FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the sound of it the containment worked exactly as intended. This is fairly reassuring but I would be happier if Boeing and its suppliers fully understood what caused the problems and found a genuine solution. As things stand I think this problem could recur occasionally, which was exactly what I thought when they revealed the Containment System last year.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by msbbarratt
On Tuesday, Japan Airlines said maintenance engineers who were in the cockpit saw white smoke from the cockpit. When they went outside the aircraft the smoke had dispersed. On returning to the cockpit the engineers found warning lights indicating possible faults with the main battery and charger.
Observable smoke
The passing of some seconds (at least), during which the smoke clears
Then the dashboard lights up with fault indicators.
It's good that the dash did light up, but the engineers still noticed the problem before the aircraft's own systems did. Good to see the engineers had their eyes open and paying attention to detail.
There is no indication of when the dashboard lights lit up, only when the engineers noticed them.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is this to become the new norm now?
Are there are such compelling reasons to retain these batteries that, henceforth, we will accept that one catching fire occasionally is as much a part of standard ops as an oil leak or worn tyre? The occasional fire on board a longhaul aircraft - properly contained of course - is just a routine incident and we just change out the battery and carry on?
If so, it's truly bizarre.
Are there are such compelling reasons to retain these batteries that, henceforth, we will accept that one catching fire occasionally is as much a part of standard ops as an oil leak or worn tyre? The occasional fire on board a longhaul aircraft - properly contained of course - is just a routine incident and we just change out the battery and carry on?
If so, it's truly bizarre.
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NTSB update is interesting, especially in juxtaposition with this latest lively lithium incident. An announcement that "we'll be wrapping up the data gathering in March, and then get on with writing the report" must mean "and we've not found any urgent safety action points yet" - assuming that if the smoking gun had been found, some more timely interim advisory would have been issued.
Meanwhile, the bleeders continue to get toasty.
From which, one deduces:
1. The NTSB still doesn't know the ultimate cause of the failures
2. The stated March deadline is now likely to be extended
3. They're happy that the Boeing containment fix is adequate to ensure a/c safety
4. We've still got no idea when the no smoking rule for Dreamliners is likely to be enforced
The saga drags on...
Meanwhile, the bleeders continue to get toasty.
From which, one deduces:
1. The NTSB still doesn't know the ultimate cause of the failures
2. The stated March deadline is now likely to be extended
3. They're happy that the Boeing containment fix is adequate to ensure a/c safety
4. We've still got no idea when the no smoking rule for Dreamliners is likely to be enforced
The saga drags on...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would hope that the audit trail and archived data on each battery would show if anything unexpected was being done to/with the battery due to different procedures.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 75
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect that as part of the battery system redesign a lot more battery data is being logged so perhaps this latest incident will give more clues as to the root cause of the cell failure.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can't provide a good explanation for all the observed failures then you haven't fixed the problem and it will come back to bite you in the future. This is a general rule of thumb, not just applicable to the batteries.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last March, in the comments section of an article in Aviation Week was the following comment;
Source; 787 ETOPS Threat Dismissed As Speculation
I'm not sure whether the battery redesign changed this aspect or not. If it didn't then perhaps this is the cause of the issue?
Bayanist
1:55 PM on 3/29/2013
I guarantee that the 787 problem is not with the battery technology but with the assumption that it is possible to charge as many as 8 cells in series without problems. The weakest cell WILL reverse polarity and appear as a short after the fact. This is true for any battery technology. I have done it with diehard lead acid batteries. To be safe each cell must be charged individually. Otherwise it is similar to pushing a chain. Unless each link is PERFECTLY aligned there will not be success. Unless each cell is PERFECTLY matched there will not be success. Since this is clearly impossible in this universe there will be future problems unless my warning is heeded. Time will prove me correct, Of that I am certain. Watch and see!
1:55 PM on 3/29/2013
I guarantee that the 787 problem is not with the battery technology but with the assumption that it is possible to charge as many as 8 cells in series without problems. The weakest cell WILL reverse polarity and appear as a short after the fact. This is true for any battery technology. I have done it with diehard lead acid batteries. To be safe each cell must be charged individually. Otherwise it is similar to pushing a chain. Unless each link is PERFECTLY aligned there will not be success. Unless each cell is PERFECTLY matched there will not be success. Since this is clearly impossible in this universe there will be future problems unless my warning is heeded. Time will prove me correct, Of that I am certain. Watch and see!
I'm not sure whether the battery redesign changed this aspect or not. If it didn't then perhaps this is the cause of the issue?
There may actually be some good news here.
The previous events involved complete meltdowns of the batteries - leaving little evidence of the original failure mode.
This failure was isolated to a single cell with limited damage. With the battery largely intact it may be possible to determine the elusive root cause.
The previous events involved complete meltdowns of the batteries - leaving little evidence of the original failure mode.
This failure was isolated to a single cell with limited damage. With the battery largely intact it may be possible to determine the elusive root cause.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bayanist
1:55 PM on 3/29/2013
I guarantee that the 787 problem is not with the battery technology but with the assumption that it is possible to charge as many as 8 cells in series without problems. The weakest cell WILL reverse polarity and appear as a short after the fact. This is true for any battery technology. I have done it with diehard lead acid batteries. To be safe each cell must be charged individually. Otherwise it is similar to pushing a chain. Unless each link is PERFECTLY aligned there will not be success. Unless each cell is PERFECTLY matched there will not be success. Since this is clearly impossible in this universe there will be future problems unless my warning is heeded. Time will prove me correct, Of that I am certain. Watch and see!
1:55 PM on 3/29/2013
I guarantee that the 787 problem is not with the battery technology but with the assumption that it is possible to charge as many as 8 cells in series without problems. The weakest cell WILL reverse polarity and appear as a short after the fact. This is true for any battery technology. I have done it with diehard lead acid batteries. To be safe each cell must be charged individually. Otherwise it is similar to pushing a chain. Unless each link is PERFECTLY aligned there will not be success. Unless each cell is PERFECTLY matched there will not be success. Since this is clearly impossible in this universe there will be future problems unless my warning is heeded. Time will prove me correct, Of that I am certain. Watch and see!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guarantee that the 787 problem is not with the battery technology but with the assumption that it is possible to charge as many as 8 cells in series without problems. The weakest cell WILL reverse polarity and appear as a short after the fact. This is true for any battery technology.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aha.What about 20 cells in series
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not doubt that this is true, but can anyone explain why we have not heard of such problems with lead acid or NiCad systems? There are scads of 24 volt systems of all battery types in aircraft, marine, and ground transportation equipment, all of them having 12 cells in series.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aha again.All aircraft NiCd batteries i replaced/repaired had 20 cells in series to provide 24V.