FAA Grounds 787s
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 780
Likes: 89
From: Seattle
According to the report cited in #2162, the battery in question has a manufacturing date of May 9, 2013. And a failure approximately 7 months later.
We can assume that the fleet-wide age of all 787 batteries was effectively reset to zero on or around May, 2013. So it will be interesting to see if the failure rate vs battery age has improved over the original design or not.
It is noteworthy that the resulting damage in the January 14, 2014 incident appears to be confined to a single cell. So at least the cell spacing and battery box are working as intended.
We can assume that the fleet-wide age of all 787 batteries was effectively reset to zero on or around May, 2013. So it will be interesting to see if the failure rate vs battery age has improved over the original design or not.
It is noteworthy that the resulting damage in the January 14, 2014 incident appears to be confined to a single cell. So at least the cell spacing and battery box are working as intended.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire
GYS: The actions you quoted from IATA are taken from the FAA instructions from 2009.
Boeing's instructions,issued in 2013, say you should use Halon (or a substitute) to kill the fire. If you don't have Halon to hand CO2 will do. At no point do they mention water.
Boeing's instructions,issued in 2013, say you should use Halon (or a substitute) to kill the fire. If you don't have Halon to hand CO2 will do. At no point do they mention water.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 649
Likes: 10
From: EU
Hi Kelvin,
I am not aware of Boeings' procedures.
Obviously Halon is perfect for extinguishing but it doesn't cool.
I feel a bit stupid questioning Boeing, but what does Boeing say about cooling?
The whole essence (and unique feature?) of a Lithium battery fire is the thermal runaway. It needs to be cooled. And every consumer should know.
Sorry for the thread drift...
I am not aware of Boeings' procedures.
Obviously Halon is perfect for extinguishing but it doesn't cool.
I feel a bit stupid questioning Boeing, but what does Boeing say about cooling?
The whole essence (and unique feature?) of a Lithium battery fire is the thermal runaway. It needs to be cooled. And every consumer should know.
Sorry for the thread drift...
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 260
Likes: 1
From: "this is where the magic happens"
Interesting case: Aeromexico B788 near Santa Maria on Mar 19th 2015, electrical failure
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,766
Likes: 4
From: Here and there
This makes intersting reading:
FAA Is Doing Nothing About Continued Boeing Dreamliner Battery Failures
FAA Is Doing Nothing About Continued Boeing Dreamliner Battery Failures
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
From: North Up
The whole point of building an approved fireplace and approved chimney around what is euphemistically called a "heat and smoke event" in the Dreadliner battery is to allow the airline(r) to continue to make money while these events continue to occur.
Nothing to see here. Please remember to collect hand baggage before disembarking -- unless using the slides.
Nothing to see here. Please remember to collect hand baggage before disembarking -- unless using the slides.
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 15
From: Isla Grande
Again.
"United B788 near Paris on Nov 13th 2017, main battery overheated"
Incident: United B788 near Paris on Nov 13th 2017, main battery overheated
"United B788 near Paris on Nov 13th 2017, main battery overheated"
Incident: United B788 near Paris on Nov 13th 2017, main battery overheated
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
From: BRS/GVA
If it was venting fluid as the report states, then i would say its a lead-acid battery not Lithium as i understood the newer gen a/c use. Did they convert the 787's back to lead-acid after the spate of Lithium fires?
