ANA 787 makes emergency landing due 'battery fire warning'
Somewhat OT, but why haven't capacitors kept up?
Depending on the application, one of the best alternatives to battery energy storage would be a flywheel. I haven't worked the numbers for some time, but they might be better than LiON. Definitely better than NiCad.
A flywheel would be useless for an APU start source, where one would expect to be able to 'back start' an airplane that had been parked for a few weeks. But for standby power (to replace the forward EE bay battery), they would work well. The flywheel could be spun up during ground operations prior to flight and kept topped off by main generator power until a complete electrical system loss required their power.
The APU start issue could be addressed by figuring how often an aircraft is parted long term where ground power (maybe just a couple of forklift batteries wired for 24V) can't be brought up to cherge the APU start flywheel. It may be a non issue for many operators.
There is a systemic problem, and one or two of several disciplines are struggling.
The question will be: Does the FAA put on blinders and look only at the battery? Or do they chase this problem all the way down (up?) to the root cause?
To be fair, fixing the battery issue should be sufficient to earn the 787 conditional airworthiness. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a battery fix and then the regulators politely shown back to the Boeing gate.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They can bird dog the problem all they want, they are still dependent on Boeing. Ultimately, as you say, they will see the door. The problem with a battery only solution is that there is such sloppiness in the trail, confidence won't come back. The FAA? Last in, First out.....
Doesn't the 787 have two Flywheels OEM?
Doesn't the 787 have two Flywheels OEM?
How many cells?
Thanks to angels and Ye_Olde_Pilotfor the Boston APU batterypic.
Last week on one of these threads, I speculated that the APU battery, and presumably the main elec-sys one(s), would each need to consist of between 6 and 8 cells. I wrote:
“The [GSYuasa] datasheet shows that each cell is rated at 65Ah, with a nominal voltage of 3.7V.Can someone confirm that the low-power DC electrics are the standard 28V DC,implying a 24V battery? If so, would they need a battery pack consisting of 6, 7 or 8 of these cells, connected in series? Each cell is 2” thick, and weighs just over 6lb.”
Looking at the picture, can any sparks expert now say how many cells?
Last week on one of these threads, I speculated that the APU battery, and presumably the main elec-sys one(s), would each need to consist of between 6 and 8 cells. I wrote:
“The [GSYuasa] datasheet shows that each cell is rated at 65Ah, with a nominal voltage of 3.7V.Can someone confirm that the low-power DC electrics are the standard 28V DC,implying a 24V battery? If so, would they need a battery pack consisting of 6, 7 or 8 of these cells, connected in series? Each cell is 2” thick, and weighs just over 6lb.”
Looking at the picture, can any sparks expert now say how many cells?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discussions about what was displayed on the passenger displays aside...... why in the hell was the IFE system even powered during an evac due to fire???????
Surely the aircraft should be electrically dead ASAP after landing??
Were they unable to shut it down?
Surely the aircraft should be electrically dead ASAP after landing??
Were they unable to shut it down?
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 17th Jan 2013 at 18:52.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sdjest
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@admin
You got a problem with your forum's software logic ... My messages are being delayed because I'm new, but after having them reviewed by admin they appear at the location where they would have appeared if they had been shown right away. Only that in the meantime other people have already writted a lot of other messages and nobody is going to look back up ... So I'm essentially writing in vain. Makes no sense that way really :-(.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Origae-6
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lithium Batteries?
I have not really followed the development of the 787 but I am surprised to learn that the FAA allowed Boeing to install these batteries on this aircraft. I know they are not the same ones that power our electronic gadgets but Lithium batteries are nasty once they start to burn. Why do passenger flights require all spare lithium ion batteries be carried with your carry on on not in checked bags?
UN 3090 batteries must be labeled as CARGO AIRCRAFT ONLY when carried into, out of or through US airspace. My company has specific procedures that must be followed when ever these batteries are carried on our cargo fleet. So if Boeing can design an aircraft with these batteries then why bother with all the other regulations on safe transport of same?
