Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5653555/

Topic: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: boeingbus
Posted 2013-01-07 08:01:55 and read 66573 times.

Just heard that a jal plane at Logan is smoking up. Perhaps another 787 incident.

Anyone heat anything on this?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: boeingbus
Posted 2013-01-07 08:03:35 and read 66854 times.

Yup.

http://m.wcvb.com/news/Heavy-smoke-r...08/18035428/-/hgu08gz/-/index.html

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: usairways85
Posted 2013-01-07 08:03:40 and read 66723 times.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/01/0...-airlines-flight-at-logan-airport/

Landed in BOS at ~10am

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: yellowtail
Posted 2013-01-07 08:10:30 and read 66360 times.

Another 788 issue....this can't be good however one wants to look at it.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-07 08:17:31 and read 66076 times.

We'll probably hear soon again how this is electrical arcing and not a real fire. Ok, fair enough. But I for one would like to know more about the electronics incidents, and what might be behind them.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: seansasLCY
Posted 2013-01-07 08:18:42 and read 66085 times.

Picture of the plane at BOS : http://twitpic.com/btav08

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-07 08:20:04 and read 65899 times.

Livestream from CBS:
http://www.wfsb.com/category/217730/cbs-news-livestream

And an earlier pic:
http://twitpic.com/btav08

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: apodino
Posted 2013-01-07 08:20:09 and read 65871 times.

Apparently this happened at the Gate in BOS. It is being reported that there was no crew on board and no passengers either. Makes me wonder if something happened during fueling where the plane was not properly bonded during the process or something.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-01-07 08:20:38 and read 65886 times.

"Fire noticed by cleaning crew"

https://twitter.com/PeterWBZ (WBZ is a local television and radio station in Boston)

Looks from the pic that it is in the cargo hold.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: phxa340
Posted 2013-01-07 08:22:51 and read 65751 times.

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 3):

It was in the cargo hold so it's a possibility this had nothing to do with the plane itself , lets wait and see.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-07 08:24:27 and read 65691 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 4):
We'll probably hear soon again how this is electrical arcing and not a real fire. Ok, fair enough. But I for one would like to know more about the electronics incidents, and what might be behind them.

Yup.

Cue esoteric dictionary definitions of a fire.. I guarantee you that this was not repeat not a fire  

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-07 08:26:50 and read 65528 times.

LiIon batteries anyone?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: 76er
Posted 2013-01-07 08:27:48 and read 65546 times.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 9):
It was in the cargo hold so it's a possibility this had nothing to do with the plane itself

Don't know much about the 787, but usually the lower cargo compartments on large jets are right next to the avionics bay(s).

[Edited 2013-01-07 08:28:48]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: FDH
Posted 2013-01-07 08:37:00 and read 65001 times.

No change in return flight schedule yet (per JAL and Logan web sites), departure still scheduled for 12:00 PM today.

FDH

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BigSaabowski
Posted 2013-01-07 08:39:10 and read 64912 times.

Tail number JA829J; delivered on December 21st, 2012.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-01-07 08:39:30 and read 64925 times.

Quoting FDH (Reply 13):

No change in return flight schedule yet (per JAL and Logan web sites), departure still scheduled for 12:00 PM today.

That's 23 minutes from now, as of this post. Unless they've already started boarding it, my guess is that it will be at least delayed.

With that said, the CBS live stream shows a helicopter camera flying away from Logan, so apparently there is nothing more to see. Good news, for sure!

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BigSaabowski
Posted 2013-01-07 08:41:39 and read 64808 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
That's 23 minutes from now, as of this post. Unless they've already started boarding it, my guess is that it will be at least delayed.


With a fire on board an aircraft for any reason, that flight will be canceled. There are too many inspection to be done, even if it was a cargo fire.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-01-07 08:42:31 and read 64684 times.

Quoting BigSaabowski (Reply 16):
With a fire on board an aircraft for any reason, that flight will be canceled. There are too many inspection to be done, even if it was a cargo fire.

Agreed. Just noting that the JAL and Logan websites cannot possibly be correct that this plane will be departing in now 18 minutes.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BigSaabowski
Posted 2013-01-07 08:46:17 and read 64523 times.

WCVB-TV, quoting Boston Fire, is reporting that the fire is believed to be electrical.

[Edited 2013-01-07 08:46:34]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-07 08:53:25 and read 64188 times.

Quoting BigSaabowski (Reply 18):
WCVB-TV, quoting Boston Fire, is reporting that the fire is believed to be electrical.

In fairness, it is hard to know at this time. Need to wait for more information. But if the plane was empty when there was a fire, it might make it a bit less likely for the issue to be with cargo or luggage. They should have been unloaded by that time, and usually get loaded while the passengers are boarding.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-07 08:56:06 and read 63862 times.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 9):
It was in the cargo hold so it's a possibility this had nothing to do with the plane itself , lets wait and see.

Indeed, but if so, a very unfortunate coincidence.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: dumbell2424
Posted 2013-01-07 08:57:29 and read 63908 times.

Here are some tweeple I found with some pics


http://twitter.com/GlobeMoskowitz (long line pic after canceling the flight)

http://twitter.com/bostonfire (quite a few photos)

And according to the Boston Fire twitter: "Fire was in a compartment with batteries and other electrical components."

edit--made links clickable

[Edited 2013-01-07 08:57:58]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-07 08:58:54 and read 63707 times.

Seattle Times says smoke from cockpit... thought it seems to counter the photos:

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationw...d/2020078313_apusairplanefire.html

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: dumbell2424
Posted 2013-01-07 09:01:11 and read 63523 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 22):
Seattle Times says smoke from cockpit... thought it seems to counter the photos

Not just Seattle Times, whoever publishes AP News Wires.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...E=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: vegas005
Posted 2013-01-07 09:03:38 and read 63354 times.

Landed with smoke and flames? Staying off this bird until they fix them ... Issues have been atrocious so far.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-07 09:03:38 and read 67047 times.

Nothing here guys. This is totally normal. Probably just an arch.... Or just a spark. Doubtful it was a fire. Boeing will downplay this like usual.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-01-07 09:05:19 and read 66665 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 25):
Nothing here guys. This is totally normal. Probably just an arch.... Or just a spark. Doubtful it was a fire. Boeing will downplay this like usual.

Certainly not a nothing, but is it somehow "worse" than all of the cracking in the 388? Stuff happens with new airplanes. Given the news cycle, we hear about it more than we did with, say, the 757 or the 320.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: max550
Posted 2013-01-07 09:05:24 and read 69132 times.

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 24):
Landed with smoke and flames? Staying off this bird until they fix them ... Issues have been atrocious so far.

No, it never would have gone to the gate if it landed with smoke and flames. From everything I've read so far smoke was noticed after it was parked at the gate with no pax or crew on-board.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-01-07 09:06:34 and read 68694 times.

Now the key question is... was the compartment part of the aircraft equipment or do they refer to the cargo?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: vegas005
Posted 2013-01-07 09:09:19 and read 68544 times.

Quoting dumbell2424 (Reply 21):
Quoting max550 (Reply 27):

Twitter response clearly disagrees with your statement.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: FDH
Posted 2013-01-07 09:09:26 and read 68500 times.

If halon and water was indeed used to stop the fire, it might take a little while for this plane to return to service (depending on the amount of water used).

Quoting dumbell2424 (Reply 21):

http://twitter.com/GlobeMoskowitz (long line pic after canceling the flight)

FDH

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2013-01-07 09:13:35 and read 68036 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 28):
Now the key question is... was the compartment part of the aircraft equipment or do they refer to the cargo?

Mass Fire Chief said battery compartment.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: max550
Posted 2013-01-07 09:14:36 and read 68283 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 28):
Now the key question is... was the compartment part of the aircraft equipment or do they refer to the cargo?

According to this reporter in BOS the component was a battery used to power the APU.



Quoting vegas005 (Reply 29):
Twitter response clearly disagrees with your statement.

Where? I haven't read anything suggesting the plane was smoking and on fire when it landed.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: FDH
Posted 2013-01-07 09:18:01 and read 67974 times.

Flight cancellation notice from JAL. No new information but they do apologize.

http://www.ar.jal.com/arl/cms/contents/en/special_news_003116.html

FDH

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-07 09:28:22 and read 66910 times.

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 24):
Landed with smoke and flames?

No, where did you come up with that?

Please read the thread:

Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
"Fire noticed by cleaning crew"

And indeed they probably noticed smoke, as opposed to "a fire".

Quoting max550 (Reply 32):
The component on fire was a battery used to power an auxiliary power unit. Halatron used to extinguish fire.
— Jonathan Hall (@JHall7news) January 7, 2013

Interesting.

What causes a battery to start emitting smoke?

They are low voltage devices so it's presumably not an arc/plasma event.

I've had the battery on a UPS blow up when lightning hit the mains, so (SPECULATION) I wonder if it was an issue with the charging system?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: wingnutmn
Posted 2013-01-07 09:30:54 and read 66779 times.

If Halon and water were used, New batteries are required and all electrical connectors and lines need to be inspected. This just went from bad to worse for this airplane. If Boeing has a "war room", Mr. McNerney is there with most of the 787 lead engineers and program managers right now in damage control. This is what, the 3rd or 4th fire or smoke incident from a battery or avionics? I know it happens, but this many times from so few airplanes produced is not looking good right now.

Wingnut

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-07 09:40:57 and read 66064 times.

Quoting wingnutmn (Reply 35):
If Boeing has a "war room", Mr. McNerney is there with most of the 787 lead engineers and program managers right now in damage control.

Wonder if they pulled a well known a.net member out of class to go have a look?

We now read from bostonfire on twitter:

Quote:

48m Boston Fire Dept. Boston Fire Dept. ‏@BostonFire

Fire was in a compartment with batteries and other electrical components. Boston Fire assisted Massport Fire.
Expand
49m Boston Fire Dept. Boston Fire Dept. ‏@BostonFire

The mechanic noticed a light smoke condition increasing from the underbelly of the plane. He notified Massport Fire.
Expand
50m Boston Fire Dept. Boston Fire Dept. ‏@BostonFire

At Logan, after the plane landed and all passengers had left the plane, a mechanic was doing a walk through of the 787 plane.

So this says it was a mechanic doing a post-flight walk through, not a cleaning crew, who noticed "light smoke", yet our friends in Boston FD are using that "unfortunate" word, "fire", to describe what went on.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Deltal1011man
Posted 2013-01-07 09:50:55 and read 65633 times.

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 3):
Another 788 issue....this can't be good however one wants to look at it.

Yep. No other airplane has ever had smoke before. 1st time. Took the fire dept. a while to figure out how to deal with it.  
Quoting F9animal (Reply 25):
Nothing here guys. This is totally normal. Probably just an arch.... Or just a spark. Doubtful it was a fire. Boeing will downplay this like usual.

Yeah I mean, like the down playing of another aircraft that basically had to have its system completely replaced.  


I do like how everyone jumps and they know nothing about what they speak. smh

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: joepatroniyx
Posted 2013-01-07 09:55:39 and read 65170 times.

If you go to www.bostonherald.com there are a couple of pictures that clearly show smoke from the rear cargo compartment , Not a good day for the 787

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-07 09:59:46 and read 64860 times.

It was likely an arch. No fire. Fire department is probably wrong. Those guys don't know what a fire is. Again, this is totally normal.

Does anyone know which factory this plane came from by chance? JAL is not going to be a happy camper on this. They are infamous for being very tough as a customer, which is a good thing. I met a few of their delivery guys when they were inspecting a 737 before it went out of the hanger. Very nice, and very professional. I was also very impressed with Qantas.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-07 10:02:19 and read 64830 times.

Interesting. From the Boston Herald article:

Quote:

“We don’t want to speculate, but it could have happened after it arrived,” said Freni, adding that all luggage was off the plane at the time the fire was reported.

Massport Fire Chief Robert Donahue said firefighters saw “heavy smoke conditions” in the entire cabin when they arrived and determined the source of the smoke was the plane’s avionics section where the batteries are located.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-07 10:07:41 and read 64297 times.

Does it seem these electrical incidents are coming on the later-delivery 787s? You had the United one, and this one apparently was delivered Dec 20.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: mbmbos
Posted 2013-01-07 10:13:22 and read 64091 times.

This was just posted on Boston.com: http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013.../1HCFhQuwAn8ELwuDg5oDgI/story.html

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-07 10:24:10 and read 63283 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 38):
Yep. No other airplane has ever had smoke before. 1st time. Took the fire dept. a while to figure out how to deal with it.

Well-said although Boeing could do without these 'Electrical incidents' they keep having on the 787. Obviously, this will be over-blown especially here on A.Net but scary to think what the results would have been if this happened in the middle of the Pacific.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: alphaomega
Posted 2013-01-07 10:43:04 and read 62043 times.

Smoke in the cockpit reported after everyone de-planed. Batteries melted and caught fire, and the avionics compartment is apparently a mess - a/c will be here for a few days. No injuries.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 11:15:26 and read 59549 times.

Smoke, fire, burning, etc is never a good thing.

This event is going to get a lot of press coverage because it is a 787. No one seems to put it in context that smoke in the flight or cabin causes an airplane to divert with passengers on it every few days somewhere in the world. Any maintenance writeup on those planes seems to get press coverage.

No one would have ever noticed this event since it was on a 777: http://avherald.com/h?article=459edf9a&opt=0

However if that had happened to a 787, Boeing’s stock price would be falling and aviation “experts” around the world would be speculating about the airplane be grounded.

The internet age is fascinating.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-07 11:28:33 and read 58545 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 53):
This event is going to get a lot of press coverage because it is a 787. No one seems to put it in context that smoke in the flight or cabin causes an airplane to divert with passengers on it every few days somewhere in the world. Any maintenance writeup on those planes seems to get press coverage.

Yes, but there are not that many 787s in service. A number of them have had electrical issues. Electrical is different on this plane than others.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-on-787-reliability-issues-380664/

They have had some issues with the electrical systems, too.

If there is "nothing to see" here, then I guess the A380's issues are "nothing to see", either, because issues can happen on any aircraft!

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-07 11:36:30 and read 58032 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 47):
Well-said although Boeing could do without these 'Electrical incidents' they keep having on the 787. Obviously, this will be over-blown especially here on A.Net but scary to think what the results would have been if this happened in the middle of the Pacific.


Which is precisely why it is a very big deal. When a fire develops halfway between HNL and SYD, it is a very big deal. There are not many frames in service and this is the second fire.

I don't know about you, but if I were an airline chief with 787's on the property, I would be very interested in these proceedings and I would be more than a bit worried about the safety and reliability of my own fleet.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-01-07 11:39:13 and read 57832 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 10):
I guarantee you that this was not repeat not a fire

How can you guarantee that when you're 10,000 miles away? Recent news items say there WAS a fire.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...g-787-boston-idUSBRE9060JB20130107

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 11:43:55 and read 57387 times.

We will need to wait for the quick sketch from the NTSB with the description of the event. The fact Halatron was used is a significant issue if for no other reason than additional inspections will be needed. The battery of course (assuming that bit is right) will need to be replaced and all surrounding equipment and wiring must be inspected and some of it replaced.

If there were heavy smoke conditions in the cabin, the entire interior of the a/c must be scrubbed to get rid of any residual smoke smell for obvious reasons.

This a/c will be out of revenue service for weeks unfortunately for JAL.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: ADent
Posted 2013-01-07 11:45:30 and read 57457 times.


This is an embed of the earlier link.

Quite a bit of smoke there.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: United727
Posted 2013-01-07 11:45:36 and read 57438 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 50):
Why do the mods allow all this nonsense spreading from some users? Dare joke about the other OEM and your post is gone in 2 seconds.

