FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking into account that there are 8 cells, the MTBF of the battery is already almost an order of magnitude lower than that for any cell...
If we are sooner or later flying around with 20 times the number of dreamliners, the MTBF should be increased by at least a factor of 100. That would still give us around one burning battery per year, possibly 3 hours away from the next airport.
If we are sooner or later flying around with 20 times the number of dreamliners, the MTBF should be increased by at least a factor of 100. That would still give us around one burning battery per year, possibly 3 hours away from the next airport.
For some reasons, I have to think of the old steam ships when reading this proposal. A century ago, a smouldering fire in the coal bunkers was considered no cause for concern. It was deemed sufficient to just use up the coal from the affected bunker first, and until then the fire was considered well contained within the ships structure. For example, the Titanic seems to have sailed under such circumstances.
Should technology really have progressed so little in the last century?
Should technology really have progressed so little in the last century?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus have stated (Very publicly) that they are reverting to NiCd on the A350, general perception appears to be that Lithium batteries and aircraft are a bad combination.
With the 787 production line still going, this suggests that whatever the solution is, it will be constrained by having to fit within the existing battery bay.
Not sure that I wouldn't have preferred a blue-sky solution where ultimate safety was the only constraint.
With the 787 production line still going, this suggests that whatever the solution is, it will be constrained by having to fit within the existing battery bay.
Not sure that I wouldn't have preferred a blue-sky solution where ultimate safety was the only constraint.
Last edited by Momoe; 22nd Feb 2013 at 13:40.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking into account that there are 8 cells, the MTBF of the battery is already almost an order of magnitude lower than that for any cell...
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that sooner or later this problem will be resolved, its interesting to consider the impact on airline who are/were due to take delivery for this summers program here in Europe, there does not appear to be a lot of long haul capacity to lease in right now or the crews to fly parked desert ships?
Many airline will have been planning crew recruitment and training based on the now defunct delivery schedules, lots of gardening leave i suspect.
Many airline will have been planning crew recruitment and training based on the now defunct delivery schedules, lots of gardening leave i suspect.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wallisellen, Switzerland
Age: 75
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pgarner528
The problem is; these battery failures (fire or not) don't directly affect ETOPS range. The batteries are either there or not when they are needed. Their failure probability per flight may depend on the duration of that flight. Or the failure mechanism could turn out to be cycle rather than time dependent. One 'bad' charge or discharge event could initiate the fault.
That we don't understand the mechanism in play means that the probability math needed to ensure extremely unlikely events will be difficult. And involve quite a bit of Boeing/FAA hand-waving.
and then carry on flying for the rated ETOPS time.
That we don't understand the mechanism in play means that the probability math needed to ensure extremely unlikely events will be difficult. And involve quite a bit of Boeing/FAA hand-waving.
One thing, I don't get is how a standby/back-up battery is on what appears to be a common bus, if there's an electrical problem I'd want a clean, uncompromised power supply on a previously isolated bus.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EEngr: The problem is; these battery failures (fire or not) don't directly affect ETOPS range. The batteries are either there or not when they are needed.
Loss of both engines has to be "impossible" for ETOPS; is it not equally "impossible" that power from at least one generator [on one remaining engine] will not be available?
Failing that, can the APU and RAT individually supply essential power for the ETOPS period? Can the RAT be deployed at cruise? At what airspeed does the RAT become useless? - that would seem to be the moment you need a battery. Too bad Boeing's math showed it was a waste of money to add a redundancy path between the two identical batteries.
It's amusing that the Boeing CEO and the head of FAA are solving the problem. IIRC the FAA grounding order directed that Boeing engineers satisfy their Renton-area office.
It will be even more amusing (though unlikely) if another jurisdiction took a less political view of the matter. Japan probably has similar commercial pressures given that their airlines are heavily invested, but the EU might have different ideas.
