ANA 787 makes emergency landing due 'battery fire warning'
 

BBC News now reporting that an ANA Dreamliner has made an emergency landing at Takamatsu due to a 'battery fire warning'.

BBC News - A Boeing 787 plane makes an emergency landing in Japan

Goodness. We're going to need a new forum for these threads.

Can anyone tell if the airplanes with battery problems are the same planes, or even the same batteries on different aircraft? A single battery seems like a much more tractable problem than if the (alleged) overheating is taking place on different batteries.

:ouch:

Why do I suspect it was anything else but the batteries... ? :ooh:

At least two different planes as one JAL and the other ANA.

JAL 787 still on ground in BOS. As all we know is that tonight's landing was prompted by a 'battery malfunction warning', we won't know what battery it is.

I suspect that this was probably an over-reaction to something that must be at the back of the minds of all 787 flight crew. If it was a genuine battery malfunction then we have to start considering whether there is any significance in the fact that so many incidents have occurred in Japanese operated 787's.

Is there something in the 'customer electrical specification' of the of the planes built for JAL and ANA that could be initiating these fires/warnings?

Just a thought. :cool:

All Nippon Airways grounds all Dreamliners in fleet after emergency landing — RT



All Nippon Airways has grounded all 17 Boeing 787 planes in its fleet for emergency inspections after a malfunction on board forced one of the Dreamliners to make an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport in the west of Japan.
*A battery malfunction on one of ANA’s Boeing 787 Dreamliners forced an emergency landing at Japan’s Takamatsu airport on Wednesday morning.

Japan’s ANA grounds 17 Dreamliners | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

ANA Dreamliner makes emergency landing -NHK WORLD English-

SoS I think it was a little more than a 'battery warning'; landing was due to smoke on flight deck and was followed promptly by a full evac...

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0115205952.jpg

Bad batteries, nothing to do with aircraft type? How can you blame Boeing on this?

No-one's blaming anyone at this point, bubbers. Wait and see, eh?

In flight the pressure should push the smoke away from there, but once you're back down it will change. That could by itself set of a quick reaction.

ANA ground Dreamliner, according to BBC
 

I for one would be very surprised if they weren't grounded as a result of this last event. Maybe too soon for such a call, but we'll see

Smoke in Cockpit
 

Phalanger. Don't know what your background is, but your statement that inflight the pressure should push the smoke away from the cockpit is pretty "Broad-Brush". Depending on the source of the smoke and how it is entering the cockpit it may not always be possible to evacuate the smoke from the cockpit area immediately. Until the source can be isolated and removed the smoke will continue. Once this is accomplished the "Smoke Evacuation Procedure" would follow.

@Squawk-7600 - That's not the same thing as "blaming" Boeing though, is it?

As is invariably the case these days, the components have come from all over the world, and from various suppliers - it's no different for Airbus. If ANA ground their B787s then that's a matter for them and Boeing to hash out in terms of responsibility - it's not a given that Boeing themselves are responsible for the problem, just as it's not a given that Airbus are solely responsible for any issues on their types.

[EDIT : Tempting as it may be to engage in "schadenfreude", it just makes the person that does so look like as much of an arse as the folks who do so when the boot is on the other foot. Be a grown-up - don't fall into that trap!]

Actually, the inflight movement would create denser air at the tail of the aircraft, and any smoke would move forward.

(put a helium balloon in your car and accelerate, it will move forward)

Post JAL/BOS, Boeing reported that "cockpit pressurization" would keep smoke out if the cockpit....And cabin.

Squawk7600

I think the authority is about to put an end to further "flight test" with pax aboard....

Wasn't ANA debut operator?

The idea is it should move with the flow. Same reason smoke goes up from a fire, heat creates an airflow that it follows. So while you may not get none, it should be moving concentrations away from such areas (unless they are generated in those areas).

also JAL, according to Al-Jazeera
 

Al-Jazeera reports both All Nippon and Japan Airlines have "grounded" their 787 fleets.

Boeing 787 makes emergency landing in Japan - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

'Flight' is considering the case of a container under accelleration. I don't have a helium balloon handy, but I suspect that it would move aft, relatively, due to the inertia of it's mass. The aircraft in question would likely have velocity but not accelleration in flight.

ANA and JAL have grounded all 24 of their 787's.

Smoke Movement
 

In the DC-3s we opened the cockpit windows to cool the cabin. The air flowed forward. One wide open cockpit window created quite a strong wind. Two open windows was too strong a breeze.

I would think that any fire would get worse in such a breeze.

