FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo
you write....
"I'm still not clear what the critical safety issue is that caused the grounding of this fleet."
You must have not read the Airworthiness Directive..... The FAA seem pretty clear.
You read it? Then are you second guessing the RA (Regulating Authority)? As in hand as FAA are, one would expect it took more evidence than necesssary to ground, not less?
Clarify?
you write....
"I'm still not clear what the critical safety issue is that caused the grounding of this fleet."
You must have not read the Airworthiness Directive..... The FAA seem pretty clear.
You read it? Then are you second guessing the RA (Regulating Authority)? As in hand as FAA are, one would expect it took more evidence than necesssary to ground, not less?
Clarify?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complex situation
lomapaseo
The issue has a lot of components:
1) Safety of planes
2) Technical (What is the problem?)
3) Economic (in a difficult moment for US)
4) Influence to Boeing (Relies on 787)
IMO FAA is acting too politically. It seems aggravating the issue. But they should have info we donīt. The name "Lithium battery" is tainted. And everybody relies on these batteries. There are many types, some even more dangerous, like Li Po.
FAA is near the center of a big storm. The eye (volatile) moving; a storm with lightnings capable to hit all players.
The issue has a lot of components:
1) Safety of planes
2) Technical (What is the problem?)
3) Economic (in a difficult moment for US)
4) Influence to Boeing (Relies on 787)
IMO FAA is acting too politically. It seems aggravating the issue. But they should have info we donīt. The name "Lithium battery" is tainted. And everybody relies on these batteries. There are many types, some even more dangerous, like Li Po.
FAA is near the center of a big storm. The eye (volatile) moving; a storm with lightnings capable to hit all players.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when something bursts into flames that ain't supposed to I think that's a critical safety issue - especially when you look at what happens when aircraft DO catch fire in flight.............
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the problem? Forget Li Po for now
hetfield:
We cannot say this happened. First of all the Li Po are not being used in the Av industry.The planes transport every day, thousands (not being recharged,
) with no reasons for alarm. And AFAIK, most laptops donīt use Li Po.
So, we must concentrate on the problem now: Li Ion that were used (in the past,
) in 787 and the continued use, RIGHT NOW on the fleet of A380.
Question: Li Ion in A380 are being kept "floating" by A/C?
It seems EADS could be affected too.
We cannot say this happened. First of all the Li Po are not being used in the Av industry.The planes transport every day, thousands (not being recharged,
) with no reasons for alarm. And AFAIK, most laptops donīt use Li Po.So, we must concentrate on the problem now: Li Ion that were used (in the past,
) in 787 and the continued use, RIGHT NOW on the fleet of A380.Question: Li Ion in A380 are being kept "floating" by A/C?
It seems EADS could be affected too.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still not clear what the critical safety issue is that caused the grounding of this fleet.
The fire on the 787 in Boston was tackled by airport fire services very quickly and the fire on the ANA aircraft happened shortly after it departed Haneda airport. In both cases, it was possible to extinguish the fires reasonably quickly after their detection. However, the FAA will need to consider what fire damage might result to critical systems from a similar battery fire in mid-Atlantic, at 40,000'.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We cannot say this happened. First of all the Li Po are not being used in the Av industry.The planes transport every day, thousands (not being recharged, 
) with no reasons for alarm.
) with no reasons for alarm.
wiki
In October 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Safety Alert for Operators highlighting the fact that the cargo on board Flight 6 contained a large quantity of lithium batteries and that Halon 1301 was inefficient in fighting fires involving them.[8] The FAA issued a restriction on the carrying of lithium batteries in bulk on passenger flights.[28]
Last edited by hetfield; 20th Jan 2013 at 16:38.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR_NDB
After more than five years of A380 commercial service, we still need to see a battery related incident as serious as those witnessed on the 787.
This thread is addressing 787 batteries ... not A380 batteries.
So if you would like to address this matter, please open a dedicated thread.
This thread is addressing 787 batteries ... not A380 batteries.
So if you would like to address this matter, please open a dedicated thread.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: EDDF
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Avionista: It took 40 min to distinguish the Boston fire - this was not an easy task.
In my upper linked article of the Seattle Times Boeing rumours to be indignant about FAAīs acting. For Boeing the 787 ist still safe to fly. I canīt belive this careless behaviour. To have a malfunction in a product is one side, to ignore the risks another. Think this is no good PR for the reputation of Boeing.
On the other side the FAA seems faced a difficult situation. Once there will increase the pressure of commercial interests. But easing the situation and relase the 787 back to service before a real solution is on the table, will push the upcoming discussions theyīve been to rigorous with the grounding.
For me they did the only right thing: In aviation "safety first".