UN 3090 batteries must be labeled as CARGO AIRCRAFT ONLY when carried into, out of or through US airspace. My company has specific procedures that must be followed when ever these batteries are carried on our cargo fleet. So if Boeing can design an aircraft with these batteries then why bother with all the other regulations on safe transport of same?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having an aircraft battery bolted into place with monitoring circuits attached is a little different than some SLF throwing a couple spare laptop batteries in his checked bags along with god-knows-what else. Or a couple thousand of them in a box, that some forklift-driving yahoo has poked a hole into, then buried in a pallet of who-knows-what else and left in the sun to cook for a couple hours. Still, I take your point.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not really followed the development of the 787 but I am surprised to learn that the FAA allowed Boeing to install these batteries on this aircraft.
It has been said on one of the other threads that this aircraft has significantly higher electrical requirements than other aircraft of similar size. Could it be that when all the design work had been done for all this fancy extra kit, the only realistic battery power to handle the task was from Li-Ion or other similar high energy system. ie a fait accompli.
Were other bigger, heavier, lower energy systems looked at with the associated weight/space penalties or was it a question of 'if you want all this kit you need these batteries'?
Is that how we ended up with Boeing going to the FAA and saying 'to make this work we need these batteries but if you aren't incredibly careful how you look after them, they will burn at 800-1000 degrees C. So the FAA turned round and said "OK we'll let that slide if you can demonstrate that such a fire can be contained long enough to get the aircraft on the ground!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is Boeing designing the aircraft, not the FAA...
In the US, the FAA can only review and validate what has been submitted. It is illegal in the US to design by review.
As noted, the FAA cannot tell Boeing they cannot use LI batteries, if Boeing has submitted all of the required data to show that the issues have been met.
Now, as we can see, the FAA is looking at the Boeing process, from manufacturing down/up, to review if the process and procedures Boeing uses need improvement.
This is not simply about showing Li batteries are safe, this is about Boeing proving their process is safe...
In the US, the FAA can only review and validate what has been submitted. It is illegal in the US to design by review.
As noted, the FAA cannot tell Boeing they cannot use LI batteries, if Boeing has submitted all of the required data to show that the issues have been met.
Now, as we can see, the FAA is looking at the Boeing process, from manufacturing down/up, to review if the process and procedures Boeing uses need improvement.
This is not simply about showing Li batteries are safe, this is about Boeing proving their process is safe...
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"AD Requirements
This AD requires modification of the battery system, or other actions, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA."
This is a rule. The manager of the FSDO (Flight Standards Division Office, Seattle) will be the interface for Boeing's work. Boeing must submit a method, (design) for approval. No more cocktail parties, golf games, or monogrammed towels.
This can flexibly be defined as Design/Build, an accepted method for manufacturing. This is a good system, and the possibility for great success is at hand.....
Plugging the bleeds and taking off generation mechanically is a good idea. Composite is mature, and Boeing is the best in the business. And the 787 is a beautiful bird.....
This AD requires modification of the battery system, or other actions, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA."
This is a rule. The manager of the FSDO (Flight Standards Division Office, Seattle) will be the interface for Boeing's work. Boeing must submit a method, (design) for approval. No more cocktail parties, golf games, or monogrammed towels.
This can flexibly be defined as Design/Build, an accepted method for manufacturing. This is a good system, and the possibility for great success is at hand.....
Plugging the bleeds and taking off generation mechanically is a good idea. Composite is mature, and Boeing is the best in the business. And the 787 is a beautiful bird.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN
And that which isn't validated goes back to the drawing board for redesigning, re-testing or whatever and ultimately needs to be validated before it either sees the light of day or is discarded.
And yes, it is all about the process. Li-Ion batteries are neither intrinsically safe nor not safe. It all depends on what you intend to do with them and how you look after them. At this stage there is little that can be done about what is done with them so the solution lies in how you look after them.
This is of course assuming that the problem is systemic to the electrical systems on-board and not just down to a couple of duff batteries that slipped through QC.
And that which isn't validated goes back to the drawing board for redesigning, re-testing or whatever and ultimately needs to be validated before it either sees the light of day or is discarded.
And yes, it is all about the process. Li-Ion batteries are neither intrinsically safe nor not safe. It all depends on what you intend to do with them and how you look after them. At this stage there is little that can be done about what is done with them so the solution lies in how you look after them.
