FAA Grounds 787s
some politician spouting off that he will have to be 1000% sure the 787 is safe before it goes back into service. It seems this has become a vague criteria for ungrounding. Everyone knows 1000% safe is imposible, however 100% safe is also not posible. Unfotunatly nothing is 100% safe. We can probably get to a point where it can be 99.999% safe but with all the hysteria I dont think any politician or FAA official will be brave enough to make that call.
The standard is pretty much set by 25.1309, not sure what the fuss is over by the politician's, maybe they need to learn to read n' rite while they stuff pork into their constituents, and the columnists may benefit from doing some research instead of parroting opinions from a website, and then squealing like the aforementioned piglet. That standard has it's basis in MIL STD-882 (now rev D) FWIW.
The standard is pretty much set by 25.1309, not sure what the fuss is over by the politician's, maybe they need to learn to read n' rite while they stuff pork into their constituents, and the columnists may benefit from doing some research instead of parroting opinions from a website, and then squealing like the aforementioned piglet. That standard has it's basis in MIL STD-882 (now rev D) FWIW.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NTSB breifing mentioned a page back stated: "Fire confined to an area within 20 inches on the battery." This infers that the fire was not contained within the battery casing.
Live coverage NTSB 787 briefing « Leeham News and Comment
Live coverage NTSB 787 briefing « Leeham News and Comment
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did Boeing choose GS Yuasa to supply the batteries to ensure plane sales to Japanese carriers? This report in today's NY Times seems to suggest thats exactly what happened.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/bu...ef=todayspaper
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/bu...ef=todayspaper
A former Boeing executive confirmed this when we spoke this week. After asking not to be named because of the diplomatic fragility of the topic, he said: “Let me put it this way: we knew the Japanese market would be Boeing’s in return for our selecting these Japanese partners. It was a silent understanding, and there was nothing in writing.” He added that Boeing’s Japanese suppliers had received low-interest loans from the Japanese government repayable only out of future profits.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully contained also would mean that the steel box will never get hot enough to ignite some materials in close proximity. Not so easy... Was the EE bay designed with the idea that the battery box might get very hot? Any specification?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the fact that GS Yuasa also provide batteries to things such as the International Space Station as well as 90% of US built sports vehicles would suggest that they are a major supplier across the board of high tech batteries
Boeing trying to blame Japanese airlines for THEIR decision to use them seems a little to much
Boeing trying to blame Japanese airlines for THEIR decision to use them seems a little to much
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comments here on use of different chemistry batteries in electric bikes. Comments pre date recent events.
lithium cobalt battery v lifepo4
and
lithium cobalt battery v lifepo4
Lithium batteries with cobalt cathodes were abandoned for e-bikes after numerous fires caused by their intrinsically dangerous properties. Batteries with manganese cathodes replaced them.
Lithium Cobalt have a higher power density, can defo get more Wh/kg than LiFePo4, the difference is the Li-Co is the most dangerous type which had a bad past full of explosions. LiFePO4 is on the other hand the safest one but weight more and can get less Wh/kg. LiFePo4 are most suitable for heavier vehicles (cars, mopeds) where weight isn't such an issue.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albeit it's not possible in the moment anyway, a 2nd battery expert besides Dr. Olaf Wollersheim (Germany) wouldn't fly with 787...
Boeing 787 Dreamliner's burnt out battery 'spewed out molten electrolytes', reveal investigators | Mail Online
Meanwhile, batteries expert George Blomgren, who worked for Eveready for 40 years told CBS news that from what he knows about the incidents on board the Boeing 787s he would 'not fly in a Dreamliner tomorrow.'
'I just wouldn't feel that it was appropriate or safe,' he said
'I just wouldn't feel that it was appropriate or safe,' he said
As I have said previously. My information (directly from Boeing) is that the batteries are Lithium-MANGANESE. Where has all this talk about Cobalt come from? Or did I miss something? Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Last edited by TURIN; 26th Jan 2013 at 11:31. Reason: Can't spell liffiom
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American Manganese Inc.: Boeing 787 Dreamliner Lithium Ion Batteries Based on Cobalt Not Manganese
GS Yuasa’s lithium ion cells were chosen for the Electrical Power Conversion System in Boeing’s next generation commercial airliner, the 787 Dreamliner. This contract is a historic first as it marks the first commercial aviation application of Li-ion technology anywhere in the world. Partnering with Thales Alenia for the battery system electronics and integration, GS Yuasa’s lithium ion cells will play a key role in on-board power, providing both Auxiliary Power Unit start and emergency power back-up capabilities......
http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/...s/LVP10-65.pdf
In the last document it's clearly said..., cobalt.
