FAA Grounds 787s
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.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: "this is where the magic happens"
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting case: Aeromexico B788 near Santa Maria on Mar 19th 2015, electrical failure
This makes intersting reading:
FAA Is Doing Nothing About Continued Boeing Dreamliner Battery Failures
FAA Is Doing Nothing About Continued Boeing Dreamliner Battery Failures
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?