ANA 787 makes emergency landing due 'battery fire warning'
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scottish FIR
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope there's a bit of room for satire.
I can imagine fleet managers and engineers trawling iphone forums looking at solutions for short battery life and devices running a little 'hot'. Boeing carefully studying how steve jobs and Apple would deal with the issue. The bottom line being, deny everything, turn the alleged defect into a feature. Eventually make an announcement that everyone can return the product via 1st. class mail for a refund or new replacement, (please use the supplied jiffy bag).
Personally, I feel its all down to software, if they would use Android jelly bean instead of Ice Ceam Sandwich, the 787 would be a much better 'plane.
I can imagine fleet managers and engineers trawling iphone forums looking at solutions for short battery life and devices running a little 'hot'. Boeing carefully studying how steve jobs and Apple would deal with the issue. The bottom line being, deny everything, turn the alleged defect into a feature. Eventually make an announcement that everyone can return the product via 1st. class mail for a refund or new replacement, (please use the supplied jiffy bag).
Personally, I feel its all down to software, if they would use Android jelly bean instead of Ice Ceam Sandwich, the 787 would be a much better 'plane.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NH204 (FRA - HND) for the 16th has now been deleted from the flightaware log. Not sure what plante that would be that was ferried back from Paris. ANA have no Dreamliner service to Paris, and neither does JAL to the best of my knowledge and a quick search effort.
NH203 arrived and NH204 closes on time in Frankfurt today on the 17th. Flightaware is still listing them as 787 but Frankfurt airport has them as 772.
According to FRA airport, NH203 for the 18th is scheduled to be on time whereas they have already posted a delay of nearly 6 hours for the return flight tomorrow. Also, both are listed as 772 whereas the Friday flights are usually operated by 77W (whatever that is).
Are they planning to do scheduled maintenance at an outstation?
NH203 arrived and NH204 closes on time in Frankfurt today on the 17th. Flightaware is still listing them as 787 but Frankfurt airport has them as 772.
According to FRA airport, NH203 for the 18th is scheduled to be on time whereas they have already posted a delay of nearly 6 hours for the return flight tomorrow. Also, both are listed as 772 whereas the Friday flights are usually operated by 77W (whatever that is).
Are they planning to do scheduled maintenance at an outstation?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess Boeing has made stupid decision,trying to make aircraft more efficient,less fuel,less maintenance ,more outsourcing,all electrics,this is what QF preferred ,but it come at a cost.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Li-Ion batteries are vulnerable to catching fire either because of a fault in the battery itself, or in the charging electronics/circuitry, or the software running the charge program.
Fires have occured widely with Li-Ion batteries in other electronics applications and it known particularly where over-charging takes place, so it is a signifcant risk. I'm surprised that additional safety circuitry either was not installed or failed to prevent such a fire.
Fires have occured widely with Li-Ion batteries in other electronics applications and it known particularly where over-charging takes place, so it is a signifcant risk. I'm surprised that additional safety circuitry either was not installed or failed to prevent such a fire.
Last edited by RTM Boy; 17th Jan 2013 at 10:40.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFSO, are you saying that if engineers were paid more this wouldn't happen?
So, I'm a Boeing engineer or a battery engineer and I'm going to be less competent at my job because I don't get paid as much as the marketing director?
Really???
Or, is it that when an engineer gets it wrong, it's never their fault?
It might be better to find out exactly what's caused the battery fire first and how it can be prevented in future so that any further serious incidents can be avoided. It should become clear fairly soon whose 'fault' it was.
So, I'm a Boeing engineer or a battery engineer and I'm going to be less competent at my job because I don't get paid as much as the marketing director?
Really???
Or, is it that when an engineer gets it wrong, it's never their fault?
It might be better to find out exactly what's caused the battery fire first and how it can be prevented in future so that any further serious incidents can be avoided. It should become clear fairly soon whose 'fault' it was.
I'm surprised that additional safety circuitry either was not installed or failed to prevent such a fire.
The APU battery circuit has no such module. Considered unnecessary due to the APU battery requirements. IE To start the APU (and nothing else).
Other than that both batteries are identicle.
OFSO, are you saying that if engineers were paid more this wouldn't happen?
So, I'm a Boeing engineer or a battery engineer and I'm going to be less competent at my job because I don't get paid as much as the marketing director?
Really???
Or, is it that when an engineer gets it wrong, it's never their fault?
