FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What *does* your graphic say? Only tells me that ANA and JAL operate just less than half the global fleet of 787s.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
about twenty years ago I was involved in Emergency Planning for a South West County Council. We had a callout to a fire on the M5 near Taunton.
A truck carrying scrap material from RNAS and Westlands (Yeovil) caught fire and burned very fiercely. A slew of fire appliances had some difficulty extinguishing the blaze, and the water and foam provided a test of contamination procedures.
The 'inquest' revealed that a crate of lithium batteries from helicopters had been accidentally soaked with rain, and the resultant short-circuit had created a fire, which then affected other battery crates, and magnesium aircraft parts.
It was a visually spectacular fire
Procedures for isolating scrap lithium batteries from Westlands were put into place as a result.
Lithium battery fires are nothing new.
A truck carrying scrap material from RNAS and Westlands (Yeovil) caught fire and burned very fiercely. A slew of fire appliances had some difficulty extinguishing the blaze, and the water and foam provided a test of contamination procedures.
The 'inquest' revealed that a crate of lithium batteries from helicopters had been accidentally soaked with rain, and the resultant short-circuit had created a fire, which then affected other battery crates, and magnesium aircraft parts.
It was a visually spectacular fire
Procedures for isolating scrap lithium batteries from Westlands were put into place as a result.
Lithium battery fires are nothing new.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She may present terrible surprises to us
Last edited by RR_NDB; 19th Jan 2013 at 20:03. Reason: Add link
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: EDDF
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting statements within airlines industry to FAAｴs decission of grounding 787: At Boeing, pushback on 787 grounding | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
shonandai posted an incorrect link to the picture of the affected battery. The correct link is Yomiuri On-Line （読売新聞）
Last edited by Desert Dawg; 21st Jan 2013 at 04:16.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely a total loss of the APU battery even if the fire is contained within the battery box is a no go item. A large number of the emergency proceedures require the APU to start, The Hudson River incident for example would not have been successful without a working APU. I guess the main battery is slightly more important, to supply the Hot battery bus for example. but as I understand both batteries are interchangable, then the cause & fixing of this problem must be completed before the a/c can fly again
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taunusflyer. Thank you for the link, an interesting take on the grounding from Seattle.
To borrow a quote from TURIN, one I use often, "It is what it is...."
One of the easiest things to do, even easier than noodling out a battery problem, it seems to me, is to manage the way one's corporation is perceived by the client. And the Public...
Yelping aloud to reporters how unfair and unwise it is to act to protect the safety of the travelling public, even if true, is unprofessional, and ultimately, expensive.
Where does the Board find these people? Outsourced?
To borrow a quote from TURIN, one I use often, "It is what it is...."
One of the easiest things to do, even easier than noodling out a battery problem, it seems to me, is to manage the way one's corporation is perceived by the client. And the Public...
Yelping aloud to reporters how unfair and unwise it is to act to protect the safety of the travelling public, even if true, is unprofessional, and ultimately, expensive.
Where does the Board find these people? Outsourced?
Last edited by Lyman; 20th Jan 2013 at 12:53.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APU no-go?
Walnut, what are you talking about?
Don't know about the 787 but on an ETOPS A330 the APU is NOT a no-go.
Do you fly the A320? How do you know then?
Don't know about the 787 but on an ETOPS A330 the APU is NOT a no-go.
Do you fly the A320? How do you know then?
Last edited by golfyankeesierra; 20th Jan 2013 at 13:11.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this has already been referred to.
This recent FLIGHT article makes for interesting reading.
787 into uncharted territory. 17 January 2013
This recent FLIGHT article makes for interesting reading.
787 into uncharted territory. 17 January 2013
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nairobi
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excess voltage ruled out
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far more worrisome, however, are the newly-realised risks of fire posed by the two lithium-ion polymer batteries,
To my knowledge, they are Lithium Cobalt type....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good confidence test
A Seattle Times article linked to above indicates how unhappy Boeing is about the FAA decision. This shows exactly how divorced the business droids have become from reality:
There was a very real even though low-probability risk of the battery issues resulting in a serious incident; in fact one fire-fighter has already been injured, which is more than enough harm for a "safe" design.
The FAA with the grounding did them a huge service, reducing to zero the risk of a serious incident, giving them time to deploy a fix, and reassuring passengers that the fix will be a *real* fix.
If Boeing execs want to convincingly demonstrate confidence in their plane, I suggest they schedule a test flight to Japan and back for their wives and children.