ANA, JAL
 

Anyone know how 'old' these planes are? And if they were some of the earlier ones off the production line, how long they might have been sitting around through some of the initial rework? With batteries installed?

ANA took the first deliveries...

ANA plane reportedly delivered January 2012. If so one of the oldest in the fleet.

DozyWannabe
I have no idea why you're addressing this to me, or even what the schadenfreude reference is in relation to. As a result of this latest incident I said that I would be surprised if the aircraft isn't grounded and have just heard on the radio that 2 operators in Japan have done just that. I get no pleasure from seeing aircraft sitting on the ground I assure you!

QR
 

Qatar has a few 787's and if it is the battery it will be fun to see what happens there in the Summer in the Desert. It will be 50 degrees Celsius outside, 70 degrees in the E&E compartments, those babies will be Boiling!!Could be a Fireworks display if not fixed soon!:O

''Bad batteries, nothing to do with aircraft type? How can you blame Boeing on this?''

Quite easily. I question the wisdom of encasing so many lithium-ion batteries in a plastic fuselage. If it's Boeing, I'm not going!

Both ANA and JAL have now grounded their 24 aircraft.

Have Boeing just been too agressive in their power & weight demands of the L-ion batteries? Most battery fires appear to be caused by overly thin insulation (reduced weight) and squeezing the last milli-watt of charge (the last few percent) into the battery - necessay for mobile phones & laptops, but for planes?
Would a few grams more weight and a few hunderd less mill-watt hours per battery really make a difference on a plane?
How long do Boing expect their craft to operate in-flight without main generators, or on the ground without an APU?

..both the passengers and the pilots "smelled something strange" !?

I wonder... was it before that "battery smoke" message or ~1 min after

Whoever used the term "over reaction" may not have keyed in on the presence of smoke in the cabin. Smoke in the cabin, or the smell thereof, especially when the source is unknown or inaccessible, is an immediate and dire emergency.

In a pressurized airplane, smoke will travel to the outflow valve(s). The route it will take depends on the design of the pressurization system and the configuration of the valves, but that is the only place it is going.

Only a year after launch I believe there are around 49 Boeing 787s in service. Compare this to the A380 where there were only a handfull in service and problems were fixed as they happened. All 787s problems appear to be happening together. From a public confidence point of view perhaps a softer launch of the 787 would have been less damaging to Boeing.

Good thing the smoke event occured on a domestic flight rather than somewhere above Siberia or the Pacific with the next diversion airport hours away.

Since I have a seat on the HND to FRA flight little more than a week from now, I am curious as to whether ANA will cancel flights or have enough 777s to fill the gap, or worse be tempted to resume flights before the issue has been fully understood.

Fleetwide grounding? Don't think so, it's a Boeing. FAA don't ground boeings...
But it surprises me that it remains ETOPS.

BTW if you look at the picture in this link worldnews.nbcnews , don't the slides look steeper then on older types?

If I remember correctly Apple had a similar problems with its very first iPhones 3, (batteries exploding and catching fire..) very quickly the company found a fix and I have not heard the problem coming back since ( or it is well kept away from news).

So it would look like a technical solution does exists.

For those discussing the way smoke moves inside an aircraft cabin/cockpit , you may want to read through some of the pages of the final report of SR111.

You guys have to stop believing everything you read or hear from the media. By now one would think you all would know better.:=

There is no battery fire warning EICAS message in the 787 or for that matter any Boeing airplane that I know of.

In addition, the flight deck is slightly over pressurized on both the 777 and 787 so as to keep smoke and fumes out. The flight deck does not use a recirculated air source for the same reason. It actually uses 100% fresh air at all times. If there are smoke and fumes present on the flight deck, most likely the source is there as well. The battery is a long ways back in the aft EE compartment, so smelling it on the flight deck is unlikely.

The Cabin Air Compressors (CAC) have been know to overheat. Just say'n!

If talking about smoke from a L-ion battery, what does it consist of ? How poisonous is that smoke ? Does the "non-toxic" requirement for burning aircraft interior apply to batteries as well ? After all, Lithium is a strong drug!

Likely that is true, but it would be very unusual to omit a BATT HOT caution, or similar measurement of unusual temperature from a modern airliner.

On my fight deck, unusual smell and a battery temp caution would lead me to believe my battery is getting warm. Couple that with a recent history of on-type battery over temp incidents and my minds made up

APU battery is in the aft EE compartment. The Main Aircraft battery is a lot further forward. (I think the forward EE Compartment)

Apparently the batteries are supplied (manufactured) by a Japanese company. Oh the irony. :hmm:

In either case it's highly unlikely you would smell them. Read my post again:ugh: