamliner: Most Boeing 787 planes grounded on safety fears
Dreamliner: Most Boeing 787 planes grounded on safety fears
Leithen Francis, Aviation Week: 'Some 787 operators will ask for compensation from Boeing
What's the impact on Boeing?
Dreamliner plane review ordered
Airlines and regulators have grounded the majority of Boeing's flagship 787 Dreamliner planes amid continuing safety concerns.
Airlines in Chile and India have temporarily halted 787 flights, following a US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directive.
European regulators have also followed suit, ordering that planes be grounded.
BBC News - Dreamliner: Most Boeing 787 planes grounded on safety fears
Don't prejudge. Decision to evacuate was probably made after the plane had landed (and stopped) when the fire crews saw smoke. So he had no reason to stop on the runway.
If there was a fire in the forward EE bay stopping crosswind on the taxiway was probably a good option anyway.
The video shows a very orderly evacuation with no evidence of 'sauve qui peut' - would be surprising if the pilots were not at the back of the queue for the door.
If there was a fire in the forward EE bay stopping crosswind on the taxiway was probably a good option anyway.
The video shows a very orderly evacuation with no evidence of 'sauve qui peut' - would be surprising if the pilots were not at the back of the queue for the door.
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The battery company said the battery was 'discoloured' after the fire.
Depends on your interpretation of 'discoloured' I suppose.....
NTSB Shows Off Burnt Boeing 787 Battery
Edited to add that the article says the fire authorities had difficulty in getting access to the battery -- this presumably was the reason for thr 45 minutes that was mentioned in an earlier post.
Depends on your interpretation of 'discoloured' I suppose.....
NTSB Shows Off Burnt Boeing 787 Battery
Edited to add that the article says the fire authorities had difficulty in getting access to the battery -- this presumably was the reason for thr 45 minutes that was mentioned in an earlier post.
Last edited by angels; 17th Jan 2013 at 09:35.