In my upper linked article of the Seattle Times Boeing rumours to be indignant about FAAīs acting. For Boeing the 787 ist still safe to fly. I canīt belive this careless behaviour. To have a malfunction in a product is one side, to ignore the risks another. Think this is no good PR for the reputation of Boeing.
On the other side the FAA seems faced a difficult situation. Once there will increase the pressure of commercial interests. But easing the situation and relase the 787 back to service before a real solution is on the table, will push the upcoming discussions theyīve been to rigorous with the grounding.
For me they did the only right thing: In aviation "safety first".
A fire breaks out on a couple of a/c. Neither the manufacturer of the battery, charger or a/c know why.
That seems to be good enough reason to ground it.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
That seems to be good enough reason to ground it.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reasons for 787 grounding
hetfield,
Yes! Since few minutes after the crash i am looking to the issue: The danger Lithium batteries poses to us.
AFAIK UPS 744 was not transporting Li Po batteries nor using Li Ion batteries.
We are concentrated on li Ion and not Li Po, llagonne66
This thread is addressing 787 grounding.
The same type of battery is in operation right now in just one other type: The Airbus 380. The mention to this fact is pertinent to the discussion on the reasons of 787 grounding specially because FAA put the battery* at the focus.
i am concentrated on the 787 issue (battery selection are important to me as a designer) and may be your suggestion could be accepted by someone interested to create another thread.
(*) And the problem can be not exactly with the battery (chemistry) technology.
Yes! Since few minutes after the crash i am looking to the issue: The danger Lithium batteries poses to us.
AFAIK UPS 744 was not transporting Li Po batteries nor using Li Ion batteries.
We are concentrated on li Ion and not Li Po, llagonne66
This thread is addressing 787 grounding.
The same type of battery is in operation right now in just one other type: The Airbus 380. The mention to this fact is pertinent to the discussion on the reasons of 787 grounding specially because FAA put the battery* at the focus.
i am concentrated on the 787 issue (battery selection are important to me as a designer) and may be your suggestion could be accepted by someone interested to create another thread.
(*) And the problem can be not exactly with the battery (chemistry) technology.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PugetSound
Age: 76
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...the National Transportation Safety Board said an examination of the data from the planes flight recorder indicated that the battery did not exceed the designed voltage of 32 volts.
I do hope the NTSB was not trying to say there was no overvoltage problem because the external voltage was below the 8 cell limit.
Many technical reports about the batteries in question note that external charging voltage is no indication of cell to cell voltage. Those reports document cases of individual cells having excessive internal resistance which raised their internal voltage and leads to thermal runaway in that one cell.
The thermal damage then spreads to adjacent cells.
Most technical reports on safety and these batteries point out the need to monitor individual cell temperatures and to control the external voltage and current based on the worst performing cell.
I do hope the NTSB was not trying to say there was no overvoltage problem because the external voltage was below the 8 cell limit.
Many technical reports about the batteries in question note that external charging voltage is no indication of cell to cell voltage. Those reports document cases of individual cells having excessive internal resistance which raised their internal voltage and leads to thermal runaway in that one cell.
The thermal damage then spreads to adjacent cells.
Most technical reports on safety and these batteries point out the need to monitor individual cell temperatures and to control the external voltage and current based on the worst performing cell.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lithium Ion battery concerns
TURIN
The use of Li Ion batteries on airliners is under investigation. This should be enough to make other authorities to address the issue.
Important to differentiate the cells to the battery:
E.G.
The 787 battery is made by Thales using cells from Yuasa.
AFAIK the battery used in A380 emergency lightning comes from SAFT. The details will be commented in another thread.
TacomaSailor,
Important issue:
"individual cells having excessive internal resistance which raised their internal voltage and leads to thermal runaway in that one cell."
I will go further: You need to monitor ea. cell voltage AND temperature, during charge AND discharge. This is critical (safety) and important for longer life. I (strongly suspect) have serious objections how they are using the cells.
The safest would be to separate them (redundantly) electrically and physically. This will be addressed in 787 Batteries and Chargers
That seems to be good enough reason to ground it.
The use of Li Ion batteries on airliners is under investigation. This should be enough to make other authorities to address the issue.
Important to differentiate the cells to the battery:
E.G.
The 787 battery is made by Thales using cells from Yuasa.
AFAIK the battery used in A380 emergency lightning comes from SAFT. The details will be commented in another thread.
TacomaSailor,
Important issue:
"individual cells having excessive internal resistance which raised their internal voltage and leads to thermal runaway in that one cell."
I will go further: You need to monitor ea. cell voltage AND temperature, during charge AND discharge. This is critical (safety) and important for longer life. I (strongly suspect) have serious objections how they are using the cells.
