FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/bu...boeing.html?hp
with this opinion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/bu...boeing.html?hp
with this opinion:
Still, safeguards for lithium-ion batteries have progressed to the point that a fire on an airplane should never have happened, said Sanjeev Mukerjee, a chemistry professor at Northeastern University and an expert on batteries.
“If a battery of that size catches fire, then a whole bunch of mechanisms didn’t work,” Mr. Mukerjee said. “Whoever is making that battery is doing a really bad job.”
“If a battery of that size catches fire, then a whole bunch of mechanisms didn’t work,” Mr. Mukerjee said. “Whoever is making that battery is doing a really bad job.”
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Clifton, NJ
Age: 50
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETOPS?
I'm familiar with the FAA AD process and have read the AD.
Suppose there is a re-design or different parts that the FAA deem to correct the AD condition and allowing the aircraft to fly again. What happens to the ETOPS certification? Is extra proving needed before ETOPs (at the intended level) is re-established?
Suppose there is a re-design or different parts that the FAA deem to correct the AD condition and allowing the aircraft to fly again. What happens to the ETOPS certification? Is extra proving needed before ETOPs (at the intended level) is re-established?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mathewsjl...
This from Machinbird...
"As a betting man, I'll bet that the issue with the battery is actually with the charging system and insufficient feedback from the battery to the charging system regarding cell temperature. The charging system should not continue to charge a battery that is moving in the direction of thermal runaway."
I have read the special consideration re: LithIon issued to the 787 program by FAA. Other than failing almost all of them, utterly, in the emergencies, I did not notice a restriction in re: charging of a discharged system, LiIon.
This would be the salient issue, no?
The 787 is a very fresh and different approach to power/energy systems in commercial widebody. It is truly an electric jet.
More than ten years ago, I was involved in fireproofing a security system. The solution was weighty, but performed to spec. Lightweight ceramic and even lightweight concrete (sic) have been available for decades. The photo of the burnt and uncontained contents of the APU battery show a unit that has performed well, except at the top. It is difficult to imagine that a solution for the safe retention of the utility of such a high performing system cannot be supplied.
What is disconcerting is the thin limits that are exposed relative to weight saving in the E/E Bay. The a/c itself is amazing in its approach to efficiencies. A little cautious application of insulation and monitoring might (might) have saved the issue from reaching the state it did....
The electrical system itself cannot be re-engineered, without different engines and miles of 'plumbing'....
This from Machinbird...
"As a betting man, I'll bet that the issue with the battery is actually with the charging system and insufficient feedback from the battery to the charging system regarding cell temperature. The charging system should not continue to charge a battery that is moving in the direction of thermal runaway."
I have read the special consideration re: LithIon issued to the 787 program by FAA. Other than failing almost all of them, utterly, in the emergencies, I did not notice a restriction in re: charging of a discharged system, LiIon.
This would be the salient issue, no?
The 787 is a very fresh and different approach to power/energy systems in commercial widebody. It is truly an electric jet.
More than ten years ago, I was involved in fireproofing a security system. The solution was weighty, but performed to spec. Lightweight ceramic and even lightweight concrete (sic) have been available for decades. The photo of the burnt and uncontained contents of the APU battery show a unit that has performed well, except at the top. It is difficult to imagine that a solution for the safe retention of the utility of such a high performing system cannot be supplied.
What is disconcerting is the thin limits that are exposed relative to weight saving in the E/E Bay. The a/c itself is amazing in its approach to efficiencies. A little cautious application of insulation and monitoring might (might) have saved the issue from reaching the state it did....
The electrical system itself cannot be re-engineered, without different engines and miles of 'plumbing'....
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Highly reliable electric energy supply
Lemain:
...micro APUs running, say, on ethanol. I don't mean run the existing APUs off ethanol, but replace the APU's service battery by a fuel cell or baby motor. It's all interesting from a technical pov and speculation, but the time needed to incorporate the technology into a civilian airliner is ten years.
I use a baby motor of 24 VDC 300W, motor generator in a motor home and in an electrical bike.
The time to incorporate it (Av) can be much less.
Important moment.
Rgds,
...micro APUs running, say, on ethanol. I don't mean run the existing APUs off ethanol, but replace the APU's service battery by a fuel cell or baby motor. It's all interesting from a technical pov and speculation, but the time needed to incorporate the technology into a civilian airliner is ten years.
I use a baby motor of 24 VDC 300W, motor generator in a motor home and in an electrical bike.
The time to incorporate it (Av) can be much less.
Seems to me that we need to combine every professional in the business to help sort this problem and reassure the public and press. Press and public, more like.
If the 787 fails to meet market approval the consequences on aviation will be deep and bloody. It'll also open the door to the east. I'd rather keep the EU and US duopoly going.
If the 787 fails to meet market approval the consequences on aviation will be deep and bloody. It'll also open the door to the east. I'd rather keep the EU and US duopoly going.
Rgds,
Last edited by RR_NDB; 18th Jan 2013 at 16:43. Reason: Add reply to another post
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LiIon in the skies (and in the space)
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably you mean that the 787 design specified these batteries
When the electrical system had been designed (requiring something like 1 MW of power!) the high energy density provided by use of Li-Ion technology was the only system which could provide such power at a reasonable size and weight.
A fait accompli in other words!
That is why this is not as simple a fix as some are trying to portray it. If the system can't be operated safely then either the batteries and charging system will need replacing for something a lot heavier and safer, or the electrical requirements of the model will need reducing. Either of those options is a headache and will take time. Ironically what they can take comfort from is that Airbus are running a similar system (albeit on a smaller scale) which seems to be stable.
As I said on the other thread, the best that Boeing can hope for is that this turns out to be a couple of dud cells in the two batteries which slipped passed quality control at Yuasa. ;-)
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But does the A350 have the reliance on electric generation that the 787 Has?
SOS
FLOAT? Can these batteries be safely charged whilst under load? They are supreme conductors, I have always used them in tandem, never charging one when also discharging it. In fact, the system was designed to isolate the battery being charged, its hookup prevented dual mode.
SOS
FLOAT? Can these batteries be safely charged whilst under load? They are supreme conductors, I have always used them in tandem, never charging one when also discharging it. In fact, the system was designed to isolate the battery being charged, its hookup prevented dual mode.
Last edited by Lyman; 18th Jan 2013 at 18:05.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: EDDF
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don´t blame the battery only. Also the surrounding circuits, charging management and software must be rechecked. And here we have the first sign, that it might not be the battery itself causing the failure. Seems that the battery was forced due to high voltage of the plane: Japan probe suspects excess voltage in 787 battery | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
Think this is good news, revalidate a fuzzy battery concept needs years. To fix the surrounding power architecture seems to have faster options.
Think this is good news, revalidate a fuzzy battery concept needs years. To fix the surrounding power architecture seems to have faster options.
Last edited by Taunusflyer; 18th Jan 2013 at 22:35.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Important information
Taunusflyer:
If confirmed probably will lead to the less damaging scenario to Boeing.
Think this is good news,
If confirmed probably will lead to the less damaging scenario to Boeing.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787 required these batteries
DaveReidUK:
Probably the 787 design team decided for this batteries for some reasons like:
Aircraft requirements (weight, etc.) related to design optimization
High capacity per weight and volume
Integrated (internal and external) circuitry
Advanced design (promising better performance)
If the information on over voltage (from charger) is correct we may expect a faster solution of the crisis.
Strange statement.
Probably the 787 design team decided for this batteries for some reasons like:
Aircraft requirements (weight, etc.) related to design optimization
High capacity per weight and volume
Integrated (internal and external) circuitry
Advanced design (promising better performance)
If the information on over voltage (from charger) is correct we may expect a faster solution of the crisis.
Last edited by RR_NDB; 19th Jan 2013 at 00:00. Reason: Typo
Paxing All Over The World
Dannyboy39 quoting Rananim
The difference is that Airbus started out with multiple suppliers many, many moons ago as a key part of their strategy. For Boeing this is all new territory and they are learning the hard way. Doubtless they will fix it and no one has died.
ALT ACQ pointed very sensibly that today's instant reporting and demand for ANYTHING to be said on the rolling news channel, just so that the channel can look like's up to date - is punishing countless companies and individuals all around the world and not just in aviation.
Quote: This decision to outsource so much of the plane(and design!) has clearly backfired.
Total rubbish. How much of the A380 for example is manufactured in France for example? How much of ANY form of transportation is manufactured in one place/country? Nothing.
Total rubbish. How much of the A380 for example is manufactured in France for example? How much of ANY form of transportation is manufactured in one place/country? Nothing.
ALT ACQ pointed very sensibly that today's instant reporting and demand for ANYTHING to be said on the rolling news channel, just so that the channel can look like's up to date - is punishing countless companies and individuals all around the world and not just in aviation.
In order to certificate the 787, Boeing had to prove compliance with all the Special Conditions for L/I batteries listed at#111. Doing so took years. Service incidents now show that the aircraft does NOT comply. FAA is not going to be so gullible from now on, so recertification is going to take a v.long time.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The benefits of hindsight are amazing.
For instance you can't now argue that Boeing should have given the batteries an extra 100kg weight allowance because that would make very little performance difference for the simple reason that if you did that you'd have to allow every other manufactured component some extra weight as well - calls for heavier batteries are able to be made now because you have strong reasons to suspect a different but heavier battery type wouldn't have led to this issue.