Last edited by Jetdriver; 22nd Feb 2013 at 19:52.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 53
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EEngr - its not a case of flying without batteries for the ETOPS time, its more the worry of flying round with a battery on fire / that has been on fire while 180 minutes from the nearest airport.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to MWorth, #964
"Boeing proposed a ten-point package that includes installing a fireproof container around the aircraft’s lithium-ion batteries, new venting system for fumes, and changes in the cockpit checklist. Boeing also said it plans to develop a new battery design that will measure the temperature and any voltage changes in individual cells."
without further explanations from Boeing, to me this sounds less like solving the problem, and more like they are preparing for test flights: trying to mitigate and contain damage with a new fireproof container, more spacing and venting, and at the same time gather more data by installing more sensors.
afaik the root cause is still unknown. yet Boeing claims this is "not an interim fix but a permanent fix". I hope some more information is forthcoming.
"Boeing proposed a ten-point package that includes installing a fireproof container around the aircraft’s lithium-ion batteries, new venting system for fumes, and changes in the cockpit checklist. Boeing also said it plans to develop a new battery design that will measure the temperature and any voltage changes in individual cells."
without further explanations from Boeing, to me this sounds less like solving the problem, and more like they are preparing for test flights: trying to mitigate and contain damage with a new fireproof container, more spacing and venting, and at the same time gather more data by installing more sensors.
afaik the root cause is still unknown. yet Boeing claims this is "not an interim fix but a permanent fix". I hope some more information is forthcoming.
Last edited by deptrai; 23rd Feb 2013 at 17:02.
poorjohn
If its not, the obvious fix would be to eliminate the batteries. Just require ground power to fuel/maintain/start the aircraft.
When is either battery essential?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...the obvious fix would be to eliminate the batteries. Just require ground power to fuel/maintain/start the aircraft.
Any bets on who'll win the showdown between DOT and Boeing?
deptrai:
Part of it seems more likely to be to fix fundamental flaws in the original design of
the battery subsystem.
If more modern technology with a higher than average risk factor is to be used, then
you need to go further than the usual due diligence and if anything,
over-engineer until enough in service experience is gained.
I'm sure they will make it work with LI batteries, as it is proven technology in other
areas...
afaik the root cause is still unknown. yet Boeing claims this is "not an interim fix but a permanent fix". I hope some more information is forthcoming.
the battery subsystem.
If more modern technology with a higher than average risk factor is to be used, then
you need to go further than the usual due diligence and if anything,
over-engineer until enough in service experience is gained.
I'm sure they will make it work with LI batteries, as it is proven technology in other
areas...
Last edited by syseng68k; 23rd Feb 2013 at 20:58.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Syseng68K: I'm sure they will make it work with LI batteries, as it is proven technology in other
areas...
areas...
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A special announcement for the passenger in seat 30H: there has been a battery explosion under the floor near you and there is no extinguishing system installed.
However there is no cause for alarm as the battery is in a heavy steel box. If you start to feel hot please contact a cabin attendant.
Our estimated flying time to the emergency alternate airport is three hours."
ARE THEY KIDDING?
.
However there is no cause for alarm as the battery is in a heavy steel box. If you start to feel hot please contact a cabin attendant.
Our estimated flying time to the emergency alternate airport is three hours."
ARE THEY KIDDING?
.
Last edited by toffeez; 24th Feb 2013 at 08:38.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactly - who is going to fly on one of these planes when the cause of the problem is unknown but they are willing to ltake the risk of further fires?
Are they planning to actually carry out test flights where they set fire to the batteries in their "fire proof box" and see what happens???
Are they planning to actually carry out test flights where they set fire to the batteries in their "fire proof box" and see what happens???
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HH
exactly - who is going to fly on one of these planes when the cause of the problem is unknown but they are willing to ltake the risk of further fires?
Are they planning to actually carry out test flights where they set fire to the batteries in their "fire proof box" and see what happens???
Are they planning to actually carry out test flights where they set fire to the batteries in their "fire proof box" and see what happens???