AGREED   

Enter TDSCanuck...Until I hear it from him (his take on the issue), I'm really not concerned.

Tom, your thoughts??

--------------------------

Edit: Whoa, just saw the pic of the smoke in the rear hold. WOW...

[Edited 2013-01-07 11:49:13]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 11:46:30 and read 55919 times.

We will need to wait for the quick sketch from the NTSB with the description of the event. The fact Halatron was used is a significant issue if for no other reason than additional inspections will be needed. The battery of course (assuming that bit is right) will need to be replaced and all surrounding equipment and wiring must be inspected and some of it replaced.

If there were heavy smoke conditions in the cabin, the entire interior of the a/c must be scrubbed to get rid of any residual smoke smell for obvious reasons.

This a/c will be out of revenue service for weeks unfortunately for JAL.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 11:54:23 and read 55453 times.

From http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013.../1HCFhQuwAn8ELwuDg5oDgI/story.html

"Massport Fire Rescue Chief Robert J. Donahue said firefighters encountered heavy smoke in the entire cabin of the plane and used thermal imaging devices to determine the source of the fire.

“We found a fire condition about midships in the avionics compartment underneath,” he said. He said the fire began in a battery that was part of an auxiliary power unit that is only used when the plane is on the ground and its engines are turned off." '

-End Quote -

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 11:55:38 and read 55283 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 47):

Yes, but there are not that many 787s in service. A number of them have had electrical issues. Electrical is different on this plane than others.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-on-787-reliability-issues-380664/

They have had some issues with the electrical systems, too.

If there is "nothing to see" here, then I guess the A380's issues are "nothing to see", either, because issues can happen on any aircraft!

I have trust and confidence on the safety program that the FAA, EASA and other regulators force the airlines and manufacturers to follow. Every significant maintenance event (diversion, air turn back, rejected takeoff) needs to be reported. Other significant events that affect safety are also reported such as fires. These are analyzed to determine if there is a design flaw that could result in a safety problem and are addressed.

The media picks and chooses which events to cover based on what the audience is interested in hearing, which usually means spectacular failures, failures on prominent airlines, or failures on prominent airplanes. People see many events of these types and start to fear those airplanes, when in reality there is some reporting bias. If this fire is a symptom of a bigger problem, then we should eventually hear about it, but just a lot of reporting doesn't make me jump to conclusions. I wouldn't say nothing to see at this point, but also wouldn't jump to conclusions about there being reliability problems.

There were two airplanes that mysteriously disappeared into the ocean in 2009-2010 in bad weather where everyone died. I have read countless articles, conspiracy theories, and actual fact based data on one, but almost nothing on the other. Who can name both without doing research? Fortunately when it comes down to the manufacturers, regulators and investigative bodies they usually do treat everything the same.

[Edited 2013-01-07 12:43:17]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 11:56:48 and read 55179 times.

From http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013.../1HCFhQuwAn8ELwuDg5oDgI/story.html

"Massport Fire Rescue Chief Robert J. Donahue said firefighters encountered heavy smoke in the entire cabin of the plane and used thermal imaging devices to determine the source of the fire.

“We found a fire condition about midships in the avionics compartment underneath,” he said. He said the fire began in a battery that was part of an auxiliary power unit that is only used when the plane is on the ground and its engines are turned off." '

-End Quote -

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: GEG2RAP
Posted 2013-01-07 12:01:34 and read 54820 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 51):
How can you guarantee that when you're 10,000 miles away? Recent news items say there WAS a fire.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...30107

ok, the news media is quick to jump to conclusions.
How many times have you seen the first new report of a Skywest Boeing 747 being involved in an incident with a US Airways turboprop 767?
Trust the investigators, not the news reporters. Wait and see what they have to say.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-07 12:04:16 and read 54603 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 46):
This event is going to get a lot of press coverage because it is a 787.

No doubt.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 47):
A number of them have had electrical issues. Electrical is different on this plane than others.

The boston.com article above lists four well-known electrical incidents with post-EIS 787s.

The ap.com article above quotes the Massport FD chief as saying:

Quote:

"Something caused this battery pack to overheat, ignite," Donahue said, adding it's too soon to know the cause.

So it seems this is a very different case than the ZA002 incident.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: crAAzy
Posted 2013-01-07 12:12:35 and read 54079 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 26):

Certainly not a nothing, but is it somehow "worse" than all of the cracking in the 388?
Quoting F9animal (Reply 25):
Nothing here guys. This is totally normal.

I'm a big Boeing fan but I would definitely consider an electrical problem that results in heavy smoke throughout the entire cabin something that is definitely NOT normal and significantly "worse" than all of the cracking in the A388. If this occurred midflight with a plane full of passengers it could have potentially been catastrophic - even if there was no "fire".

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-07 12:21:17 and read 53362 times.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ire-while-on-ground-in-boston.html

Bloomburg: "Flames about two feet (0.6 meter) high shot out of an avionics compartment in the jet’s belly, and there was a small explosion afterward, Massachusetts Port Authority Fire Chief Robert Donahue said today in an interview."

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AR385
Posted 2013-01-07 12:25:57 and read 52885 times.

Quoting max550 (Reply 32):
According to this reporter in BOS the component was a battery used to power the APU.
Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 56):
He said the fire began in a battery that was part of an auxiliary power unit that is only used when the plane is on the ground and its engines are turned off." '

Won´t the above have an impact on ETOPS?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: suseJ772
Posted 2013-01-07 12:26:31 and read 52885 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 57):
There were two airplanes that mysteriously disappeared into the ocean in 2010 in bad weather where everyone died. I have read countless articles, conspiracy theories, and actual fact based data on one, but almost nothing on the other. Who can name both without doing research? Fortunately when it comes down to the manufacturers, regulators and investigative bodies they usually do treat everything the same.

I am assuming one is AF 447, but now you got me curious as to what the other one was. Your point is great one btw.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-07 12:30:28 and read 52412 times.

Quoting GEG2RAP (Reply 59):
ok, the news media is quick to jump to conclusions.
How many times have you seen the first new report of a Skywest Boeing 747 being involved in an incident with a US Airways turboprop 767?
Trust the investigators, not the news reporters. Wait and see what they have to say.

I expect a fire chief to know "fire" from "not fire" better than just about anyone else in the world. When he is quoted directly from multiple sources, I think that qualifies as reliable information.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: flyabr
Posted 2013-01-07 12:31:26 and read 52620 times.

I'm sorry folks, but this SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME!!! What if that plane had been over the pacific when this occurred??? After years of delays on the 787, are the airlines still dealing with an aircraft that's not ready for prime time and potentially dangerous?? So many questions...

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: commavia
Posted 2013-01-07 12:32:01 and read 52650 times.

As to the discussion of when this happened ... I was actually on this flight, and I can confirm definitively that if there was a fire or smoke already present prior to landing, it certainly was not apparent to me in the cabin. I deplaned entirely normally with nothing seeming irregular at all.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-07 12:33:05 and read 52311 times.

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 63):
I am assuming one is AF 447, but now you got me curious as to what the other one was. Your point is great one btw.

Ethiopian 737 went into the Mediterranean on take off from Lebanon?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2013-01-07 12:33:32 and read 52211 times.

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 64):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 57):
There were two airplanes that mysteriously disappeared into the ocean in 2010 in bad weather where everyone died. I have read countless articles, conspiracy theories, and actual fact based data on one, but almost nothing on the other. Who can name both without doing research? Fortunately when it comes down to the manufacturers, regulators and investigative bodies they usually do treat everything the same.

I am assuming one is AF 447

No, I don't think so - AF447 was in 2009.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: ukoverlander
Posted 2013-01-07 12:38:49 and read 51630 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 26):
Certainly not a nothing, but is it somehow "worse" than all of the cracking in the 388? Stuff happens with new airplanes. Given the news cycle, we hear about it more than we did with, say, the 757 or the 320.

Aren't we talking about the 787? What has this got to do with the A380?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 12:40:51 and read 51505 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 66):
Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 64):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 57):
There were two airplanes that mysteriously disappeared into the ocean in 2010 in bad weather where everyone died. I have read countless articles, conspiracy theories, and actual fact based data on one, but almost nothing on the other. Who can name both without doing research? Fortunately when it comes down to the manufacturers, regulators and investigative bodies they usually do treat everything the same.

I am assuming one is AF 447

No, I don't think so - AF447 was in 2009.

My mistake. The accidents were 6 months apart. The first was AF447.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 65):
Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 63):
I am assuming one is AF 447, but now you got me curious as to what the other one was. Your point is great one btw.

Ethiopian 737 went into the Mediterranean on take off from Lebanon?

Yes. Ethiopian 409 in January 2010.

Sorry to go off topic, but media bias can really cloud our judgment of reality. With that said, flames shooting feet into the air is a big problem and is worth being concerned about. However I wouldn't jump to conclusions that the 787 is having fire/electrical/etc problems exclusively off reading a few articles reporting isolated events.

[Edited 2013-01-07 12:42:28]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-07 12:44:33 and read 51153 times.

Quote:
It took about 20 minutes to extinguish the fire, using a gas called Halotron that displaces oxygen in electronics fires. Shortly afterward, there was a small explosion in the compartment that Donahue said probably came from a battery pack. A dry chemical powder was used to put that out, he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ire-while-on-ground-in-boston.html

You are not successfully fighting this in the the air. Maybe people will now start to take seriously the concerns of some on this board that the myriad of electrical problems that we have been seeing on the 787 add up to something rather than dismissing us as kooks and conspiracy theorists. I doubt it though.

[Edited 2013-01-07 12:48:24]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-07 12:45:14 and read 51057 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
I expect a fire chief to know "fire" from "not fire" better than just about anyone else in the world. When he is quoted directly from multiple sources, I think that qualifies as reliable information.

I guess you are right here.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 63):

I'm sorry folks, but this SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME!!! What if that plane had been over the pacific when this occurred???

Well, then it could have been much worse. Luckily it was not the case. Now it is up to the investigators to determine the cause of the fire before we jump to conclusions. Let's hope it is not a very serious problem that effects the whole fleet of operational B787's.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: ChrisNH
Posted 2013-01-07 12:49:04 and read 50718 times.

Media people in Boston were hyperventilating over this, with some excitedly calling it a 'jumbo jet.'

I wonder whether JAL 8 tomorrow will be a 773 to help with the backlog of people who couldn't leave today...

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 12:51:16 and read 50606 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 69):

You are not successfully fighting this in the the air. Maybe people will now start to take seriously the concerns of some on this board that the myriad of electrical problems that we have been seeing on the 787 add up to something rather than dismissing us as kooks and conspiracy theorists. I doubt it though.

On board fires are a big problem. Swissair 111 taught us all about the risks of uncontained fire on board. You can rest assured that Boeing, FAA, and JCAB do take it seriously.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: SKGSJULAX
Posted 2013-01-07 12:53:50 and read 50324 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 65):
I was actually on this flight,

Well, this was clearly a lucky day for you and your fellow passengers. Glad that nobody was hurt...

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-01-07 12:56:56 and read 49962 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 69):
Maybe people will now start to take seriously the concerns of some on this board that the myriad of electrical problems that we have been seeing on the 787 add up to something rather than dismissing us as kooks and conspiracy theorists. I doubt it though.

I'd suggest that you have the distinction wrong. The issue isn't "people" discounting concerns about electrical heat/arcing/fire. The issue is that some of us - myself included - see these as new aircraft teething problems not too much different from A380 wing spar cracking (for instance). If we are still having this discussion in two years, that's a different matter.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: bthebest
Posted 2013-01-07 12:57:17 and read 50095 times.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...787-fire-at-boston-airport-380751/

Flightglobal quotes Massport as saying that a battery in the aft electrical bay exploded causing a secondary fire.

It goes on to say that the 787 uses lithium-ion batteries, the ones that have caused problems in the past, to drive the main APU and fire control electronics. It doesn't explicitly say that it was a Li-ion battery that exploded, but indicates as such.

Now obviously everything in the aircraft has been certified, but surely its not sensible to use a potentially high risk power-source for the fire control electronics!?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-07 12:58:33 and read 49880 times.

Even if there was no real fire, the smoke itself can be even worse. If this happens in flight it will be very hard to extinguish the smoke and people could start choking.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: traindoc
Posted 2013-01-07 12:59:40 and read 49975 times.

I was planning to take the 787 from LAX-NRT next month. I think I will wait a while. I am not afraid of flying, but I am afraid of crashing. Clearly the 787 has some electrical issues, apparently in the newer build models. Makes one think that there are manufacturing defects in some of the electrical equipment. If it was a design issue, we should have seen it in the earlier and not in the later builds. Obviously I am speculating as we have no factual data yet. Very fortunate that this happened on the ground!

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-07 13:03:55 and read 49727 times.

More news is coming in: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ire-while-on-ground-in-boston.html

Quote:
Flames about two feet (0.6 meter) high shot out of an avionics compartment in the jet’s belly, and there was a small explosion afterward, Massachusetts Port Authority Fire Chief Robert Donahue said today in an interview. No passengers were aboard as the plane sat at a Logan International Airport gate.

“Anything that involves a fire does not get the luxury of being called a teething problem,” Carter Leake, an analyst at BB&T Capital Markets in Richmond, Virginia, said by telephone.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: SKGSJULAX
Posted 2013-01-07 13:08:09 and read 49345 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 74):
see these as new aircraft teething problems not too much different from A380 wing spar cracking

This a very benevolent comparison. Structural deficiencies take a long time to develop and can, in most cases, be detected as they develop; on the other hand, recurring problems across various nodes of a complex system (such as the 787 electrical system) can take an aircraft down without warning (fire or no fire, explosion or no explosion).

The FAA should ground the 787 immediately and investigate the entire series of electrical issues.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-07 13:08:10 and read 49332 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 72):
On board fires are a big problem. Swissair 111 taught us all about the risks of uncontained fire on board. You can rest assured that Boeing, FAA, and JCAB do take it seriously.

I certainly agree, and one thing to keep in mind is we do not yet know if this "heavy smoke incident" would have occurred in the air or not so we don't know if a SR111 type incident is possible or not.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 75):
Now obviously everything in the aircraft has been certified, but surely its not sensible to use a potentially high risk power-source for the fire control electronics!?

I think it being certified means the risk has been retired to everyone's satisfaction. Of course you always learn new things, and of course defects and oversights have known to occur, but still I wouldn't be that comfortable saying that a potentially high risk power-source is in use. For instance, jet fuel itself is a potentially high risk power-source.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-01-07 13:15:15 and read 48883 times.

I wonder if Boston fire dept signed the none disclosure agreement with Boeing before they climbed on board with the hose!

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: apodino
Posted 2013-01-07 13:21:26 and read 48578 times.

I hate to play this card..but was this a Washington built model or a South Carolina built model? The reason I mention this is because this could provide unions in Washington with fodder against Boeing. I hope it doesn't end up with that, but I do worry about it.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-07 13:24:48 and read 48463 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 64):
As to the discussion of when this happened ... I was actually on this flight, and I can confirm definitively that if there was a fire or smoke already present prior to landing, it certainly was not apparent to me in the cabin. I deplaned entirely normally with nothing seeming irregular at all.

  

Rely on the a.netters to be on the spot when something happens. Thanks for the report!

From the boston.com article:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 55):
“We found a fire condition about midships in the avionics compartment underneath,” he said. He said the fire began in a battery that was part of an auxiliary power unit that is only used when the plane is on the ground and its engines are turned off." '

Is it common to have batteries for ground power operations? Is this being done in other aircraft besides the highly electrical 787? Why? To smooth out power irregularities, to ride through power cuts, or what? It seems a big weight price to pay for an operation in the ground...