So, I'm a Boeing engineer or a battery engineer and I'm going to be less competent at my job because I don't get paid as much as the marketing director?
Really???
Or, is it that when an engineer gets it wrong, it's never their fault?
There is an old saying.
"You pay peanuts, you get monkies".
In my experience the engineers always get the blame regardless of fault.
Last edited by TURIN; 17th Jan 2013 at 11:08.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
Imagine the reaction if this had been an Airbus
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Under the bridge
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380's teething problems with its cracked wings and mid air uncontained engine failure were arguably far more spectacular events. Yet it demonstrates how short public memory is. This time next year I don't think public perception regarding the 787 will be any different.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turin, so now Boeing and battery engineers are monkeys who get paid peanuts?
Sorry, but we all get paid to do our jobs. If we don't do our jobs competently as a minimum, we stand to lose our jobs.
If an engineer doesn't like their salary, get another job - we keep hearing all the time that "there is a shortage of engineers", so it should be no problem finding work quickly, easily and with better pay.
If, on the other hand, engineers feel underpaid then it indicates that there are in fact plenty of them to spare and they can't command a wage premium. But to imply that this is a valid reason not to do your job properly is ridiculous.
Sorry, but we all get paid to do our jobs. If we don't do our jobs competently as a minimum, we stand to lose our jobs.
If an engineer doesn't like their salary, get another job - we keep hearing all the time that "there is a shortage of engineers", so it should be no problem finding work quickly, easily and with better pay.
If, on the other hand, engineers feel underpaid then it indicates that there are in fact plenty of them to spare and they can't command a wage premium. But to imply that this is a valid reason not to do your job properly is ridiculous.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineers pay is not the problem!
In reply to OFSO as an engineer
1. We are professionals doing a safety related job which we do professionally whatever the pay.
2. If you have worked as and hired engineers you will know pay is very loosely at best correlated with competence. Software developers from financial organisations as an example in my experience are paid very good salaries despite at best poor competence and skill levels. Most senior financial software developers I have interviewed struggle to meet our competence requirments for junior engineers.
3. The development process for safety related systems is multi-levelled so that we do not rely on the competence of one engineer but on a series of analyses and tests throughiut teh development lifecycle. At the end of the day anyone can make a mistake but teh process does not rely on perfection at each stage.
I do believe engineers are often undervalued and underpaid but that is nothing to do with it.
1. We are professionals doing a safety related job which we do professionally whatever the pay.
2. If you have worked as and hired engineers you will know pay is very loosely at best correlated with competence. Software developers from financial organisations as an example in my experience are paid very good salaries despite at best poor competence and skill levels. Most senior financial software developers I have interviewed struggle to meet our competence requirments for junior engineers.
3. The development process for safety related systems is multi-levelled so that we do not rely on the competence of one engineer but on a series of analyses and tests throughiut teh development lifecycle. At the end of the day anyone can make a mistake but teh process does not rely on perfection at each stage.
I do believe engineers are often undervalued and underpaid but that is nothing to do with it.
Turin, so now Boeing and battery engineers are monkeys who get paid peanuts?
If, on the other hand, engineers feel underpaid then it indicates that there are in fact plenty of them to spare and they can't command a wage premium. But to imply that this is a valid reason not to do your job properly is ridiculous.
This is not the place to get into this spat though. Lots of other threads and bulletin boards for that.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sdjest
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No takers ?
Nobody out there to say something about what happens to a 787 when both accumulators go out of business ? I ask this because these things seem to be so important for that aircraft and because I assume that a failing of one accumulator should raise the load on the other one which could then also fail if these things are being used near the edge of their envelope. So ... what remains working on a 787 with both main bats down ? And for how long ? Anybody ?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe Boeing should contact Hydro Quebec They are working on Ion Battery since 30 years and they invented one which do NOT catch fire and have no overheat problem The only thing it is more heavy
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Age: 74
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same/ v similar technology is marketed by a company called Valence- they have just settled a patent dispute between them- if you google them you will find a very interesting and spectacular video illustrating the point.
It's the little things that ....
From the "light" peanut gallery comes this observation...