This is of course assuming that the problem is systemic to the electrical systems on-board and not just down to a couple of duff batteries that slipped through QC.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many cells?
Chris Scott:
Probably 7 cell´s in series. Why?
A LiIon cell typical max charged voltage (4,2 v ea.) for 7 cells means 29,4 V. I´ve heard of a Diode in the circuit (in series, dropping the voltage to ~ 28 V).
Nominal voltage of 25,9 V (7 x 3,7V). Less the Diode drop means ~ 24 V.
Subject to confirm it. Anyway, 6 cells is not enough and 8 is excessive.
(May be multiples of 7 if series parallel config. was used, with higher risks) Will comment on that in a subsequent post.
(8 cell arrangement could be used if the circuitry is designed for). I would design with 7 cell. Quite compatible with aircraft traditional batt. Voltage.
Probably 7 cell´s in series. Why?
A LiIon cell typical max charged voltage (4,2 v ea.) for 7 cells means 29,4 V. I´ve heard of a Diode in the circuit (in series, dropping the voltage to ~ 28 V).
Nominal voltage of 25,9 V (7 x 3,7V). Less the Diode drop means ~ 24 V.
Subject to confirm it. Anyway, 6 cells is not enough and 8 is excessive.
(May be multiples of 7 if series parallel config. was used, with higher risks) Will comment on that in a subsequent post.
(8 cell arrangement could be used if the circuitry is designed for). I would design with 7 cell. Quite compatible with aircraft traditional batt. Voltage.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capacitors (condenser) role in circuitry
FlightPathOBN:
In special cases the mentioned supercaps act as storage. They are costly and NOT SUITABLE to replace chemical batteries. An example: The payphone used in our country has a one Farad supercap "to help" power the microprocessor circuitry under "long line condition". When the telephone line is near the nominal limit between the Exchange and the payphone.
The capacitors used in electronic circuit indeed stores energy but low figures compared to batteries. And the purpose is other.
In electricity they are used for other purposes but again, no replacement for batteries. Could comment further if asked to.
In an aircraft, capacitors NEVER could be used as a replacement for batteries. The same is valid for most designs.
In special cases the mentioned supercaps act as storage. They are costly and NOT SUITABLE to replace chemical batteries. An example: The payphone used in our country has a one Farad supercap "to help" power the microprocessor circuitry under "long line condition". When the telephone line is near the nominal limit between the Exchange and the payphone.
The capacitors used in electronic circuit indeed stores energy but low figures compared to batteries. And the purpose is other.
In electricity they are used for other purposes but again, no replacement for batteries. Could comment further if asked to.
In an aircraft, capacitors NEVER could be used as a replacement for batteries. The same is valid for most designs.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much less safe than lead acid batteries
Speed of Sound:
AFAIK nothing similar to UPS flight #6 (a 744 at DXB) happened (very probably) associated with lead acid or even NiCd batteries.
The experience so far is that these batteries are FANTASTIC. (small, light, efficient, etc.) BUT INFORTUNATELY EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
A critical device. Will comment later on that.
Li-Ion batteries are neither intrinsically safe nor not safe.
AFAIK nothing similar to UPS flight #6 (a 744 at DXB) happened (very probably) associated with lead acid or even NiCd batteries.
The experience so far is that these batteries are FANTASTIC. (small, light, efficient, etc.) BUT INFORTUNATELY EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
A critical device. Will comment later on that.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Feriton
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Number of cells
Looks like the battery had 8 cells, according to this graphic accompanying a story in the Seattle Times. In another forum someone who seemed to know says that both the APU start battery and the main battery are the same unit.
Lithium-ion batteries pack a lot of energy — and challenges | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
Lithium-ion batteries pack a lot of energy — and challenges | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Diamond Bob
Looking at the High-Res Photos from the National Transportation Safety Board you could better count them. It seems really to be 8 batteries in a row.
Looking at the the batteries product page you could find the information that Thales will integrate GS Yuasa batteries into the DreamLiner.