From the flightglobal article:

Quote:

The 787 is one of the first aircraft to use lithium ion batteries, which is used to drive the main and auxiliary power units, fire control electronics, emergency lighting and the recorder's independent power supply, The Airbus A380 also uses lithium ion batteries, but only to supply power to the emergency lighting system.

Ah, so this is another new technology in the 787, at least in this scale. This information seems to contradict the above boston.com claim that the batteries are only used on the ground.

Anyway, it seems that the flight testing fire, the recent diversion, and this incident are all different issues. I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of fire in an aircraft, but it does not seem that it is about a single design issue. Of course, no matter what the issues are, they have to be addressed... I'd claim that today's incident is very serious.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: mcdu
Posted 2013-01-07 13:37:18 and read 47660 times.

Two weeks ago I was shouted down on the 787 thread as being an alarmist. This airplane has serious issues and I am afraid it is going to result in a hull loss in the near future.

Boeing built an inferior quality airplane to what they have been known for building in the past?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2013-01-07 13:38:46 and read 47507 times.

Quoting apodino (Reply 82):
I hate to play this card..but was this a Washington built model or a South Carolina built model?

All JL B-787s delivered to date were Washington built airplanes.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: mcdu
Posted 2013-01-07 13:41:36 and read 47177 times.

Please delete. Duplicate posting

[Edited 2013-01-07 13:45:23]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-07 13:53:41 and read 46597 times.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/JAL65

I guess JAL doesn't think it warrants grounding their other 787s. That one left after the incident in BOS.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-07 13:57:09 and read 46484 times.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 63):
What if that plane had been over the pacific when this occurred???

Reports say that fire was from the battery that powers the APU while airplane is on the ground thus this could only happen when plane is on the ground like it did...or at least I hope so.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 77):

I was planning to take the 787 from LAX-NRT next month. I think I will wait a while. I am not afraid of flying, but I am afraid of crashing. Clearly the 787 has some electrical issues, apparently in the newer build models. Makes one think that there are manufacturing defects in some of the electrical equipment. If it was a design issue, we should have seen it in the earlier and not in the later builds. Obviously I am speculating as we have no factual data yet. Very fortunate that this happened on the ground!

Eeeh, I don't think you'll find a soul who actually isn't afraid of crashing. I think saying I would't fly on one is over-kill. Like someone posted earlier, a 777 had a fire over the Atlantic 400 miles from the nearest airport two weeks ago.. we didn't even hear about it.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-01-07 13:59:48 and read 46256 times.

Hope the plane is not damaged beyond repair.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 14:17:54 and read 45261 times.

I doubt the a/c is damaged beyond repair but as was pointed out above, this type of "fire event" cannot be fought in the air unless the area in question has built-in fire fighting equipment as say the engines. Any fire while airborne is extremely dangerous and one that is on an a/c which is deployed on an ETOPS route even more-so.

Hopefully this is a defect in the manufacture of the battery in question not a design issue. I don't recall previous incidents with the 788 involving a smoke/fire "event" involving a battery rather arc issues and other electrical snafus.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: twincommander
Posted 2013-01-07 14:18:26 and read 45239 times.

apparently no one here has heard of thermal runaway.

search thermal runaway on google.

if this was indeed the case, the aircraft isnt at fault here.

some of you ambulance chasers on here make me want to just delete my account. cant believe at what this forum has become.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: SKGSJULAX
Posted 2013-01-07 14:24:26 and read 44942 times.

Quoting twincommander (Reply 91):
some of you ambulance chasers on here make me want to just delete my account. cant believe at what this forum has become.

Wow! I guess you didn't know people on SR111 like some of us did. Thermal runaway in batteries is usually the result of improper handling or manufacturing defects. Either one is a big problem and any such incident in flight is likely to lead to a hull loss.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 14:29:15 and read 44517 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 84):
Two weeks ago I was shouted down on the 787 thread as being an alarmist. This airplane has serious issues and I am afraid it is going to result in a hull loss in the near future.

Boeing built an inferior quality airplane to what they have been known for building in the past?

Based on what metrics did you determine that the 787 is an inferior plane? Is it based on 3-4 events that you have read in the news?

Like I said earlier, the news pays a lot of attention to prominent airplanes and prominent airlines when looking for a story. There may be electrical problems that will need to be fixed. There is a regulatory and safety review board process that is extremely robust to help solve the problems. The certification requirements are only getting stricter with time.

If you think this is an inferior airplane based on 3-4 events in the news, then I think you should go look at the A320 entry into service. In 1988 – 1992, there were 4 hull losses for various reasons, some of which were pilot interface/fly by wire design problems. I’m not trying to insult the A320 since it has proven to be a great plane, but just point out how bad entry into service problems when new technology is being pushed can be. The 787 has pushed electrical technology. They are having some entry into service problems. I won’t discount that they are happening, but jumping to conclusions that the plane is inferior is not founded on logic or rationality in my opinion. Airworthiness Directives are public information (accessible on the FAA website). If we had major problems affecting safety, you’d be able to find the relevant ADs. Take a look to see if you can find any on the 787. And then pick your other favorite model and compare to see if you can answer your question.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 89):
Hope the plane is not damaged beyond repair.

It is amazing what can be repaired.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: MountainFlyer
Posted 2013-01-07 14:30:42 and read 44453 times.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 63):
I'm sorry folks, but this SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME!!! What if that plane had been over the pacific when this occurred??? After years of delays on the 787, are the airlines still dealing with an aircraft that's not ready for prime time and potentially dangerous?? So many questions...

No offense, but you sound like you should be writing for the media, whose job it is to purposely scare the living daylights out of the public with baseless ranting about things they know little about.

Try this quiz. Choose the more dangerous/likely option out of each pair:

Air travel - car travel?
Abduction - drowning in your pool?
Accidental gun deaths at home - drowning at home?
Sharks - cows?
Terrorist attacks - 4th of July?
Air travel - bicycles?
Falling from a high place - falling out of a chair/bed?
Nuclear power plants - every other kind of power plant?

If you guessed the first option in any one of the above options, you're wrong. Statistically, the second option of every pair is more likely to injure/kill you, in some cases FAR more likely, than the seemingly more menacing option of each pair. Why do we fear the first option of nearly every one of those combinations? Don't ask me where it started, but almost every one of those are media propagated fears. My point? Slow down before jumping to conclusions and making statements like that. If there is a problem, it will be found and fixed.

Quoting SKGSJULAX (Reply 79):
The FAA should ground the 787 immediately and investigate the entire series of electrical issues.

Are you an engineer for Boeing? How about for the FAA or NTSB? Do you have any facts to back up this claim or is this just your opinion? Perhaps if you have some facts that the FAA, NTSB, Boeing, or the airlines aren't aware of, you should call them and share so they can indeed ground the plane before someone gets hurt.

I don't mean to be rude, but again, slow down with the baseless fear mongering. I assure you, if there is a reason to ground the plane, the FAA will certainly do so. Anecdotal evidence from your local newspaper and CNN and all the armchair experts around the world who have no intimate knowledge of the specific situations is not a reason to ground the entire fleet of aircraft.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 74):
I'd suggest that you have the distinction wrong. The issue isn't "people" discounting concerns about electrical heat/arcing/fire. The issue is that some of us - myself included - see these as new aircraft teething problems not too much different from A380 wing spar cracking (for instance). If we are still having this discussion in two years, that's a different matter.

  

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: twincommander
Posted 2013-01-07 14:38:30 and read 43979 times.

Quoting SKGSJULAX (Reply 92):
Wow! I guess you didn't know people on SR111 like some of us did. Thermal runaway in batteries is usually the result of improper handling or manufacturing defects. Either one is a big problem and any such incident in flight is likely to lead to a hull loss.

nope. i didnt know anyone on SR111. not gonna lie.

i do, however, maintain batteries.

again, how is this the aircrafts fault? thermal runaway can happen, regardless of how new or old an aircraft, or better yet, the BATTERY is.

please, dont patronize me. A/C accidents are tragic, but blaming a type of airframe for a componet problem? think.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: SKGSJULAX
Posted 2013-01-07 14:38:48 and read 43915 times.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 94):
I assure you, if there is a reason to ground the plane, the FAA will certainly do so.

Good! We are in violent agreement then.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-07 14:46:38 and read 43454 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 84):
Boeing built an inferior quality airplane to what they have been known for building in the past?

Glad you have the question mark there, because we are being told that up to this point it has been similar or better to the preceding new airplane introductions.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 88):
Reports say that fire was from the battery that powers the APU while airplane is on the ground thus this could only happen when plane is on the ground like it did...or at least I hope so.

To me the notion that it could only happen on the ground is unclear at this point. We know it's the APU battery that had the issue, but beyond that, we don't know much.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: SOBHI51
Posted 2013-01-07 14:52:41 and read 43144 times.

Quoting twincommander (Reply 91):
some of you ambulance chasers on here make me want to just delete my account. cant believe at what this forum has become.

I see nobody stopping that action. This is a forum, people can give there opinions freely, some might be wrong, but still it's great for a discussion.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: IADCA
Posted 2013-01-07 14:53:26 and read 43169 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 88):
Like someone posted earlier, a 777 had a fire over the Atlantic 400 miles from the nearest airport two weeks ago.. we didn't even hear about it.

Yeah, and that plane diverted, landed safely, and taxiied to the gate. No fire department, no two-foot-high flames (which would have left some significant signs of their presence, I assume, even if put out in flight), and no recent history of unexplained serious electrical system issues on a small fleet.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 80):
Of course you always learn new things, and of course defects and oversights have known to occur, but still I wouldn't be that comfortable saying that a potentially high risk power-source is in use.

What's disturbing to me is that the 787 is groundbreaking in many ways. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the electrical system isn't really one of them, or at least it wasn't supposed to be. The fact that the plane was developed on an accelerated timeline with tons of complicated advances in other engineering areas gives me pause and makes me wonder if the everyone's eyes were looking elsewhere the whole time. Though this is in no way a problem of equivalent magnitude, it's sorta like the square windows on the deHavillant Comet (original). Everyone's focused on the jet engines, the speeds, the over-rotation issue that nobody notices a potentially massive problem in what should be a basic area, the shape of the windows.

Quoting twincommander (Reply 91):
apparently no one here has heard of thermal runaway.

search thermal runaway on google.

if this was indeed the case, the aircraft isnt at fault here.

some of you ambulance chasers on here make me want to just delete my account. cant believe at what this forum has become.

I think most people understand that lithium ion batteries can experience this phenomenon. Manufacturing defects in those batteries aren't Boeing's fault, but I think there's room for reasonable disagreement on whether an aircraft design that makes heavy use of them in areas that apparently don't have robust fire control systems is a wise one. I don't know enough to make even an educated guess about the answer to that question, but it certainly seems reasonable that there's a set of facts there in which Boeing has some 'splainin' to do for why lithium, why the batteries are where they are, and why - whether or not any of these issues are related to each other at all - the 787 seems to be experiencing a lot of teething problems, many of them involving sparks, smoke, possible flames, and the electrical system.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-01-07 14:56:53 and read 42949 times.

Quoting twincommander (Reply 91):
apparently no one here has heard of thermal runaway.

search thermal runaway on google.

if this was indeed the case, the aircraft isnt at fault here.

some of you ambulance chasers on here make me want to just delete my account. cant believe at what this forum has become.

Wow. A bit of an overraction, to say the least. The fact is that it's a new type and is bound to be subject to increased attention with issues like this.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: flyabr
Posted 2013-01-07 15:00:19 and read 42886 times.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 94):
No offense, but you sound like you should be writing for the media, whose job it is to purposely scare the living daylights out of the public with baseless ranting about things they know little about.

No offense taken! Despite your best efforts, nothing in your reply makes me less concerned about what just happened on that 787. I'd read about all the previous incidents; and really they didn't affect my perception of the plane. But, this event is somehow different and very disturbing to me! For the first time, I can honestly say I'd be nervous about flying on a 787 until there has been a thorough investigation and hopefully a fix implemented. Call that ridiculous if you like, but it's how I feel!  

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-07 15:01:31 and read 42461 times.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 100):
What's disturbing to me is that the 787 is groundbreaking in many ways. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the electrical system isn't really one of them

To a some extent it is.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 15:02:24 and read 42659 times.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 100):

What's disturbing to me is that the 787 is groundbreaking in many ways. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the electrical system isn't really one of them, or at least it wasn't supposed to be.

Actually the electrical system on the 787 has changed more and pushed technology further than any airplane since the 707. It does not have a pneumatic bleed system. Everything is electric. It has electric brakes. That has resulted in more electrical power required than any other airplane ever including AWACS version 767s and the E-2 Hawkeye.

Here are some words from Hamilton Sundstrand that designed the system:

Among the technical firsts for the more electric 787 is the Hamilton Sundstrand Electric Power Generating and Start System (EPGSS), which supplies nearly 1.5 megawatts of power, or enough to power about 400 homes, and more than five times the electric power on a Boeing 767. The EPGSS comprises an industry-unique electric start system. Hamilton Sundstrand's starter generators provided the first electric start of a turbofan engine on a large twin-aisle commercial jet transport.
The Hamilton Sundstrand APS 5000 Auxiliary Power Unit is Boeing's first more-electric APU. In the engine start sequence, the 1,100 shaft horsepower APU provides power to the engine-mounted Hamilton Sundstrand starter generators to start the engines.
http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com/vg...c96b991110VgnVCM1000007301000aRCRD


More detail:

http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com/St...787%20Fact%20Sheet_June%202011.pdf

If you remember history from 2007, the electrical system was what was holding up production and certification (along with many other things).

[Edited 2013-01-07 15:05:34]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: IADCA
Posted 2013-01-07 15:12:39 and read 41980 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 103):
To a some extent it is.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 104):
Actually the electrical system on the 787 has changed more and pushed technology further than any airplane since the 707. It does not have a pneumatic bleed system. Everything is electric. It has electric brakes. That has resulted in more electrical power required than any other airplane ever including AWACS version 767s and the E-2 Hawkeye.

Here are some words from Hamilton Sundstrand that designed the system:

Among the technical firsts for the more electric 787 is the Hamilton Sundstrand Electric Power Generating and Start System (EPGSS), which supplies nearly 1.5 megawatts of power, or enough to power about 400 homes, and more than five times the electric power on a Boeing 767. The EPGSS comprises an industry-unique electric start system. Hamilton Sundstrand's starter generators provided the first electric start of a turbofan engine on a large twin-aisle commercial jet transport.
The Hamilton Sundstrand APS 5000 Auxiliary Power Unit is Boeing's first more-electric APU. In the engine start sequence, the 1,100 shaft horsepower APU provides power to the engine-mounted Hamilton Sundstrand starter generators to start the engines.
http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com/vg...c96b991110VgnVCM1000007301000aRCRD

Thanks, guys. Always happy to learn something new. I can now see why so much more juice is required (although I suppose we're seeing the downside of that now).

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-07 15:15:44 and read 41878 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 84):

Two weeks ago I was shouted down on the 787 thread as being an alarmist. This airplane has serious issues and I am afraid it is going to result in a hull loss in the near future.

Boeing built an inferior quality airplane to what they have been known for building in the past?

Here we go again... I find your bashing of the 787 no surprise really.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 97):
To me the notion that it could only happen on the ground is unclear at this point. We know it's the APU battery that had the issue, but beyond that, we don't know much.

I agree, Reason I said 'Reports say'  

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-01-07 15:33:22 and read 40609 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 88):
Reports say that fire was from the battery that powers the APU while airplane is on the ground thus this could only happen when plane is on the ground like it did...or at least I hope so.