Similarly with outsourcing. It is done all the time, presuming that proper quality accreditation was put in place for suppliers then it is standard commercial practice. If Boeing had to do everything in house they would probably be bankrupt due to all the extra staff they would have had to employ (on USA rates and conditions etc) and capital equipment spent on manufacturing machinery and other capital heavy startup items which would be more costly than having that load spread around the industry. You could argue they should have batteries in house, but only with hindsight.
And so it goes on.
The 787 will be a cracker airplane, no question about that. It's just a matter of being honest about issues and fixing them.
For instance you can't now argue that Boeing should have given the batteries an extra 100kg weight allowance because that would make very little performance difference for the simple reason that if you did that you'd have to allow every other manufactured component some extra weight as well - calls for heavier batteries are able to be made now because you have strong reasons to suspect a different but heavier battery type wouldn't have led to this issue.
Similarly with outsourcing. It is done all the time, presuming that proper quality accreditation was put in place for suppliers then it is standard commercial practice. If Boeing had to do everything in house they would probably be bankrupt due to all the extra staff they would have had to employ (on USA rates and conditions etc) and capital equipment spent on manufacturing machinery and other capital heavy startup items which would be more costly than having that load spread around the industry. You could argue they should have batteries in house, but only with hindsight.
And so it goes on.
The 787 will be a cracker airplane, no question about that. It's just a matter of being honest about issues and fixing them.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Can these batteries be safely charged whilst under load?"
A battery cannot be charged and discharged at the same time. It is either charging or discharging. Current out (discharge or load) minus current in (charge) = total current. Which ever is the highest wins. I think the question is: can the charging circuit operate at the same time as the battery is discharging. Sorry for the trivial interuption.
A battery cannot be charged and discharged at the same time. It is either charging or discharging. Current out (discharge or load) minus current in (charge) = total current. Which ever is the highest wins. I think the question is: can the charging circuit operate at the same time as the battery is discharging. Sorry for the trivial interuption.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cleveland, OH
Age: 65
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a battery can't be both charged and discharged, how can both my laptop and phone be on and under load when plugged in to charge and the battery still gets charged while the system is running?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief, Li-Ion is almost ancient tech. Teething problems, yes. Sony built 10,000,000 batteries for computers that were recalled 5 years ago. Melted computers were all over the news (Sony supplied to makers like Dell in addition to their own). I wouldn't be typing on this iPad if not for Li-Ion, nor my 3 laptops nor 2 iPhones nor 4 cameras nor 2 drills. So it is not something new and untested. Do we blame the problem on Thales since they are he supplier and since they supplied the pitot tube on AF447 they can't be trusted? Is it a French conspiracy to take down Boeing? Since it was a Japanese subcontractor supplying to Thales that built the battery are they getting back for WWII and the a-bomb? Or is it that we engineers putting together our failure mode and effects analysis had an "I can't believe we missed that!" Moment? We engineers, being all too human, screw up. It's always been a fact of life - people do stupid things. Analyze, learn, resolve, implement, verify, and go on thankful nobody lost their life. Sometimes we are lucky - the engine explosion virtually destroying the A380 wing ended without loss of life by a miracle. Maybe the ANA pilot Thursday performed a similar miracle. Pilots saving our engineering asses. Thank you very much!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the laptop, mobile, etc. whilst charging the battery
Peter643 and Cool Guys:
Simple:
1) The external supply has a greater voltage than the battery.
2) The battery receives some of the current from the external supply.
3) The load (laptop, mobile, etc.) receives some of the current from the external supply.
PS
I am operating my laptop right now without it´s battery.
. If i connect it now, the external supply must be capable to feed the battery too.
The mobiles (most) not operates without the battery. I think is just for cost reduction of the charger. I modified some mobiles using long endurance external batteries connecting them directly to the mobile instead the use of it´s internal battery. When recharging it (recharger set to 4,2 V directly connected to the external battery) the current (from the recharger) divides, part to the external battery and part to the mobile circuitry. A 18650 provides energy for several days of heavy use.
Simple:
1) The external supply has a greater voltage than the battery.
2) The battery receives some of the current from the external supply.
3) The load (laptop, mobile, etc.) receives some of the current from the external supply.
PS
I am operating my laptop right now without it´s battery.
. If i connect it now, the external supply must be capable to feed the battery too.The mobiles (most) not operates without the battery. I think is just for cost reduction of the charger. I modified some mobiles using long endurance external batteries connecting them directly to the mobile instead the use of it´s internal battery. When recharging it (recharger set to 4,2 V directly connected to the external battery) the current (from the recharger) divides, part to the external battery and part to the mobile circuitry. A 18650 provides energy for several days of heavy use.