Digging deeper into their LVP 10 65 Data Sheet sheet, you also will find that thai are using Lithium Cobalt Oxide as cathode material. Okay, understandable if you look at Battery University's Types of Lithium Ion sheet. Its the
It's got the highest energy density (and maybe the edge on the market - so not so easy to replace).
But looking deeper into their Snapshot of an "average" Li-cobalt Battery you will find safety of a Lithium Cobalt battery is not their highest inner value.
It seems like they were really trying hard to safe weight. I hope not on the cost of security. (I wouldn't like to breath neither Lithium (which might make me a bit more happy
) nor Cobalt (you will find out on getting it into your lungs, yourself). Maybe the organic solvent smells & feels better. I hope it went well for the Boston and US passengers...
And, I hope it won't be Waterloo II for Thales and it won't get Boeings TraumaLiner.
Looking at the High-Res Photos from the National Transportation Safety Board you could better count them. It seems really to be 8 batteries in a row.
Looking at the the batteries product page you could find the information that Thales will integrate GS Yuasa batteries into the DreamLiner.
Digging deeper into their LVP 10 65 Data Sheet sheet, you also will find that thai are using Lithium Cobalt Oxide as cathode material. Okay, understandable if you look at Battery University's Types of Lithium Ion sheet. Its the
It's got the highest energy density (and maybe the edge on the market - so not so easy to replace).
But looking deeper into their Snapshot of an "average" Li-cobalt Battery you will find safety of a Lithium Cobalt battery is not their highest inner value.
It seems like they were really trying hard to safe weight. I hope not on the cost of security. (I wouldn't like to breath neither Lithium (which might make me a bit more happy
) nor Cobalt (you will find out on getting it into your lungs, yourself). Maybe the organic solvent smells & feels better. I hope it went well for the Boston and US passengers... And, I hope it won't be Waterloo II for Thales and it won't get Boeings TraumaLiner.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every time we get airborne in a powered aircraft, we are dealing with combustion processesses that are under careful control, i.e. the aircraft is dealing with fire under carefully controlled conditions. No big deal as long as the engineering is valid.
From the pictures of the battery case of the burned battery in the Boston fire, the case was not burned through although the battery was fully involved. This is indication that Boeing's design concept included an expectation that a fire might occur in the battery and that a concept was developed to mitigate and control the damage.
The design concepts must now be reviewed in light of current experience to make sure that all the design concepts were valid. It appears that among other things, the frequency of battery fires is well in excess of engineering expectations.
The engineering expectations that the design would be sufficient for a battery fire inflight also need to be looked at from the standpoint of adequacy for a fire on ground with the aircraft stationary. This is a more difficult case than the inflight case since the venturi system for exhaust from the E&E compartment would likely not be operational.
My limited experience of intentionally burning a small discharged Lithium cell phone battery left me impressed. The organic chemicals inside the battery are extremely flammable and the flare from the battery fire left me questioning whether or not I was too close to the thing at 5' distance. This was just a very small cell phone battery!
As a betting man, I'll bet that the issue with the battery is actually with the charging system and insufficient feedback from the battery to the charging system regarding cell temperature. The charging system should not continue to charge a battery that is moving in the direction of thermal runaway.
From the pictures of the battery case of the burned battery in the Boston fire, the case was not burned through although the battery was fully involved. This is indication that Boeing's design concept included an expectation that a fire might occur in the battery and that a concept was developed to mitigate and control the damage.
The design concepts must now be reviewed in light of current experience to make sure that all the design concepts were valid. It appears that among other things, the frequency of battery fires is well in excess of engineering expectations.
The engineering expectations that the design would be sufficient for a battery fire inflight also need to be looked at from the standpoint of adequacy for a fire on ground with the aircraft stationary. This is a more difficult case than the inflight case since the venturi system for exhaust from the E&E compartment would likely not be operational.
My limited experience of intentionally burning a small discharged Lithium cell phone battery left me impressed. The organic chemicals inside the battery are extremely flammable and the flare from the battery fire left me questioning whether or not I was too close to the thing at 5' distance. This was just a very small cell phone battery!
As a betting man, I'll bet that the issue with the battery is actually with the charging system and insufficient feedback from the battery to the charging system regarding cell temperature. The charging system should not continue to charge a battery that is moving in the direction of thermal runaway.