Don't you need an assurance that the APU will function correctly for ETOPS?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 15:34:22 and read 40502 times.

Lest this devolve into a finger pointing flame fest resulting in a thread lock, it would be more productive to understand what this is and is not in terms of the incident:

1. The MASSPORT fire brigade was extensively quoted as saying there was a fire. Not arcing, not just smoke but also an active fire which had to be supressed;

2. Quotes from the same firefighters point to the source as being a battery involved in the APU system, thermal imaging was used to pinpoint the location in a very smoky environment;

3. No injuries or passengers involved and its unclear if this incident could've happened in the air given batteries aren't generally needed when the engines are running;

4. This appears to be a different issue than the UA divert and the ZA002 incident both in description and location.

There is always some "risk" in employing new technology and the electrical system (which includes the panels, sub systems and APU) are different than previous aircraft. Its legitimate to wonder whether adequate testing on this technology took place (regardless of 'certifications') given incidents are happening in what appear to be benign and normal operating conditions in the air and on the ground.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-07 15:36:42 and read 40424 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 107):
Don't you need an assurance that the APU will function correctly for ETOPS?
Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 88):
Reports say that fire was from the battery that powers the APU while airplane is on the ground...

If this system is only engaged when on the ground, then it is not relevant to ETOPS.

[Edited 2013-01-07 15:40:16]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-01-07 15:37:58 and read 40351 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 108):
4. This appears to be a different issue than the UA divert and the ZA002 incident both in description and location.

Different issue of different symptom? All cases could be due to inadequate management of the power supply system. Besides thermal runaway, the battery could also catch fire because it was there was too much current demand, had been overcharged or was connected to a short.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AR385
Posted 2013-01-07 15:42:03 and read 40007 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 109):
If this system is only engaged when on the ground, then it is not relevant to ETOPS.

I thought that if you loose an engine on ETOPS you need to have the APU on at all times?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 15:42:46 and read 40116 times.

Both the UA divert and the ZA002 incident were focused on the electrical panel and assorted subsystems. To my knowledge, they did not involve issues with any battery. The UA divert also involved two generators, again not batteries.

On a positive note, JL 65 from SAN to NRT (another 788) appears on schedule over the Pacific.   

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-01-07 15:44:57 and read 39872 times.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 111):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 109):
If this system is only engaged when on the ground, then it is not relevant to ETOPS.

I thought that if you loose an engine on ETOPS you need to have the APU on at all times?

They were probably only referring to normal operation, not non-normal or MMEL operations.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-07 15:46:41 and read 39809 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 107):
Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 88):
Reports say that fire was from the battery that powers the APU while airplane is on the ground thus this could only happen when plane is on the ground like it did...or at least I hope so.

Don't you need an assurance that the APU will function correctly for ETOPS?

To be clear, the battery is there to start the APU, not to run it. Once the APU starts, its two generators go on-line and provide enough power to start one main engine then the other. The APU isn't normally used in-flight AFAIK.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 108):
Its legitimate to wonder whether adequate testing on this technology took place (regardless of 'certifications') given incidents are happening in what appear to be benign and normal operating conditions in the air and on the ground.

It's legitimate, and on the other hand, it's also quite possible this really is nothing more than an unfortunate set of coincidences, no one is publicly saying at this point. It's pretty clear to me that everyone involved will want to get to the root cause(s) as quickly as possible. It's also clear to me that PR types will want to put the best possible spin on things, but that's just a fact of life going back many decades now, and even more heightened in these days of instantaneous communication.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: D L X
Posted 2013-01-07 15:47:11 and read 39764 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 109):
If this system is only engaged when on the ground, then it is not relevant to ETOPS.

If this system is only engaged while on the ground... why does it have to be on the plane at all? Why not a box at the airport that plugs into the plane when it needs it?

Honest question.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-01-07 15:49:17 and read 39644 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 114):

To be clear, the battery is there to start the APU, not to run it. Once the APU starts, its two generators go on-line and provide enough power to start one main engine then the other. The APU isn't normally used in-flight AFAIK.

It's not, but it's required for ETOPS if an engine fails.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-07 15:49:56 and read 39687 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
LiIon batteries anyone?

It's funny, my first thought was a battery in luggage/cargo caught fire, but I wasn't really far off. Any time an aircraft spontaneously catches fire on the ground, batteries are the first thing to suspect.

That it was an onboard battery isn't meaningful unless there is a design or manufacturing defect that is widespread (see certain laptop/iPod batteries in the past). Parts fail, even new parts.

NTSB and FAA will investigate this, and we will find out if it was a defective battery, flawed battery design, bad connection, or something else. Does make me worry a bit as a flying customer simply because "unexplained fires are a thing of the past" isn't that reassuring. (See Canyonaro from the Simpsons).

Glad nobody was hurt, interesting to know how this will be repaired. If some of the aircraft parts melted, how do you fix that on a composite aircraft?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 15:51:29 and read 39542 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 115):
If this system is only engaged while on the ground... why does it have to be on the plane at all? Why not a box at the airport that plugs into the plane when it needs it?

Honest question.

The power requirements of this a/c are higher than any other passenger jet IIRC. Also, there are times when ground power may not be available at all and the APU is required to run systems and to start the engines. The engines on the 787 are started electrically which is different than previous passenger jets.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-07 15:59:26 and read 39077 times.

Quoting twincommander (Reply 91):
apparently no one here has heard of thermal runaway.

I'd venture to guess most on here have. The FAA certainly has, and they highlighted their concerns and proposed conditions on the use of Lithium batteries on the 787 here:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...ment&ExpandSection=-7,-4#_Section7

edit: you may also need to click the arrow to expand lower section "Proposed Special Conditions Information"

That said, we don't even know if this was a case of thermal runaway. If it was, refer to above document again before deciding on where to assign blame.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 108):
No injuries or passengers involved

This is the main thing. Thankfully everyone had deplaned and it was detected early on. I think the only injury was relatively minor - involving a fireman and skin irritation from the suppressant.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 112):
The UA divert also involved two generators, again not batteries.

I think it was determined to be an issue with the panels, rather than gens.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 112):
On a positive note, JL 65 from SAN to NRT (another 788) appears on schedule over the Pacific.

Unfortunately, UA's experience today hasn't been quite as positive. The NRT flight UA32 is still stuck at LAX and is showing a 5 hour delay - it returned to gate earlier. Two other flights (1426/1101) were subbed with 757s.

[Edited 2013-01-07 16:06:52]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-01-07 16:01:31 and read 39033 times.

I don't know what kind of batteries are used in 787, but at least consumer grade LiXX batteries are quite a hazard. They store a substantial amount of energy and they can start burning in case of a short-circuit, over or even under voltage.

Example of a LiPo fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ5xoAsDXc4
Example of a LiIon fire due to penetration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvUjIWEVRnY

Both emit a lot of white smoke when "on fire". Each plane is full of them in various devices (computers, phones, cameras), which I think can easily be used as a threat to hijack a plane (pull battery out of a computer and threaten to short-circuit it; maybe one is not enough, but a few hijackers would be a threat).

In any case, something triggered batteries on this plane. Given that it has an unusually high (or at least media reported) number of electricity problems, one should consider an option that all these events are somehow connected.

Reasonable or not, personally I will make sure I'm not flying a 787 in the near future. You can call me any kind of names you want, I couldn't care less  

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-01-07 16:04:28 and read 38714 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 108):
No injuries or passengers involved and its unclear if this incident could've happened in the air given batteries aren't generally needed when the engines are running;

"Not needed" is not the same as "not connected to the airplane electric circuit in some way". They need to be charged.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AR385
Posted 2013-01-07 16:05:04 and read 38708 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 115):
why does it have to be on the plane at all? Why not a box at the airport that plugs into the plane when it needs it?

Infrastructure. Some airports don´t have/can´t afford that equipment.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 16:07:43 and read 38776 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 113):
Quoting AR385 (Reply 111):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 109):
If this system is only engaged when on the ground, then it is not relevant to ETOPS.

I thought that if you loose an engine on ETOPS you need to have the APU on at all times?

They were probably only referring to normal operation, not non-normal or MMEL operations.

The 787 can be dispatched on ETOPS flight with an inoperative APU. Usually the APU is not required to be operative. The 737NG is a special case because it is ETOPS capable but doesn't have a RAT.

[Edited 2013-01-07 16:08:30]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-01-07 16:10:06 and read 38431 times.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 121):
"Not needed" is not the same as "not connected to the airplane electric circuit in some way". They need to be charged.

That is a fair point. For the sake of the airlines and passengers alike, I'd much prefer an isolated mfr defect in the battery itself rather than a complex design issue with the whole electrical system (on top of the other electrical issues experienced by the 787).

I'm sure the UA Flt 32 passengers are feeling wonderful about now. A five hour delay which gives them plenty of time to hear of the BOS incident. ETD in six minutes.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: MountainFlyer
Posted 2013-01-07 16:12:03 and read 38298 times.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 102):
Despite your best efforts, nothing in your reply makes me less concerned about what just happened on that 787. I'd read about all the previous incidents; and really they didn't affect my perception of the plane. But, this event is somehow different and very disturbing to me! For the first time, I can honestly say I'd be nervous about flying on a 787 until there has been a thorough investigation and hopefully a fix implemented. Call that ridiculous if you like, but it's how I feel!

Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. My point was not so much to change your opinion; more so to point out the irrationality of media fear mongering. The whole purpose of the media is to sell news, and bad/scary/tragic news sells a whole lot better than good news, so they they actually profit from scaring people.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: KC135Hydraulics
Posted 2013-01-07 16:13:27 and read 38339 times.

Seems to me like a case is being made that "all electrical" isn't the way forward. Let's get some bleed air ducts back in here, let's re-install some hydraulic pumps and go back to proven technology (and keep me employed, dangit!)!!!

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-07 16:13:44 and read 38419 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 116):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 114):
To be clear, the battery is there to start the APU, not to run it. Once the APU starts, its two generators go on-line and provide enough power to start one main engine then the other. The APU isn't normally used in-flight AFAIK.

It's not, but it's required for ETOPS if an engine fails.

Yes, I'm sure ETOPS regulations make all of this an interesting exercise. It's clear the two gens on the non-failed engine could start the APU, but I have no idea if that's good enough for ETOPS, or whether or not a failed battery before takeoff means ETOPS is ruled out, or if a failed battery during flight leads to a diversion.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Skydrol
Posted 2013-01-07 16:16:11 and read 38172 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 88):
Reports say that fire was from the battery that powers the APU while airplane is on the ground thus this could only happen when plane is on the ground like it did

Since when can Li-Ion batteries not experience thermal runaway at any time or altitude from internal shorts or manufacturing defects? "Reports" are strange sometimes. However, the airplane's fire supression and safety systems should be designed with expectation this will happen, not if it might.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 77):
I am not afraid of flying, but I am afraid of crashing.

Not afraid of either. Being an airplane fanatic, an airplane crash would be the appropriate way to go vs. car accident, earth quake, heart attack. So I never worry about it. If it ever happens, I died doing what I love to do.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 100):
Though this is in no way a problem of equivalent magnitude, it's sorta like the square windows on the deHavillant Comet (original). Everyone's focused on the jet engines, the speeds, the over-rotation issue that nobody notices a potentially massive problem in what should be a basic area, the shape of the windows.

Guess I wasn't the only one with similar [Comet] concerns regarding the groundbreaking design of the 787.




✈ LD4 ✈

[Edited 2013-01-07 16:22:31]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: N766UA
Posted 2013-01-07 16:17:53 and read 38127 times.

I definitely thought this thread was either about JAL doing REALLY well in Boston or them allowing smoking on their jets. Might wanna change the title, it's confusing.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-07 16:20:07 and read 37938 times.

Aren't all APUs started with a battery ?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Skydrol
Posted 2013-01-07 16:26:18 and read 37721 times.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 129):
I definitely thought this thread was either about JAL doing REALLY well in Boston or them allowing smoking on their jets.

... or a photo of one of their planes with a super-sized blunt hanging out of the nose wheel bay.



✈ LD4 ✈

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BMI727
Posted 2013-01-07 16:30:20 and read 37513 times.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 131):

Well, unless the cargo manifest included Snoop Dogg, I feel pretty safe saying that something went wrong there.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-07 16:31:05 and read 37496 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 123):
The 787 can be dispatched on ETOPS flight with an inoperative APU.

Thanks for the clarification.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: okie
Posted 2013-01-07 16:31:55 and read 37536 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 110):
. Besides thermal runaway, the battery could also catch fire because it was there was too much current demand, had been overcharged or was connected to a short.

Thank you Rick.
You quite well point out the major issues that I have seen with Ion battery fires. A Short.
While we have no other information, what we do know is there have been issues with the power panels.
There is the possibility that the battery fire is a result of a short in a panel not the originator. We will have to wait for an official incident report or if Boeing has a press release.

Quoting D L X (Reply 115):
If this system is only engaged while on the ground... why does it have to be on the plane at all? Why not a box at the airport that plugs into the plane when it needs it?

The plane can be powered by the APU, a Ground Service Unit (GSU), or Utility Power.
There have been issues with the APU on short time shut downs and the APU supplier is recommending not to shut down the APU until issues have been resolved with the APU.
There have been issues trying to power the plane with GSU's that are worn out and can not produce the proper amount of current required.
I have no idea why they are not using Utility Power from the gate area, it would seem much more cost effective.

Okie

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-01-07 16:35:26 and read 37337 times.

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 126):
Seems to me like a case is being made that "all electrical" isn't the way forward.

It seems that with a system as complex as jetliner, there simply can be no disruption or revolution, just slow, careful evolution.

A simple design change in DC10 (outward opening cargo doors) proved to be catastrophic*. With a system as complex as an 787, we simply don't know all the possible states and which of those are potentially dangerous or catastrophic.

A380 is more conservative, but still it's facing its own problems - but so far they do seem more of a business problem than potentially catastrophic.

*interesting fact: MD knew about the problem as the doors have failed during their internal test, but they did not fix it. I remember somebody mentioning that "the documentation about the fire on the testing 787 is not a public, it's Boeing's trade secret." Well, that only works until there are no victims... after that, it's called negligence or even an involuntary manslaughter.

[Edited 2013-01-07 16:53:44]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-01-07 16:40:58 and read 37006 times.

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 126):
Seems to me like a case is being made that "all electrical" isn't the way forward.

I see no basis for that conclusion. I see a case being made that "all electrical" is hard, perhaps harder than expected. I certainly see no reason to think that it's a technology on the edge to the extent of, say, the chamber pressures in the SSME -- and even that problem was largely tamed with time.

When you look at the maintenance and engineering benefit of getting rid of all that darn pneumatic bleed stuff, I don't think that Boeing is going to give up on "all electric" any time soon.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: TheSultanOfWing
Posted 2013-01-07 16:53:48 and read 36463 times.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 120):

Reasonable or not, personally I will make sure I'm not flying a 787 in the near future. You can call me any kind of names you want, I couldn't care less  

Surely there's no need for name calling by anyone. If you feel unsafe, by all means don't book / board. Your prerogative!
I guess I'd approach it a bit different than you......in fact, I thought this was rather apt:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 128):

Being an airplane fanatic, an airplane crash would be the appropriate way to go vs. car accident, earth quake, heart attack. So I never worry about it. If it ever happens, I died doing what I love to do.

Having lurked on this site for quite a bit, I believe there are some Boeing folks active on this site.
Interesting that they haven't shone their light on this incident just yet.


FH.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: FI642
Posted 2013-01-07 16:58:51 and read 36173 times.

Okay, let's keep this in prospective. This was a completely different incident. No commercial aircraft has been without
issue when introduced. No one was injured, there was not a crash, the hull was not lost. This is a new aircraft type,
totally new technology. Things happen. Imagine in a few years what this aircraft will be doing. Who would imagine
the 741 would be doing what the 748 is doing now.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-01-07 17:01:42 and read 36054 times.

Well, it would certainly be "good news" if it was a defective battery versus an airframe issue, but there is no denying that perception is going to take control of reality if these things keep happening.

-Dave

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: N766UA
Posted 2013-01-07 17:07:56 and read 35843 times.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 131):
... or a photo of one of their planes with a super-sized blunt hanging out of the nose wheel bay.

I definitely thought about MSPainting that…  

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-07 17:17:55 and read 35360 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 139):
Well, it would certainly be "good news" if it was a defective battery versus an airframe issue

On the other hand, the airframe is supposed to prevent any such issues - particularly considering the increased risks of using lithium ion batteries. It may well end up being a case similar to the Laredo incident - where it took FOD to expose another issue resulting in changes to software architecture.

Anyway, I hope someone leaks photos of the interior damage soon   

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-07 17:23:14 and read 35092 times.

I seem to remember a teething issue of the A380 caused an electric fire.

Nobody answered me about starting APUs with batteries.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-01-07 17:26:14 and read 34866 times.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 138):
Okay, let's keep this in prospective. This was a completely different incident. No commercial aircraft has been without issue when introduced. No one was injured, there was not a crash, the hull was not lost. This is a new aircraft type, totally new technology.

Well, that certainly is one way to look at it.

On the other hand, rather than repeating the "no aircraft has been without issues" it would be interesting to dig deeper and get some numbers... how many flights have been delayed / canceled or whatever due to tech problems in the first 12 months, per number of airplanes in service?

The fact that no one was injured is irrelevant. Without understanding what and why happened, you can't say it couldn't happen 1hour later, with quite a different outcome. From the known facts you can only conclude that "it seems that batteries were on fire - cause unknown". You can't say this plane was not just really, really lucky to be on the ground at the time of the incident.

Last, "totally new technology" can not be a reason to dismiss severe problems. I mean, really, from a distance it's "just an airplane" that takes passengers from point A to point B, not a teleport. You can not justify increased risk by saying "but hey, it's new technology".

Even more so, because it's not at all about the technology. It's about profit. "20% less fuel per person", "10% lower operating cost", "45% more cargo revenue" and so on. Technology is a tool that makes it possible, but it should first and foremost be safe.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: MountainFlyer
Posted 2013-01-07 17:31:11 and read 34666 times.

Quoting TheSultanOfWing (Reply 136):
Having lurked on this site for quite a bit, I believe there are some Boeing folks active on this site.
Interesting that they haven't shone their light on this incident just yet.

It is highly likely that even if they are aware of the specific details at this point they are forbidden from publicly discussing it until an investigation is complete and the appropriate sources release the information. Such rules are in place to help prevent rampant misinformation from circulating ahead of a proper investigation.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: PC12Fan
Posted 2013-01-07 17:41:41 and read 34347 times.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. I've always been a Boeing fan through and through, but there is something about the 787 I just don't trust. This only re-enforces my hesitation.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: okie
Posted 2013-01-07 17:43:52 and read 34216 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 129):
Aren't all APUs started with a battery ?

I would think so but we do not know the architecture of the 87 if it will start off the main buss and/or the battery.

If the APU can be started off the main buss then that would be a connection through a power panel.

We are just going to have to wait for a report.

All we know for sure is that the fire involved the APU battery. We do not know if it is the result of something involving a power panel, a problem with the APU battery charging system, luggage/container or ramp agents damaging a cable, or just a bad battery.


Okie

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: TheSultanOfWing
Posted 2013-01-07 17:45:56 and read 34134 times.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 144):

It is highly likely that even if they are aware of the specific details at this point they are forbidden from publicly discussing it until an investigation is complete and the appropriate sources release the information.

That makes a lot of sense......shame, but it does! Bummer!
I guess we'll have to wait and see till the facts come out.

FH

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: pliersinsight
Posted 2013-01-07 17:51:57 and read 33918 times.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 139):

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 131):
... or a photo of one of their planes with a super-sized blunt hanging out of the nose wheel bay.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 131):
Well, unless the cargo manifest included Snoop Dogg, I feel pretty safe saying that something went wrong there.

Perhaps if the incident location was KDEN such conclusions wouldn't be so...half baked.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: aviateur
Posted 2013-01-07 17:53:51 and read 33985 times.

If you're a New Englander, you can watch me on WBZ-TV news being interviewed about this incident.

Who knows how they'll edit the footage, but what I said, basically, is this...


Apparently the fire broke out in the jet's auxiliary power unit compartment. The APU is a small turbine engine located under the tail, used to provide air and electricity when the main engines aren't running. There are one or more batteries in this compartment, used to start the APU. One firefighter says he believed the battery was the source of the fire, but this is unconfirmed.

APU compartments are equipped with fire detection and extinguishing systems. Had this fire started while the plane was aloft, the crew would have use this system to extinguish the fire. Without the crew on board, it would have been up to ground personnel. Jets have interior and exterior alarms that will alert ground staff to an APR fire, but workers may not have realized right away that a fire had broken out.

Whether or not this incident has ANYTHING to do with the 787's newness and teething problems is not known. It could be some entirely random event that in no way indicates a problem with the plane's design.


Patrick Smith

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BMI727
Posted 2013-01-07 18:03:40 and read 33723 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 145):
To learn from their burning cars ?

Fisker is the one with burning cars, although plenty of gasoline cars ignite themselves as well, particularly Italian ones. Tesla is the one that had to get a court case thrown out in order to sell their own cars.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 151):
It could be some entirely random event that in no way indicates a problem with the plane's design.

It could also be a supplier problem with the battery rather than the plane itself. Granted, bad subcontractors can hurt the reputations and bottom line of the companies they supply, but it still warrants waiting to see what actually happened.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: ChrisNH
Posted 2013-01-07 18:07:08 and read 33687 times.

In about 90 minutes we'll know what JAL is sending to Boston for tomorrow's arrival. WHDH Boston is saying JAL is 'grounding' the 787, but they also hysterically and excitedly called today's plane a 'jumbo jet.'

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2013-01-07 18:17:50 and read 33227 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 55):
He said the fire began in a battery that was part of an auxiliary power unit that is only used when the plane is on the ground and its engines are turned off." '
Quoting flyabr (Reply 63):
What if that plane had been over the pacific when this occurred???

Hopefully this could therefore not happen when in flight, unless there is a mass issue with the batteries themselves which lead them to combust whether in use or not. Boeing will find out asap.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 68):
My mistake. The accidents were 6 months apart. The first was AF447.

Also the IY A310 off the Comoroes (I think).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 76):
Even if there was no real fire, the smoke itself can be even worse. If this happens in flight it will be very hard to extinguish the smoke and people could start choking.

Yes, like the AC DC9 which diverted to CVG (I think it was).

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 93):
Based on what metrics did you determine that the 787 is an inferior plane? Is it based on 3-4 events that you have read in the news?

Good job there was not the media and live streaming and a.net back when the 707, DC8, 1-11, 727 and others had teething problems.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 106):
Don't you need an assurance that the APU will function correctly for ETOPS?
Quoting AR385 (Reply 110):

I thought that if you loose an engine on ETOPS you need to have the APU on at all times?

Isnt this what the RAT is for? It drops in flight in case of a power failure to power basic systems, not the APU?

Quoting N766UA (Reply 128):
I definitely thought this thread was either about JAL doing REALLY well in Boston or them allowing smoking on their jets

Boeing staff enjoying Washington states new relaxed pot laws with their customers or some poor engineer left his stash of weed behind prior to delivery   

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-07 18:19:47 and read 33264 times.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 58):
If this occurred midflight with a plane full of passengers it could have potentially been catastrophic - even if there was no "fire".

Both equipment bays are vented to an outflow valve. If there is smoke in an equipment bay when the airplane is pressurized, no smoke will enter the cabin. When the airplane is parked and there is no pressurization and the packs are not running, smoke from below the floor can easily reverse through the return air grills into the cabin.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 78):
“Anything that involves a fire does not get the luxury of being called a teething problem,” Carter Leake, an analyst at BB&T Capital Markets in Richmond, Virginia, said by telephone.

  

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 103):
Actually the electrical system on the 787 has changed more and pushed technology further than any airplane since the 707. It does not have a pneumatic bleed system.

The irony of today's incident is it appears to have nothing to do with the 787s more-electric systems architecture. The APU battery is a 28v battery, the same as any other commercial jet. The one difference being the 787 uses Li-Ion cells rather than Ni-Cad. Boeing could have just as easily used a Ni-Cad battery for the APU, and perhaps should have   

Quoting aviateur (Reply 151):
Who knows how they'll edit the footage, but what I said, basically, is this...

Apparently the fire broke out in the jet's auxiliary power unit compartment.

The APU battery is in the aft equipment bay (near the main gear) not in the APU compartment.

[Edited 2013-01-07 18:24:44]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: mandala499
Posted 2013-01-07 18:26:49 and read 32950 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 116):
NTSB and FAA will investigate this, and we will find out if it was a defective battery, flawed battery design, bad connection, or something else.

Or... it could be as simple as more than 2 consecutive APU starts in less than 5 mins... (stated as a limitation for the 787).

Quoting s5daw (Reply 120):
They need to be charged.

Eventually... Unfortunately, one needs a more detailed manual than the FCOM...

Quoting okie (Reply 148):
I would think so but we do not know the architecture of the 87 if it will start off the main buss and/or the battery.

APU start comes from the "Large Motor Power System" (and Large Motor Controllers)... LMPS power comes from:
Aft External Power, the 235VAC bus (itself powered by the APU, Engines, or the 115VAC system) and APU Battery (specifically for APU starts).

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AR385
Posted 2013-01-07 18:28:17 and read 32724 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 154):
Isnt this what the RAT is for? It drops in flight in case of a power failure to power basic systems, not the APU?

I believe the RAT only deploys when both engines are gone.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: okie
Posted 2013-01-07 18:57:09 and read 31770 times.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 156):
APU start comes from the "Large Motor Power System" (and Large Motor Controllers)... LMPS power comes from:
Aft External Power, the 235VAC bus (itself powered by the APU, Engines, or the 115VAC system) and APU Battery (specifically for APU starts

Thanks mandala,
So there is a possibility of a power panel/contactor/software issue it would seem.

Okie

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-07 19:05:05 and read 31588 times.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 153):
WHDH Boston is saying JAL is 'grounding' the 787

Well they're certainly grounding this 787, which could be what they're actually reporting without even knowing it. ("The" 787 could refer to this particular one.)

We'll see what they do about the others they own. They seem to have flown at least one after this incident occurred.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-07 19:07:27 and read 31487 times.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 157):
I believe the RAT only deploys when both engines are gone.

The RAT deploys based on electrical power source availability. Losing both engines is probably the most dramatic way to achieve RAT deployment, but it can and will deploy with both engines running.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-01-07 19:17:09 and read 31079 times.

Quoting okie (Reply 148):
All we know for sure is that the fire involved the APU battery.

How can electrical safety measures function when the wires are burning? Apologies to Midnight Oil.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-07 19:40:26 and read 30419 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 159):
Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 153):WHDH Boston is saying JAL is 'grounding' the 787


Well they're certainly grounding this 787, which could be what they're actually reporting without even knowing it. ("The" 787 could refer to this particular one.)

We'll see what they do about the others they own. They seem to have flown at least one after this incident occurred.

JAL 008 is airborne and on its way to BOS--listed as a 788

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: okie
Posted 2013-01-07 19:40:29 and read 30524 times.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 161):
How can electrical safety measures function when the wires are burning? Apologies to Midnight Oil.

JAL may be singing

The time has come
A fact is a fact
It belongs to them
Let's give it back.
 


The concept is to provide a fail-safe design before ignition/failure, whether using mechanical interlocks, auxiliary switches for interlocks, thermal devices, fuses, or software.


Okie

Now you see what I did: that song is going to be playing in your head all night.

[Edited 2013-01-07 19:42:58]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-07 19:49:15 and read 30118 times.

Nobody appears to be grounding anything yet--ANA, JAL and UAL all have airplanes airborne as we speak.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-07 19:54:15 and read 29922 times.

Thanks for the answers. Another possibility would be to use Lithium Iron batteries, I read they're safer than common Lithium Ion ones.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 152):
Fisker is the one with burning cars

Right, I tend to confuse their two sedans, since the only one I'm interested in is the Tesla roadster.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Humanitarian
Posted 2013-01-07 20:05:10 and read 29747 times.

Interesting comment in the WSJ. Partial excerpt:

Quote:
The auxiliary battery, made with lithium ion components, may have been damaged by a fire ax, exacerbating the situation, said a person familiar with the incident.
Posted 2013-01-07 20:05:12 and read 29690 times.

If it was the lithium ion battery that caused the fire, it seems to me that is significant. These batteries have caused a number of fires in aircraft - didn't this type of battery cause the 747 crash recently in the Middle-East? What is it about these batteries that make them so prone to explosions/fires?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-07 20:18:06 and read 29395 times.

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 166):

Interesting comment in the WSJ. Partial excerpt:

Quote:
The auxiliary battery, made with lithium ion components, may have been damaged by a fire ax, exacerbating the situation, said a person familiar with the incident.

The 787 APU battery is housed in a very robust steel case. The case is vented, but it is a very secure enclosure. It is also in a very small/confined space. If a firefighter went after it with an ax, it is doubtful he/she actually was able to damage the battery because of its enclosure. Also, due to the very cramped quarters of the aft equipment bay, if someone was swinging an ax in there, it is hard to imagine there not being considerable collateral damage.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-07 20:19:06 and read 29212 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 167):
idn't this type of battery cause the 747 crash recently in the Middle-East? What is it about these batteries that make them so prone to explosions/fires?

Better question is, why do the manufacturers keep using them especially if there's an alternative.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-07 20:24:03 and read 29181 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 169):
Better question is, why do the manufacturers keep using them especially if there's an alternative.

For the same reason Li-Ion batteries are used in your phone, iPad and laptop computer: Li-Ion batteries are smaller, lighter, and have a more stable power output than Ni-Cad batteries.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-07 20:32:08 and read 28803 times.

I haven't had the capabilities to check and see if there was damage reported, was there any?




Anyone else know why AVHerald is slower than usual reporting on this?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-07 20:36:52 and read 28697 times.

Is AVherald going to report this at all, considering it was a ground incident?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-07 20:38:32 and read 28933 times.

Looks like Uniteds 787 at LAX, going to MET, is grounded and cancelled due to engine trouble according to a contact on that flight. She was rebooked to tomorrow. I have a feeling this is related.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-07 20:41:55 and read 28647 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 173):
Looks like Uniteds 787 at LAX, going to MET, is grounded and cancelled due to engine trouble according to a contact on that flight. She was rebooked to tomorrow. I have a feeling this is related.

Because??????

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-07 20:44:37 and read 28667 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 174):




Well my friend mentioned that because of the Boston incident they were delayed for inspections. After the inspection they found something wrong with the engine. They mentioned its normally something small but they didn't wanna risk anything catching on fire so UA cancelled the flight. My friend's words.


Edit: check in is 5am; delayed till tomorrow. They checked the pax in hotels.

[Edited 2013-01-07 20:54:10]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-07 20:50:34 and read 28376 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 172):
Is AVherald going to report this at all, considering it was a ground incident?

What makes you think they only report air incidents?

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=450fb85b&opt=0

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-07 21:05:14 and read 28280 times.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 4):
We'll probably hear soon again how this is electrical arcing and not a real fire.

I doubt it...all sources so far seem to be pointing at a battery fire. Li-Ion battery fires are pretty well etablished, and 28VDC isn't going to get you much of an arc.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
What causes a battery to start emitting smoke?

They are low voltage devices so it's presumably not an arc/plasma event.

Thermal runaway. The battery heats up, melts, then catches fire. The initial heating is an internal electrical issue but once it get's going it's mostly chemistry.

Quoting wingnutmn (Reply 35):
This is what, the 3rd or 4th fire or smoke incident from a battery or avionics?

First in service, as far as I know. The ZA002 one was certainly a smoke incident. I don't think any of the other in service events were associated with fire/smoke, just electrical systems shutting down. The United one had some fears but, per ARFF in New Orleans, there were no signs of fire or smoke.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 39):
It was likely an arch. No fire. Fire department is probably wrong. Those guys don't know what a fire is. Again, this is totally normal.

I know you're being sarcastic, but why would anyone take that approach? These are, based on all available evidence, very different events. Why would the response to one be applied to the other?

Quoting F9animal (Reply 39):
Does anyone know which factory this plane came from by chance?

Aren't all the current JAL deliveries from Puget Sound?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
Which is precisely why it is a very big deal. When a fire develops halfway between HNL and SYD, it is a very big deal. There are not many frames in service and this is the second fire.

It's not the second fire, but that's a different argument. That battery doesn't do anything in flight so I'm not sure how this would happen half way between HNL and SYD.

Quoting United727 (Reply 51):
Enter TDSCanuck...Until I hear it from him (his take on the issue), I'm really not concerned.

Tom, your thoughts??

I take one day to go travelling and the universe blows up (pun only slightly intended). Like all other problems, I think this is interesting. So far as I can tell from the press, this is a new problem. I haven't heard of the batteries being implicated in anything before. But all the publicized stuff is electrical so it's natural to look for connections...the aviation geek in me is glad the NTSB is on this so that there will probably be a public report and we can all get down and technical with it. This is obviously bad PR, potentially damaging to the aircraft, hell on schedule reliability, and, worst case, would trigger a ground evacuation. However, because it's a ground system I'm not sure what the flight exposure is.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 58):
I'm a big Boeing fan but I would definitely consider an electrical problem that results in heavy smoke throughout the entire cabin something that is definitely NOT normal and significantly "worse" than all of the cracking in the A388.

In flight, the airflow would keep the smoke in the lower lobe and it would go out the aft vent. Smoke containment is a huge deal for the regulators and it's tested and certified (by dumping huge quantities of smoke into the relevant bays while flying and showing that it stays down there). If there's a threat, it's to ancillary damage to the surrounding equipment, not inflight smoke.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 58):
If this occurred midflight with a plane full of passengers it could have potentially been catastrophic - even if there was no "fire".

This is the really interesting question...based on my understanding of the system, I'm not sure this could happen in flight. However, if it did, I'd love to know what design cases were considered in how the surrounding systems are located. Thermal runaway of a battery is a well known potential risk so I'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't a design case.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 60):
Won´t the above have an impact on ETOPS?

Maybe, but if the system is only used on the ground then no.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 63):
I'm sorry folks, but this SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME!!! What if that plane had been over the pacific when this occurred???

As I said, I'm not sure it could occur over the Pacific but, if it did, the smoke isn't a bid deal. It's damage to surrounding equipment that might be. But I would hope that's designed for...if not, I'd be curious how the battery risk was theoretically designed out.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 69):
Maybe people will now start to take seriously the concerns of some on this board that the myriad of electrical problems that we have been seeing on the 787 add up to something rather than dismissing us as kooks and conspiracy theorists.

I'm not sure anyone has been dismissed as a kook. The only ones I know of that were accused of being conspiracy theorists were the ones who claimed there actually was a conspiracy to coverup the ZA002 event (which makes it true by definition). But if it "adds up to something", what does it add up to? The only common thread I see is that the issues are on the electrical system, but it seems to be different issues. Given that the 787 is far more electric, we should expect a higher rate of electrical issues (and an equivalently lower rate of pneumatic and hydraulic issues). I'd be curious how the 787 electrical rate compares to the electric+hydraulic+pneumatic rate of other new type EIS.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 69):
You are not successfully fighting this in the the air.

You couldn't even try. There is no aft EE bay access in flight in a commercial interior.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 75):
It goes on to say that the 787 uses lithium-ion batteries, the ones that have caused problems in the past, to drive the main APU and fire control electronics. It doesn't explicitly say that it was a Li-ion battery that exploded, but indicates as such.

The APU battery doesn't *drive* the main APU or the fire control electronics. It's just there to start the APU on the ground (and potentially in flight in the event of dual engine failure but I'm not sure about that). The ship's battery (which is used to start up the airplane and does drive fire control until the generators come online) is the same part number but installed differently.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 75):
Now obviously everything in the aircraft has been certified, but surely its not sensible to use a potentially high risk power-source for the fire control electronics!?

All batteries are high risk power-sources because they're energy storage devices...if you short them or have thermal runaway (which is not unique to Lithium-Ion) then they release their energy quickly and spectacularly.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 76):
Even if there was no real fire, the smoke itself can be even worse. If this happens in flight it will be very hard to extinguish the smoke and people could start choking.

In flight, the ECS system keeps the smoke from getting from the lower lobe to the upper. Nobody's going to choke.

Quoting SKGSJULAX (Reply 79):
The FAA should ground the 787 immediately and investigate the entire series of electrical issues.

On what grounds? Battery failures are not unique to the 787...should we ground all aircraft that have a battery failure? Or all aircraft that have a fire?

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 81):
I wonder if Boston fire dept signed the none disclosure agreement with Boeing before they climbed on board with the hose!

No chance. Why would they?

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 83):
Is it common to have batteries for ground power operations?

Yes. You need a way to start up the airplane. Even if you're plugged into ground power, you need something to close the power contactors to connect ground power to the airplane systems.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 83):
Is this being done in other aircraft besides the highly electrical 787?

Yes, it's done on all airliners.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 83):
Why?

Because you can't start the airplane otherwise.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 83):
Ah, so this is another new technology in the 787, at least in this scale.

Not exactly. Li-Ion isn't new (and is available on much bigger scales than you have on the 787). The new aspect is the installation of a Li-Ion battery as the ship's and APU battery. However, the battery itself has no idea that it's on an airplane so the risk is in the battery design, not really the application.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 83):
This information seems to contradict the above boston.com claim that the batteries are only used on the ground.

The 787 has two main batteries, the APU battery and the ship's battery. The ship's battery powers the airplane up so that it can accept ground power or start the APU. If you're starting the APU without ground power, the APU battery provides the power to do that (so that you don't drain the ship's battery to start the APU). Then you use the APU generators (or ground power) to start the engines. Then you shut down the APU. If you start the APU in flight then the engine generators do it. The only case where I conceive of using the APU battery in flight is after a dual engine failure but then I'm not sure if it would be the APU battery or the RAT (which would automatically deploy in the event of dual engine failure).

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 83):
Anyway, it seems that the flight testing fire, the recent diversion, and this incident are all different issues. I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of fire in an aircraft, but it does not seem that it is about a single design issue.

I agree. That's why this current state is so puzzling for me...not enough data to make a statistical assessment of whether it's coincidence, some as-yet-unidentified-common-cause, or something else...but enough events to make a person suspicious of something.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 84):
This airplane has serious issues and I am afraid it is going to result in a hull loss in the near future.

That part I'm not seeing...none of the in-service events seems even remotely close to leading to a hull loss.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 88):
Reports say that fire was from the battery that powers the APU while airplane is on the ground thus this could only happen when plane is on the ground like it did...or at least I hope so.

That's my understanding.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 90):

I doubt the a/c is damaged beyond repair but as was pointed out above, this type of "fire event" cannot be fought in the air unless the area in question has built-in fire fighting equipment as say the engines.

It doesn't.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 90):
Hopefully this is a defect in the manufacture of the battery in question not a design issue. I don't recall previous incidents with the 788 involving a smoke/fire "event" involving a battery rather arc issues and other electrical snafus.

Agreed, this is the first I've heard of a battery problem. This is a known failure mode for batteries so I have to assume it got designed for but the "how" is way outside my technical expertise.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-01-07 21:05:50 and read 28084 times.

Guys, we all need to take a chill pill, and go relax for 12 hours, until the real information surfaces.

The 787 is a safe aircraft. Boeing or the CAA would not release it if it was unsafe.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-07 21:34:57 and read 27366 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 176):

On avherald.com:
"B788 in Boston
on Jan 7th 2013, ground incident outside our coverage"

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-07 21:41:36 and read 27738 times.

Quoting SKGSJULAX (Reply 92):
Thermal runaway in batteries is usually the result of improper handling or manufacturing defects. Either one is a big problem and any such incident in flight is likely to lead to a hull loss.

If that were the case, the aircraft would never have been certified. That's too obvious an example of a single point failure leading to a catastrophic outcome. The FAA link posted higher up shows that the FAA was scrutinizing this...there's no way they would have given certification if they believed a battery fire could lead to a hull loss. For some reason, people seem to assume that the airframers learned nothing since Swissair 111.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 99):
What's disturbing to me is that the 787 is groundbreaking in many ways. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the electrical system isn't really one of them, or at least it wasn't supposed to be.

It's extremely groundbreaking. Hence the scrutiny.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 99):
The fact that the plane was developed on an accelerated timeline

This was the longest development in Boeing's modern era...how is that an accelerated timeline? I know they *wanted* it to be accelerated but that's not what actually happened.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 99):
with tons of complicated advances in other engineering areas gives me pause and makes me wonder if the everyone's eyes were looking elsewhere the whole time.

That's always a possibility but, given that the new electrical system is the heart of the systems architecture, it's hard to believe it wasn't also one of the most scrutinized.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 106):
Don't you need an assurance that the APU will function correctly for ETOPS?

Not in all cases. Definitely not on the 787 (although the ETOPS duration is restricted with the APU inop).

Quoting D L X (Reply 114):
If this system is only engaged while on the ground... why does it have to be on the plane at all?

Because you need a way to start the plane without ground power.

Quoting D L X (Reply 114):
Why not a box at the airport that plugs into the plane when it needs it?

Because the customers have said they don't want an airplane that can't start itself.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 126):
It's clear the two gens on the non-failed engine could start the APU, but I have no idea if that's good enough for ETOPS

It would.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 126):
whether or not a failed battery before takeoff means ETOPS is ruled out, or if a failed battery during flight leads to a diversion.

It depends which battery. Failed APU battery would fall under APU inop, I think, which is OK. Failed ship's battery would be a no-go. One of the reasons the two batteries are the same P/N is so that you can swap the APU and ship's battery to get out in case your main battery dies.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 129):
Aren't all APUs started with a battery ?

On some designs, yes. Many can start off battery, generator, or GPU.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 151):
Apparently the fire broke out in the jet's auxiliary power unit compartment.

No, that's in the tail. That's different than the aft equipment bay.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 151):
There are one or more batteries in this compartment, used to start the APU.

No, there are no batteries in the APU compartment. The ship's battery is in the forward EE bay and the APU battery is in the aft EE bay.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 151):
APU compartments are equipped with fire detection and extinguishing systems. Had this fire started while the plane was aloft, the crew would have use this system to extinguish the fire.

No, the fire extinguishing system for the APU has nothing to do with the aft EE bay where the APU battery is.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 157):
I believe the RAT only deploys when both engines are gone.

That's one condition. There are others, some automatic and some manual.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 167):
What is it about these batteries that make them so prone to explosions/fires?

The internal resistance of Li-Ion batteries goes down with increasing temperature.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 169):
Better question is, why do the manufacturers keep using them especially if there's an alternative.

Because the alternative is heavier and doesn't perform as well.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 178):
Boeing or the CAA would not release it if it was unsafe.

Slight correction...Boeing/FAA/EASA/JAL would not release it if they did not *believe* it was unsafe. Nobody intentionally releases an unsafe aircraft, but it happens when something occurs that wasn't anticipated. This is, fortunately, rare. It is incredibly rare for it to go so badly that someone dies, but it does happen.

I have NO reason to believe that any of the current issues have risen anywhere close to being unsafe, but their certainly unexpected and it would be naive to think that it's impossible a mistake didn't happen. That's why the OEM, airline, regualtors, and NTSB jump all over these things so quickly.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Deltal1011man
Posted 2013-01-07 21:59:37 and read 27149 times.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 63):
I'm sorry folks, but this SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME!!! What if that plane had been over the pacific when this occurred??? After years of delays on the 787, are the airlines still dealing with an aircraft that's not ready for prime time and potentially dangerous?? So many questions...

Then I wouldn't fly ever again. NiCad can have Thermal run off and thus start a fire. Guess you are better off swimming.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 77):
Obviously I am speculating as we have no factual data yet. Very fortunate that this happened on the ground!

So....You know your pretty much making stuff up, but say it anyways. Ok then.

Quoting SKGSJULAX (Reply 79):

The FAA should ground the 787 immediately and investigate the entire series of electrical issues.

Of course they should. Should shut down Boeing too. What a amazingly stupid thing to say.
You have no facts to back that up other than what you think happened or could happen.

Quoting SKGSJULAX (Reply 92):

Wow! I guess you didn't know people on SR111 like some of us did. Thermal runaway in batteries is usually the result of improper handling or manufacturing defects. Either one is a big problem and any such incident in flight is likely to lead to a hull loss.

Again, NiCad can do it too, guess we should ground the worlds fleet.  
and why does one have to know someone on SR111 to have a thought in this? Personally I would rather have the opinion of someone who fixes airplanes, flys airplanes or makes the airplane(or works for that company) than some who knows some who was in an airplane crash. (unless that gives you some super human power that allows you to be the smartest person in the world.)

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 94):
Are you an engineer for Boeing? How about for the FAA or NTSB? Do you have any facts to back up this claim or is this just your opinion? Perhaps if you have some facts that the FAA, NTSB, Boeing, or the airlines aren't aware of, you should call them and share so they can indeed ground the plane before someone gets hurt.

I don't mean to be rude, but again, slow down with the baseless fear mongering. I assure you, if there is a reason to ground the plane, the FAA will certainly do so. Anecdotal evidence from your local newspaper and CNN and all the armchair experts around the world who have no intimate knowledge of the specific situations is not a reason to ground the entire fleet of aircraft.

           

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
It's also clear to me that PR types will want to put the best possible spin on things, but that's just a fact of life going back many decades now, and even more heightened in these days of instantaneous communication.

just as fast as the other side comes up with some of the stupid stuff above. Both sides do it.  
Quoting Aesma (Reply 142):
I seem to remember a teething issue of the A380 caused an electric fire.

Nope, couldn't. No way possible could that have happened. Electric fires are a 787 only thing. (sarcasm)

Quoting Aesma (Reply 142):
Nobody answered me about starting APUs with batteries.

Tdscanunk did a great job explaining(as always) the APU starting.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 154):
Isnt this what the RAT is for? It drops in flight in case of a power failure to power basic systems, not the APU?

Yes and no. RAT is going to drop if power drops below a point. (could even happen with both Engines running)
For the 737NG, yes as it doesn't have a RAT

Quoting CM (Reply 170):
For the same reason Li-Ion batteries are used in your phone, iPad and laptop computer: Li-Ion batteries are smaller, lighter, and have a more stable power output than Ni-Cad batteries.

           

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 177):

I know you're being sarcastic, but why would anyone take that approach? These are, based on all available evidence, very different events. Why would the response to one be applied to the other?

Because jumping the gun and making stuff up fits the agenda much better than waiting and seeing the facts.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 177):
I'm not sure anyone has been dismissed as a kook. The only ones I know of that were accused of being conspiracy theorists were the ones who claimed there actually was a conspiracy to coverup the ZA002 event (which makes it true by definition). But if it "adds up to something", what does it add up to? The only common thread I see is that the issues are on the electrical system, but it seems to be different issues. Given that the 787 is far more electric, we should expect a higher rate of electrical issues (and an equivalently lower rate of pneumatic and hydraulic issues). I'd be curious how the 787 electrical rate compares to the electric+hydraulic+pneumatic rate of other new type EIS.

           

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-07 22:06:11 and read 26951 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 177):
All batteries are high risk power-sources because they're energy storage devices...if you short them or have thermal runaway (which is not unique to Lithium-Ion) then they release their energy quickly and spectacularly.

Thanks for your GREAT posts. I've got a simple question about this.

What's the average elapsed time between when the APU or ship's batteries would last be used on the ground and take-off? Is that delta sufficient time for a thermal runaway to happen while the plane is still on the ground, or can the causes for thermal runaway simmer for a while?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: flyabr
Posted 2013-01-07 22:28:08 and read 26391 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 181):
Then I wouldn't fly ever again. NiCad can have Thermal run off and thus start a fire. Guess you are better off swimming.

I do like swimming, but that is probably not an option if i wanna go to say Ireland! lol! For the time being I've got plenty of other aircraft options when I do go...  

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: FlyingAY
Posted 2013-01-08 00:10:53 and read 23836 times.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 151):

Whether or not this incident has ANYTHING to do with the 787's newness and teething problems is not known. It could be some entirely random event that in no way indicates a problem with the plane's design.

Well, it remains to be seen if there is an issue with the design. I mean, even if the battery had a manufacturing issue that caused it to explode, the design of the plane should be such that the exploding battery is not able to take out any other critical systems and the fire should not be able to spread to other parts of the airplane.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 154):
Good job there was not the media and live streaming and a.net back when the 707, DC8, 1-11, 727 and others had teething problems.

And back in those days we lost a plane every now and then and it was considered to be normal. The expectation for aviation safety is completely on a different level today.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 177):
As I said, I'm not sure it could occur over the Pacific but, if it did, the smoke isn't a bid deal. It's damage to surrounding equipment that might be. But I would hope that's designed for...if not, I'd be curious how the battery risk was theoretically designed out.

I think that the design should assume that any LiIon battery may ignite at any moment - I definitely could see a manufacturing issue causing a single LiIon battery blow up during flight, even if it was not actively being discharged.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 177):
It's just there to start the APU on the ground (and potentially in flight in the event of dual engine failure but I'm not sure about that).

If the battery is used in case of dual engine failure, then this clearly could happen during flight. I'll admit a dual engine failure is highly unlikely, but not something that we have not seen before.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 180):
there's no way they would have given certification if they believed a battery fire could lead to a hull loss.

Agree. If mistakes are made during design and manufacturing why not during the certification.

As a conclusion we don't really know much about this yet. Some great posts in this thread though, especially the last two ones by tdscanuck.   

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BMI727
Posted 2013-01-08 00:19:43 and read 23663 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 165):
Right, I tend to confuse their two sedans, since the only one I'm interested in is the Tesla roadster.

The Roadster is actually the most underperforming model from either company, but that's another thread.

Anyway, I think there are enough fires that we can officially consider the 787 to be a true exotic.
http://jalopnik.com/5937499/the-jalo...ide-to-burning-supercars/gallery/1

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-08 00:24:49 and read 23521 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 138):
Well, it would certainly be "good news" if it was a defective battery versus an airframe issue, but there is no denying that perception is going to take control of reality if these things keep happening.

I'd downplay the issue of who was at fault here. Obviously the system, including all of its components, needs to work correctly, or at least fail safely. If a component fault is an isolated case and can't occur again, then you're fine. If there are systems that prevent this from happening during a flight even if a component fails, then you are also fine.

Quoting flood (Reply 141):
On the other hand, the airframe is supposed to prevent any such issues - particularly considering the increased risks of using lithium ion batteries.

  

And indeed it may.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 143):
The fact that no one was injured is irrelevant. Without understanding what and why happened, you can't say it couldn't happen 1hour later, with quite a different outcome. From the known facts you can only conclude that "it seems that batteries were on fire - cause unknown". You can't say this plane was not just really, really lucky to be on the ground at the time of the incident.

  

Quoting aviateur (Reply 151):
Who knows how they'll edit the footage, but what I said, basically, is this...

Thanks for this.

Quoting CM (Reply 155):
Both equipment bays are vented to an outflow valve. If there is smoke in an equipment bay when the airplane is pressurized, no smoke will enter the cabin.

Thanks for the information. Are these similar outflow valves as with cargo, so that you can force the compartment to outside air pressure, and help extinguish fire? (Obviously this might not help with battery heating itself, but it would help with any secondary effects and smoke generation.)

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 00:25:24 and read 23564 times.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 184):
If mistakes are made during design and manufacturing why not during the certification.

Mistakes are made in all these areas. A search of ADs for any type which has flown for a few years will reveal problems in all three areas for any airplane. However, mistakes such as not accounting for a known / major failure mode (like thermal runaway of a battery) would be virtually impossible, given how fault trees are built and how FMEA is accomplished.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-08 00:39:48 and read 23160 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 177):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 180):

Thanks for these posts, Tom. A lot of very useful and accurate information, as always. This is exactly why I like a.net.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: KC135Hydraulics
Posted 2013-01-08 00:42:34 and read 23151 times.

On the KC-135 the main batt and APU batt are on the floor next to the toilet and urinal can completely unprotected. If you miss you can easily splash onto the batteries. How's that for safety?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-01-08 00:51:02 and read 22894 times.

The photos that purport to show smoke simply may be showing the application of Halatron.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-08 00:56:15 and read 22814 times.

I think the posts from CM and Tom (which both now this frame like no others) shows that good and factual information is the only way to get ones natural anxiety after of such an event under control and into proportion. Without this info I would have thought twice before entering the next 787 flight, right now I would have no issue (as any smoke vents out and the battery thermal runaway is a design case).

If the battery failure was totally unrelated to the power panel issues and was a manufacturing issue then I think the 787 has bad luck right now, anyway we will see what was the root cause.

I do have one question:

- The switching on of the APU start battery is that done in the power switching parts of panel 100 or 200, ie does there exists any link between the two or is it a totally separate contactor/regulator unit?

[Edited 2013-01-08 00:58:45]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-01-08 01:06:52 and read 22538 times.

Aviateur is usually pretty insightful in these circumstances but it sounds like his info was faulty (location of batteries and system design) and thus...

Garbage in, garbage out.

Patrick, are you going to update your television comments based on the facts contained in Tom's analysis?

[Edited 2013-01-08 01:07:52]

[Edited 2013-01-08 01:09:16]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: SCL767
Posted 2013-01-08 01:15:40 and read 22368 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 161):
Nobody appears to be grounding anything yet--ANA, JAL and UAL all have airplanes airborne as we speak.

Indeed, today LAN will deploy CC-BBB on LA455 SCL-EZE and LA456 EZE-SCL. LAN's 787 schedule for this month will continue to operate normally.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 01:18:08 and read 22345 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 188):
I do have one question:

- The switching on of the APU start battery is that done in the power switching parts of panel 100 or 200, ie does there exists any link between the two or is it a totally separate contactor/regulator unit?

When plugged into ground power (115v 400hz), the P100/200 panels (235v varaible freq) can be energized, but not in the circuit which would be powering the APU battery charger. I am not staring at a schematic as I type this, but IF this is a thermal runaway of the APU battery, I can't think of any way it could be related to the P100/200 panels.

As others have noted, the usual cause of thermal runaway in a Li-Ion battery is a manufacturing defect.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Unflug
Posted 2013-01-08 01:43:08 and read 21669 times.

Quoting twincommander (Reply 95):
again, how is this the aircrafts fault? thermal runaway can happen, regardless of how new or old an aircraft, or better yet, the BATTERY is.

If a thermal runaway is to be expected, the aircraft should be able to handle it without filling the cabin with smoke, even when on the ground.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
To be clear, the battery is there to start the APU, not to run it. Once the APU starts, its two generators go on-line and provide enough power to start one main engine then the other. The APU isn't normally used in-flight AFAIK.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 174):
It's not the second fire, but that's a different argument. That battery doesn't do anything in flight so I'm not sure how this would happen half way between HNL and SYD.

I'm not quite sure about this point, since:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 174):
The APU battery doesn't *drive* the main APU or the fire control electronics. It's just there to start the APU on the ground (and potentially in flight in the event of dual engine failure but I'm not sure about that).

Why would the APU be started on the ground with no crew on board? To me it looks like the event happened when the batteries were not in use.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2013-01-08 01:54:54 and read 21384 times.

Doing some armchair engineering here based on below facts....

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 174):
This is the really interesting question...based on my understanding of the system, I'm not sure this could happen in flight. However, if it did, I'd love to know what design cases were considered in how the surrounding systems are located. Thermal runaway of a battery is a well known potential risk so I'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't a design case.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 172):
In flight, the ECS system keeps the smoke from getting from the lower lobe to the upper. Nobody's going to choke.
Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 181):
Well, it remains to be seen if there is an issue with the design. I mean, even if the battery had a manufacturing issue that caused it to explode, the design of the plane should be such that the exploding battery is not able to take out any other critical systems and the fire should not be able to spread to other parts of the airplane.

I would suggest a sealed LiIon Compartment with redundant pressure relief valves that vent direct to the outside via exhaust conduit. With this design, for the failure encountered, it would look like a puff of smoke out of the exhaust port, and the whole event would look much more normal. It is possible this isn't done as the standard EE bay vent is safer and less prone to maintenance issues (maintaining a pressure seal). I doubt the smoke is halon (halotron?). That stuff dissipates very fast from my experience.

Does LiIon thermal runaway require O2 to maintain the reaction? What about an N2 blanket?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2013-01-08 01:56:43 and read 21279 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 157):
The RAT deploys based on electrical power source availability. Losing both engines is probably the most dramatic way to achieve RAT deployment, but it can and will deploy with both engines running.

The RAT can be deployed from a switch in the flight deck.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 02:11:39 and read 21082 times.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 194):
The RAT can be deployed from a switch in the flight deck.

True, although for any condition which requires the RAT, the airplane will put it down long before the crew pulls up the checklist.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-08 02:24:14 and read 20754 times.

Hello everybody

Some questions :

- Aren't batteries monitored and charged during the flight, in order to maintain their specific normal or emergency functions ?
- What is the volume / weight of those two sets of batteries

Here in France we some car manufacturers ruled out Li-ion use for cars. Using instead LiPO4 batteries or Li-metal-polymere batteries...
http://www.batscap.com/en/la-batteri...hium-metal-polymere/conception.php

How did the Chevrolet Volt recovers from it's seldom batteries mishap ?

Have a good day

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 02:29:11 and read 20732 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 196):
Here in France we some car manufacturers ruled out Li-ion use for cars. Using instead LiPO4 batteries or Li-metal-polymere batteries...

Lithium-ion is being used here in a generic sense. The 787 batteries use a Lithium-polymer/cobalt chemistry.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-01-08 02:52:03 and read 20113 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 197):
Lithium-ion is being used here in a generic sense. The 787 batteries use a Lithium-polymer/cobalt chemistry.

Right. To speak of a "lithium-ion" battery is to speak of a manner of operation of the battery (i.e. lithium ions migrate from one electrode to the other during discharge and return during charge).

There are a variety of chemistries of such batteries, and the chosen chemistry affects, among other things, the battery's capacity at a given weight/size, as well as its propensity for thermal runaway.

One would assume that the batteries used in an application like this would not be the LCO (Lithium Cobalt Oxide) chemistry batteries commonly employed in consumer electronics. The cells that comprise the 787 batteries might also incorporate features like shutdown separators to limit the effects of overtemperature.

Accordingly, it probably is not helpful to generalize in this situation from negative experiences that consumers have with the batteries used in cell phones and laptops, where price, size and weight are the overriding concerns (and thus militate towards the choice of LCO batteries, which might be described as more prone to thermal runaway, in these consumer electronics applications).

Also, for what it's worth, thermal runaway, in a very general sense, can be more complex to manage as the size of any given system or reaction increases. This would suggest that the issues, such as they are, that may arise or have arisen in Li-on battery-powered automobiles might not be directly relevant to the batteries at issue here.

One thing that does intrigue me is that the design solution to address this known failure mode apparently did not seek to preclude smoke from penetrating the upper lobe when the aircraft was on the ground. A failure during landing, takeoff, taxi, or when occupied at the gate, with the cabin taking in the kind of smoke emitted by a burning Li-on battery, certainly raises the potential for passenger injury during a perhaps-unnecessarily-panicky evacuation.

It also raises the potential for not-insignificant damage to the airframe, as may have occurred here, from the well-meaning efforts of fire crews not schooled in the location and protection features of the aircraft's batteries, nor immediately of the significance of the smoke-emitting canister they are thwacking with the fire axe.

[Edited 2013-01-08 03:10:11]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-08 03:29:51 and read 19424 times.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 181):
If the battery is used in case of dual engine failure, then this clearly could happen during flight. I'll admit a dual engine failure is highly unlikely, but not something that we have not seen before.

An independent dual engine failure has never occurred on a modern airliner (possibly ever, we debate that from time to time in the ETOPS threads). Coupled failures have, but the compound probability of a battery failure at the same time as a dual engine failure is so low as to be zero from a regulatory and safety standpoint. In addition, as I think I noted, I'm not sure if the RAT or the APU battery powers the in-air start sequence. It might be the RAT alone.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 183):
Thanks for the information. Are these similar outflow valves as with cargo, so that you can force the compartment to outside air pressure, and help extinguish fire?

They're the same valves. There are no cabin outflow valves. The air flow pattern is from fore-to-aft and main deck-to-cargo. All air ultimately ends up going down the air grills by your feet and out the forward or aft outflow valves, which are outboard of the cargo areas.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 188):
If the battery failure was totally unrelated to the power panel issues and was a manufacturing issue then I think the 787 has bad luck right now, anyway we will see what was the root cause.

That's what I'm very interested in...it's possible that this is terrible luck. But it's possible it's not (keep in mind the definition of *possible*) and all the relevant parties need to exhaust that possibility (and, based on all evidence, they appear to be doing that).

Quoting Unflug (Reply 192):
If a thermal runaway is to be expected, the aircraft should be able to handle it without filling the cabin with smoke, even when on the ground.

It is capable of doing that *when the ECS isn't running*. I can't think of any reason you have a requirement to make sure it doesn't happen (nor do I know of any practical physically possible way) to make sure it happens with the ECS off.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 192):
Why would the APU be started on the ground with no crew on board?

It wouldn't (and couldn't). But, if the airplane was on ground power, the battery chargers would be keeping the batteries topped off.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 192):
To me it looks like the event happened when the batteries were not in use.

Agreed, based on the limited information we have.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 193):
Does LiIon thermal runaway require O2 to maintain the reaction? What about an N2 blanket?

It doesn't need oxygen to have the runwaway (or other failure mode, like an internal short, etc.). It does to actually have a fire.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 196):
- Aren't batteries monitored and charged during the flight, in order to maintain their specific normal or emergency functions ?