The safest would be to separate them (redundantly) electrically and physically. This will be addressed in 787 Batteries and Chargers
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risks of this wonderful and dangerous batteries
hetfield,
Some 3 years ago i discussed with a major airliner CEO a dangerous scenario of smokes in an overhead bin due a laptop battery failure and the CC training for that.
The video you posted is important to remember us to be proactive on the issue. Indeed a lot of pax and crew are transporting it (not being recharged, fortunately) in A/C.
Rgds,
Some 3 years ago i discussed with a major airliner CEO a dangerous scenario of smokes in an overhead bin due a laptop battery failure and the CC training for that.
The video you posted is important to remember us to be proactive on the issue. Indeed a lot of pax and crew are transporting it (not being recharged, fortunately) in A/C.
Rgds,
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horror movies
golfyankeesierra,
Some years ago i was sleeping when the Ni Cd pack of my motorola vehicular caught fire whilst being recharged. Still "sleeping" i separated the pack from the unit burning slightly one finger. The pack was protected thermally and electrically but the adjacent cells (like VC10, B52, Nimrod, dangerous engines config.) were the factor of the complete destruction of the pack.
I strongly suspect the designers of these batteries are playing a very dangerous game. And the toll yet was paid by Boeing.
More to come,
In my electric bike i yet installed an APU of 300W. The battery is just for lighting and motor-gennie start.
Some years ago i was sleeping when the Ni Cd pack of my motorola vehicular caught fire whilst being recharged. Still "sleeping" i separated the pack from the unit burning slightly one finger. The pack was protected thermally and electrically but the adjacent cells (like VC10, B52, Nimrod, dangerous engines config.) were the factor of the complete destruction of the pack.
I strongly suspect the designers of these batteries are playing a very dangerous game. And the toll yet was paid by Boeing.
More to come,
In my electric bike i yet installed an APU of 300W. The battery is just for lighting and motor-gennie start.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB: Excess battery voltage ruled out in 787 fire | HeraldNet.com - Work
NTSB: Excess battery voltage ruled out in 787 fire
Investigators have ruled out excess battery voltage as the cause of a Jan. 7 fire onboard a Boeing Co. 787.
The lithium-ion battery at the center of the investigation was not overcharged, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a statement Sunday. The NTSB has not determined the cause yet in that 787 fire.
Investigators have ruled out excess battery voltage as the cause of a Jan. 7 fire onboard a Boeing Co. 787.
The lithium-ion battery at the center of the investigation was not overcharged, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a statement Sunday. The NTSB has not determined the cause yet in that 787 fire.
the Herald.net article states:
. Interesting concept. The FAA does not instruct the OEM how to comply... that is the OEM's job to show compliance, or an equivalent safety finding, or to justify a special conditionbeing approved by the RA.
The B787 Type Certificate FAA TCDS T00021SE/EASA.IM.A.115 section 5, Special Conditions, has certificate review item (CRI) F24, Lithium Ion Batteries which is the area of interest at present. Would think that the FAA would be disinclined in accepting on face value the assumptions of fitness for service and risk analysis (25.1309) on a basis consistent with the good old risk matrix (MIL STD 882D).
Boeing said last week it won't deliver more 787s until the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration instructs it on how to prove the Dreamliner's flammable lithium-ion batteries are safe.
The B787 Type Certificate FAA TCDS T00021SE/EASA.IM.A.115 section 5, Special Conditions, has certificate review item (CRI) F24, Lithium Ion Batteries which is the area of interest at present. Would think that the FAA would be disinclined in accepting on face value the assumptions of fitness for service and risk analysis (25.1309) on a basis consistent with the good old risk matrix (MIL STD 882D).
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Boeing said last week it won't deliver more 787s until the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration instructs it on how to prove the Dreamliner's flammable lithium-ion batteries are safe."
Whatever the source of the quote, if Boenig is doing that, it is in contravention of the AD, as the FAA state clearly the company itself must "demonstrate the battery system is safe". They also require 'methods and materials' to be submitted by the OEM to the ACOM. Boeing cannot possibly be painting themselves as a "victim": "show us what to do?" Could their public position be that childlike?
The Lithium install violated virtually all of the considerations required by FAA from the git..
"AD Requirements
This AD requires modification of the battery system, or other actions, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA."
Whatever the source of the quote, if Boenig is doing that, it is in contravention of the AD, as the FAA state clearly the company itself must "demonstrate the battery system is safe". They also require 'methods and materials' to be submitted by the OEM to the ACOM. Boeing cannot possibly be painting themselves as a "victim": "show us what to do?" Could their public position be that childlike?
The Lithium install violated virtually all of the considerations required by FAA from the git..
"AD Requirements
This AD requires modification of the battery system, or other actions, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA."
Last edited by Lyman; 20th Jan 2013 at 21:33.