Edmund
There was a very real even though low-probability risk of the battery issues resulting in a serious incident; in fact one fire-fighter has already been injured, which is more than enough harm for a "safe" design.
The FAA with the grounding did them a huge service, reducing to zero the risk of a serious incident, giving them time to deploy a fix, and reassuring passengers that the fix will be a *real* fix.
If Boeing execs want to convincingly demonstrate confidence in their plane, I suggest they schedule a test flight to Japan and back for their wives and children.
Edmund
No clear picture
Well, the batteries may not be off the hook as much as the Japanese safety investigators, as quoted here, believe :
Japan: Over-charging preceded ANA 787 battery malfunction
Now the NTSB says there was no overvoltage to the batteries:
NTSB rules out excess battery voltage in Boston 787 incident | Reuters
So there is as yet no obvious simple cause for the failures and hence no quick end to the grounding. This is not good for either Boeing or its customers, because it also suggests that better monitoring of the batteries may not help.
An emergency replacement of the battery seems inevitable. Could Boeing just switch to the certified unit from the 777 and offset the performance shortfalls with process changes? Restarting the APU does not seem to be too demanding a task.
Japan: Over-charging preceded ANA 787 battery malfunction
Now the NTSB says there was no overvoltage to the batteries:
NTSB rules out excess battery voltage in Boston 787 incident | Reuters
So there is as yet no obvious simple cause for the failures and hence no quick end to the grounding. This is not good for either Boeing or its customers, because it also suggests that better monitoring of the batteries may not help.
An emergency replacement of the battery seems inevitable. Could Boeing just switch to the certified unit from the 777 and offset the performance shortfalls with process changes? Restarting the APU does not seem to be too demanding a task.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North West UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From REUTERS...
"On Tuesday, the U.S. investigating group will convene in Arizona to test and examine the battery charger and download non-volatile memory from the APU controller, the NTSB added."
That puts the NTSB at securaplane, the charging vendor. Could they not find a neutral venue? The vendor had a building burn to the ground when one of the test batteries ignited, in 2006?
ABCNEWS is reporting that the causes for JAL accident, and ANA incident were different.
"On Tuesday, the U.S. investigating group will convene in Arizona to test and examine the battery charger and download non-volatile memory from the APU controller, the NTSB added."
That puts the NTSB at securaplane, the charging vendor. Could they not find a neutral venue? The vendor had a building burn to the ground when one of the test batteries ignited, in 2006?
ABCNEWS is reporting that the causes for JAL accident, and ANA incident were different.
Last edited by Lyman; 20th Jan 2013 at 15:20.
I sense there are two issues here
the one that everybody seems to be talking about here is the failure of a single non-critical system in a spectacular way (see photos in previous posts)
Identifying and fixing the root cause only minimizes the risk to an unknown level since any battery is prone to failure for a variety of causes at any time.
The larger issue is the availability of redundancy and shielding should the battery fail in a critical flight regime.
I'm still not clear what the critical safety issue is that caused the grounding of this fleet. If we want to nit pick at Boeings comments then we need to understand this part of the equation.
For starters I am looking for expert comments on how necessary such a battery is to safe flight operation?
Secondly was this fire contained in a manner presumed in the original certification documents ?
It's one thing to have a precautionary landing and quite another to have a forced landing as this can be addressed by updating SOPs (still leaving the pilot to decide)
the one that everybody seems to be talking about here is the failure of a single non-critical system in a spectacular way (see photos in previous posts)
Identifying and fixing the root cause only minimizes the risk to an unknown level since any battery is prone to failure for a variety of causes at any time.
The larger issue is the availability of redundancy and shielding should the battery fail in a critical flight regime.
I'm still not clear what the critical safety issue is that caused the grounding of this fleet. If we want to nit pick at Boeings comments then we need to understand this part of the equation.
For starters I am looking for expert comments on how necessary such a battery is to safe flight operation?
Secondly was this fire contained in a manner presumed in the original certification documents ?
It's one thing to have a precautionary landing and quite another to have a forced landing as this can be addressed by updating SOPs (still leaving the pilot to decide)
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad news
Hi,
Now Boeing is going to have just one option. Retrofit to Ni Cdｴs. Implications:
1) Time
2) A/C specs
3) Cost, etc.
PR will be able to do a good job and industry continue to improve safety.
And what about the use of her in A380?
Now Boeing is going to have just one option. Retrofit to Ni Cdｴs. Implications:
1) Time
2) A/C specs
3) Cost, etc.
PR will be able to do a good job and industry continue to improve safety.
And what about the use of her in A380?