Last edited by hetfield; 26th Jan 2013 at 13:31.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mark in CA
Did Boeing choose GS Yuasa to supply the batteries to ensure plane sales to Japanese carriers? This report in today's NY Times seems to suggest thats exactly what happened.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/bu...ef=todayspaper
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/bu...ef=todayspaper
A former Boeing executive confirmed this when we spoke this week. After asking not to be named because of the diplomatic fragility of the topic, he said: “Let me put it this way: we knew the Japanese market would be Boeing’s in return for our selecting these Japanese partners. It was a silent understanding, and there was nothing in writing.” He added that Boeing’s Japanese suppliers had received low-interest loans from the Japanese government repayable only out of future profits.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@lomapaseo
The FAA grounded the aircraft because of the 2 incidence of battery fires within a shot time , the headline of ` 787 falls from the sky on fire` wouldn't sit well with them now would it.....
The FAA grounded the aircraft because of the 2 incidence of battery fires within a shot time , the headline of ` 787 falls from the sky on fire` wouldn't sit well with them now would it.....
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever will come of it, the FAA are looking closely to their process regarding the use of Lithium batteries.
In my opinion, we are looking at what amounts to a "waiver". Going against prior restrictions, the considerations seem rather "special case". While granting their use, the authority seem to be asking merely for a "be careful" in return.
Generally, in contravening traditional safeguards, the applicant is required to demonstrate an excess of proof, test, and mitigation.... In this situation, it seems the favorable view from FAA is careless, hence their open ended command to Boeing: "Prove the safety of this equipment...."
That may prove to be impossible, especially so when considering that the horses have bolted the corral.
Right wrong or indifferent, it will be tempting for FAA to prohibit Lithium. That may let Boeing off the hook with Yuasa, and cause Boeing to do what is clearly an expedient, but a political one, return to and refit with proven technology...
In my opinion, we are looking at what amounts to a "waiver". Going against prior restrictions, the considerations seem rather "special case". While granting their use, the authority seem to be asking merely for a "be careful" in return.
Generally, in contravening traditional safeguards, the applicant is required to demonstrate an excess of proof, test, and mitigation.... In this situation, it seems the favorable view from FAA is careless, hence their open ended command to Boeing: "Prove the safety of this equipment...."
That may prove to be impossible, especially so when considering that the horses have bolted the corral.
Right wrong or indifferent, it will be tempting for FAA to prohibit Lithium. That may let Boeing off the hook with Yuasa, and cause Boeing to do what is clearly an expedient, but a political one, return to and refit with proven technology...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787 battery blew up in ’06 lab test, burned down building
Seattle Times has an interesting story about the battery in the 787.
787 battery blew up in ’06 lab test, burned down building | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
787 battery blew up in ’06 lab test, burned down building | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
In 2006, a devastating lab fire in Arizona showed just how volatile Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner lithium-ion battery can be if its energy is not adequately contained.
A single battery connected to prototype equipment exploded, and despite a massive fire-department response the whole building burned down.
A single battery connected to prototype equipment exploded, and despite a massive fire-department response the whole building burned down.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have said previously. My information (directly from Boeing) is that the batteries are Lithium-MANGANESE. Where has all this talk about Cobalt come from? Or did I miss something?
http://www.s399157097.onlinehome.us/...s/LVP10-65.pdf
Perhaps, Boeing would not be in its present trouble if it had used SAFT Lithium Manganese oxide cells, which is what AB has done.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA grounded the aircraft because of the 2 incidence of battery fires within a shot time , the headline of ` 787 falls from the sky on fire` wouldn't sit well with them now would it.....
Well, I am confused.
The info I have is dated January 2012, Boeing official training material. It clearly states Lithium-Manganese. Odd.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
The info I have is dated January 2012, Boeing official training material. It clearly states Lithium-Manganese. Odd.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android