- The battery type in question has been known to ignite and once burning is difficult to stop the thing(s). This is more common with the small, dense ones we see in laptops and cellphones, etc. The larger ones seem more safe, but not always. They are still susceptible to overcharging and the ensuing ignition. Which leads me to my observation:
- When the Viper was built, the design team focused upon the flight control computers, as their loss was also loss of the jet and maybe pilot. The elecgtrical system seemed straightforward, so the basic, line engineers came up with a good system with plenty of back ups. The emphasis was upon the whiz kids and the flight control computers. Unfortunately, the computer internal power supplies used solid state voltage regulators of 1970's vintage. They could not handle inputs above 37 volts or so. So uncommanded emergency power that used a simple DC generator with permament magnets could exceed the critical voltage at high power settings ( bleed air powered the thing). The computers would shut down if there was too much input voltage. Sheesh! We fixed the problem, but in the mean time we hot wired the computers and if the input voltagegot too high, then too bad. The computers would fail eventually, but gracefully, one by one. This was much better than having them all ( we had four) just shut down. We proved the point a few weeks later and the pilot flew the thing for 10 or so minutes until all was lost.
- Moral of the story is we seem to overlook some system failures that involve fairly straighforward systems like the battery circuits. The biggies are the aero-mechanical considerations, and they get the most emphasis.
My guess is we'll see a different battery type and better monitoring of the charging circuits.
- The battery type in question has been known to ignite and once burning is difficult to stop the thing(s). This is more common with the small, dense ones we see in laptops and cellphones, etc. The larger ones seem more safe, but not always. They are still susceptible to overcharging and the ensuing ignition. Which leads me to my observation:
- When the Viper was built, the design team focused upon the flight control computers, as their loss was also loss of the jet and maybe pilot. The elecgtrical system seemed straightforward, so the basic, line engineers came up with a good system with plenty of back ups. The emphasis was upon the whiz kids and the flight control computers. Unfortunately, the computer internal power supplies used solid state voltage regulators of 1970's vintage. They could not handle inputs above 37 volts or so. So uncommanded emergency power that used a simple DC generator with permament magnets could exceed the critical voltage at high power settings ( bleed air powered the thing). The computers would shut down if there was too much input voltage. Sheesh! We fixed the problem, but in the mean time we hot wired the computers and if the input voltagegot too high, then too bad. The computers would fail eventually, but gracefully, one by one. This was much better than having them all ( we had four) just shut down. We proved the point a few weeks later and the pilot flew the thing for 10 or so minutes until all was lost.
- Moral of the story is we seem to overlook some system failures that involve fairly straighforward systems like the battery circuits. The biggies are the aero-mechanical considerations, and they get the most emphasis.
My guess is we'll see a different battery type and better monitoring of the charging circuits.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple and easy are two separate words. We want them to be the same, but frequently they are exclusive....
If this was easy, we would not be writing this thread. Boeing has struggled with monumental problems on this project, and succeeded mightily in almost all of them.
This one is stubborn.... There are enormous forces at work, and to distill this down to R/R power source is simplistic, too easy.
There is a systemic problem, and one or two of several disciplines are struggling.
Nothing fatal, to person or program, imo. We'll see....
If this was easy, we would not be writing this thread. Boeing has struggled with monumental problems on this project, and succeeded mightily in almost all of them.
This one is stubborn.... There are enormous forces at work, and to distill this down to R/R power source is simplistic, too easy.
There is a systemic problem, and one or two of several disciplines are struggling.
Nothing fatal, to person or program, imo. We'll see....
Last edited by Lyman; 17th Jan 2013 at 15:36.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that OFSO's point was not the salaries of individual engineers, but rather the number of engineers as a whole. That perhaps having another 10% more design engineering budget or staff would have allowed additional testing.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhat OT, but why havent capacitors kept up?
I seem to remember televisions and most electronics had huge capacitors that the power supply fed, and the system drew from. These would stay charged for quite some time.
Is this a viable option to batteries, or could that technology be advanced?
I seem to remember televisions and most electronics had huge capacitors that the power supply fed, and the system drew from. These would stay charged for quite some time.
Is this a viable option to batteries, or could that technology be advanced?
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 17th Jan 2013 at 15:38.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sdjest
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?
Power supplies are of course buffered by capacitors and usually in many places - at module level and dispersed over printed circuit boards ect. You wouldn't want to replace accumulators with capacitors because of their size per capacity unit. As the accumulators evolve so do the capacitors, but until now there's no technology which unites the good features of both (small size, low weight, low inner resistance, high capacity).
On the other hand I fail to see any reason to assume that the capacitors in the 787s failed to do their job. What failed was the accumulator ...
On the other hand I fail to see any reason to assume that the capacitors in the 787s failed to do their job. What failed was the accumulator ...