Generally yes, although it's usually very very small currents to just maintain.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 196):
- What is the volume / weight of those two sets of batteries

They're about a cubic foot. Not sure on weight.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 198):
One thing that does intrigue me is that the design solution to address this known failure mode apparently did not seek to preclude smoke from penetrating the upper lobe when the aircraft was on the ground.

There is no design feature to preclude smoke penetration when the ECS system is off and the doors are open. I'm not sure how you'd so such a thing even if you wanted to. If you're on the ground, the response to smoke/fire is very simple...get off the airplane.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 198):
A failure during landing, takeoff, taxi, or when occupied at the gate, with the cabin taking in the kind of smoke emitted by a burning Li-on battery, certainly raises the potential for passenger injury during a perhaps-unnecessarily-panicky evacuation.

During landing/takeoff/taxi the ECS system is running and the doors are closed; the smoke containment features will work. Sitting at the gate you usually run the ECS anyway.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 198):
It also raises the potential for not-insignificant damage to the airframe, as may have occurred here, from the well-meaning efforts of fire crews not schooled in the location and protection features of the aircraft's batteries, nor immediately of the significance of the smoke-emitting canister they are thwacking with the fire axe.

Although that's possible, in my experience the battery location/technology/temperment is the second thing the ARFF crews want to know when they see a new airplane (the first is the location of the fire extinguisher handles). Given JAL's focus on BOS for some time, I'd be very very surprised if their ARFF crew didn't now their airplane well.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: faro
Posted 2013-01-08 03:37:28 and read 19083 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 174):
All batteries are high risk power-sources because they're energy storage devices...if you short them or have thermal runaway (which is not unique to Lithium-Ion) then they release their energy quickly and spectacularly.

When a battery starts conducting electricity, an electric field is generated. Could it be that -depending on the geometry of the immediate surroundings of the battery- such field was focused/amplified and radiated back to the battery with an intensity sufficient to create a thermal runaway?

Are batteries shielded in a CFRP airliner? If yes, is such shielding any different from a metal airframe?

Also, who is the APU battery supplier?


Faro

[Edited 2013-01-08 03:48:52]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: ltbewr
Posted 2013-01-08 03:51:25 and read 18734 times.

I wonder, was the a/c at the time hooked up to ground or an external power supplies and if that could have contributed to this incident.

When you think about it, the A380 and 787 are the first mainline aircraft introduced in the age of high-speed internet. That means far more dissemation of any incident like this one in minutes internationally like here for example, not days or even at all but locally. Still the DC-10 had far more serious problems in early use - as well discussed here and later examples still fly in significant numbers today in freight use.

Of course, there will be a through investigation of this fire/incident by the Federal authorities, Boeing and component suppliers as to it's cause and how to reduce this from happening at all. I hope the airframe itself was not damaged. None of us want to see the 787 become a failure or untrusted by flyers.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-08 04:09:09 and read 18575 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 181):
Nope, couldn't. No way possible could that have happened. Electric fires are a 787 only thing. (sarcasm)

I honestly dont remember an A380 electrical fire so post details if you have them if not maybe don't throw shade on another aircraft?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 199):
Quoting Unflug (Reply 192):
To me it looks like the event happened when the batteries were not in use.

Agreed, based on the limited information we have.

If so this negates all of the it can't happen in the air assertions, if it can happen when the batteries are not in use it can happen at anytime.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: SQ452
Posted 2013-01-08 05:27:33 and read 16536 times.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/01/0...-airlines-flight-at-logan-airport/

Watch the above video on this report. The reporting is so horribly funny.

"huge Japanese luxury jet"      

This report is a tad bit sensationalized if you ask me, Particularly the interview at the end in my opinion.

Glad no injuries (except the plane!) and everyone is safe and sound.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-08 05:54:45 and read 15652 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 199):
They're about a cubic foot. Not sure on weight.

Thank Tom you, so it's a matter of 30-40 kg a most

Quoting CM (Reply 197):
Lithium-ion is being used here in a generic sense. The 787 batteries use a Lithium-polymer/cobalt chemistry.

Thank you CM, so it's more or less the same as the Batscap batteries

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-08 06:16:39 and read 15024 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 165):
If a firefighter went after it with an ax, it is doubtful he/she actually was able to damage the battery because of its enclosure. Also, due to the very cramped quarters of the aft equipment bay, if someone was swinging an ax in there, it is hard to imagine there not being considerable collateral damage.

Man do those guys love to swing their fire ax!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 174):
Thermal runaway. The battery heats up, melts, then catches fire. The initial heating is an internal electrical issue but once it get's going it's mostly chemistry.

Thanks for the important clarification.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 174):
..the aviation geek in me is glad the NTSB is on this so that there will probably be a public report and we can all get down and technical with it.

As do we all!  
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 174):
Thermal runaway of a battery is a well known potential risk so I'd be extremely surprised if it wasn't a design case.

That was my thought too.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 174):
However, the battery itself has no idea that it's on an airplane so the risk is in the battery design, not really the application.

I imagine the thermal range may be larger than most other applications, no?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 174):
That part I'm not seeing...none of the in-service events seems even remotely close to leading to a hull loss.

In this case, that's the ultimate fear. In this case, it would seem the battery could generate a finite amount of heat and that amount should be factored in. We know from the ZA002 incident that the area is designed with fireproof and/or fire-resistant materials.

I suppose the failure on the ground is the most spectacular mode since there is nothing to clear the smoke. In the air, it seems the smoke would be vented, but I wonder what indications the crew would see of such a failure? I'm not sure if the ultimate result of the event is an electrical short or not. I suppose it's just a function of what happens when the battery finishes burning.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 177):
For some reason, people seem to assume that the airframers learned nothing since Swissair 111.

I think we're more concerned about what they didn't know before SR111! 
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 185):
Thanks for these posts, Tom. A lot of very useful and accurate information, as always. This is exactly why I like a.net.

  

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 186):
On the KC-135 the main batt and APU batt are on the floor next to the toilet and urinal can completely unprotected. If you miss you can easily splash onto the batteries. How's that for safety?

Given that urine conducts, I hope no one is doing any experiments to find out!

Most of us value our privates enough to not try it!

Quoting CM (Reply 191):
When plugged into ground power (115v 400hz), the P100/200 panels (235v varaible freq) can be energized, but not in the circuit which would be powering the APU battery charger.

I'm not quite visualizing that. One purpose of ground power it would seem to me is to keep a charge on the batteries. I guess you are saying there is a seperate path for that purpose, independent of the panels?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 199):
Coupled failures have, but the compound probability of a battery failure at the same time as a dual engine failure is so low as to be zero from a regulatory and safety standpoint.

Indeed. I will point out for general interest that during the US Airways / Sully / Hudson incident, the crew did start the APU early on, and that allowed them to keep the glass cockpit and comms gear fully functioning during the whole incident.

Quoting faro (Reply 200):
When a battery starts conducting electricity, an electric field is generated.

I thought one needed a changing current, and a DC battery doesn't provide that, but I could be wrong.

Darn you for giving me flashbacks to my electromagnetics lectures back in 1984!  

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-08 06:19:14 and read 14964 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 188):

I think the posts from CM and Tom (which both now this frame like no others) shows that good and factual information is the only way to get ones natural anxiety after of such an event under control and into proportion.

You are totally correct imho. So also I would like to say a big thank you to especially CM and Tom for the extensive reporting on this incident. It gives us insight in a way we otherwise would never achieve, and especially not on such a short notice.  .

As I have stated before we will now have to wait and see what the official finding of the investigation into this fire will bring as results. Luckily JAL continues to operate the B787 which much be a good sign that there is no doubt to the airworthiness of the aircraft.

[Edited 2013-01-08 06:20:34]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: faro
Posted 2013-01-08 06:32:33 and read 14481 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 205):
I thought one needed a changing current, and a DC battery doesn't provide that, but I could be wrong.

That's what I meant when I mentioned "starts conducting electricity"; you are going from nil current to x amperes in a small interval of time, hence creating the electric field. If the current is significant, as I imagine can be case with APU batteries, the field thus generated may likewise be significant.


Faro

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: babybus
Posted 2013-01-08 07:38:39 and read 12697 times.

This was the 2nd most viewed topic on BBC until they buried the story for some reason.

Would it not be a good idea to keep those planes on the ground until these electrical problems are sorted out? At this present moment in time I would not fly this plane.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: upperdeck
Posted 2013-01-08 07:49:20 and read 12399 times.

Quoting babybus (Reply 208):
This was the 2nd most viewed topic on BBC until they buried the story for some reason.

It's still there, now at number 8 in the charts!

Would I still fly on this plane? Yes - but I'll admit to feeling more apprehensive than usual. The majority of the thousands of people flying on them right now probably don't have the slightest clue about the Boston incident and the ones before that. Ignorance is definitely bliss.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 08:10:28 and read 11927 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 205):
I'm not quite visualizing that. One purpose of ground power it would seem to me is to keep a charge on the batteries. I guess you are saying there is a seperate path for that purpose, independent of the panels?

When the airplane is on ground power, the battery charger is not on a circuit which involves the P100/200 panels in any way - they are elecrically isolated. When the engines are running, all ships power starts in the power panels, but this is not the case when on ground power.

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 209):
Ignorance is definitely bliss.

So true. On the other hand, knowledge is power. People who know nothing about the airplane or the recent issues will fly on it without hesitation. The same is true for those with a full understanding of the airplane and what has happened. The people who pause are those who know enough to understand something is going on, but who don't know enough to undertstand what is going on.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-08 08:13:08 and read 11909 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 177):
For some reason, people seem to assume that the airframers learned nothing since Swissair 111.

It seems to me that people assume all inflight fires will become the conflagration that was Swissair 111.



Quoting babybus (Reply 208):
Would it not be a good idea to keep those planes on the ground until these electrical problems are sorted out?

These issues did not appear to have cropped up during flight test, so grounding the planes might do little to identify the cause to allow them to be sorted out.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-01-08 08:21:09 and read 11737 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 210):
The people who pause are those who know enough to understand something is going on, but who don't know enough to undertstand what is going on.

But aren't we all here in that category? Do we know for sure what is going on?

Having said this, I'd board a 787 tomorrow without hesitation. Quite the opposite, I'd be very excited. Ironically, last month I missed my chance to fly on UA's 902 bird because it was grounded after the electrical incident that resulted in the diversion to MSY...

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: SKGSJULAX
Posted 2013-01-08 08:24:26 and read 11664 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 178):
Of course they should. Should shut down Boeing too. What a amazingly stupid thing to say.
You have no facts to back that up other than what you think happened or could happen.

And you have no facts to call my comment stupid. Please maintain proper decorum and language.
"Should" is proper grammar for expressing one's opinion. I don't need to prove any expertise to state and/or formulate an opinion. The facts I have are simple:

1. The 787 is the most "electric" airplane ever built
2. The 787 has had (at least) four major incidents associated with the electrical system: 3 since EIS and one during testing
3. An onboard fire is not merely a teething problem; it's an extremely dangerous situation; the 787 has experienced two of them (and maybe more, but that is unclear).
4. Lithium Ion batteries burn with intensity that exceeds that of any other battery in service, and they have been (albeit inconclusively) blamed for two fatal 747 freighter crashes
4(a) The FAA was duly concerned about Boeing's use of Lithium Ion batteries and pushed Boeing to test and re-test and (according to a previous post here) change the enclosures to better contain the batteries.

On the basis of the above, I concluded that this is an extremely serious situation and I suggested that the FAA should take a specific action. I don't have to be an expert to review facts and draw a conclusion. But I do take offense at your belligerent tone that doesn't do anything to advance this discussion.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-01-08 08:31:08 and read 11534 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 88):
Reports say that fire was from the battery that powers the APU while airplane is on the ground thus this could only happen when plane is on the ground like it did...or at least I hope so.

No. If those batteries are prone to explode why should than only happen on the ground? Mind you that the battery and the hot battery bus is powered at all times. The APU battery is used to start the APU and not run it.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 199):
An independent dual engine failure has never occurred on a modern airliner (possibly ever, we debate that from time to time in the ETOPS threads). Coupled failures have, but the compound probability of a battery failure at the same time as a dual engine failure is so low as to be zero from a regulatory and safety standpoint. In addition, as I think I noted, I'm not sure if the RAT or the APU battery powers the in-air start sequence. It might be the RAT alone.

You are assuming that you can not have total power fail with out dual engine fail. In the infamous ZA002 incident there was a total power failure but thankfully the engines kept on humming, and AFAIK the ZA002 landed with standby instruments powered by 30 minute battery power.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-08 08:33:53 and read 11541 times.

Quoting babybus (Reply 208):
Would it not be a good idea to keep those planes on the ground until these electrical problems are sorted out? At this present moment in time I would not fly this plane.

Before the posts by CM and Tom I felt the same, not in the least as I have worked in the computer industry for 10 years and were shipping in 10 of thousands of laptops with this battery type each quarter from China via Air. A couple of times we had battery runaways happen in public with sold products, it felt really bad. At the time we all discussed what would happen if it had happened on unsold units sitting in a belly of a freighter / pax frame or sold units in a handluggage. Actually the latter case is the best as they will stop burning after a minute or so, they will cause damage and smoke but not take a frame down, burn a hatrack or a seat in the process. If in the belly it is more iffy.

Even though the 787 and other frames batteries are larger all the measures described had been thought through and taken with a lot of scrutiny, not so in those thousand of Laptops, iPods, iPhones or iPads (or from any other manufacturer) in your luggage. I will therefore now ignore this risk compared to what we have been accepting and flying around with for 10 years, the difference is huge (given that this is indeed only a battery malfunction), I rather have the airplanes battery go then my own when flying (including the 787s).

Re those other panel related incidents, I have been having a feeling I have seen this before, the multitude of unexplained warnings and funny fault indications. I have always maintained my cars (reluctantly not my company cars   though I carefully looked over the garages shoulders for these  ), even the modern electronics (yes I got hold of the testing software and interfaces  Wow! ). This smells like when I have had grounding problem on a component or two, things work fine one moment and then there are funny intermittent faults all over the place.

Given that these new frames does not have a natural grounding the return path is designed in and not as resilient as it used to be ( anyone who had one of these a glassfiber Lotus Elites knows  ). Here my thought path; these production guys putting together those panels does it as they use to on all other products they do for the airframe industy, perhaps they don't tighten a box down one day as the did yesterday. I never was an issue before with alu frames but can be for these new ones, voila a simple QA fault which plays havoc with your sophisticated monitoring system. Nothing faulty in design, nothing dangerous (given the redundancy and that nothing is really broke ) but sure confusing for the pilot and the maintenance crew.

If these incidents are related B better geth on top of it fast but if they are not (and given the info so far they seem not) then Boeing is having tough luck right now, it can be simple QA fluctuations (the battery one certainly is, it is normally contamination of the fluid between the polymers) which is hitting to close to each other and when everyone is watching.

[Edited 2013-01-08 08:43:19]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-01-08 08:34:31 and read 11471 times.

Quoting SKGSJULAX (Reply 213):
On the basis of the above, I concluded that this is an extremely serious situation and I suggested that the FAA should take a specific action.

What you have not done is explained how that action is appropriate in the context of other aircraft EIS "teething problems." As it stands now, your post could be read as trolling (though I don't think you meant it that way).

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: max550
Posted 2013-01-08 08:36:35 and read 11432 times.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 120):
In any case, something triggered batteries on this plane. Given that it has an unusually high (or at least media reported) number of electricity problems, one should consider an option that all these events are somehow connected.

Perhaps, but you're bound to have a lot more electrical problems on an aircraft that uses many more electrical systems than any aircraft before it. I'm sure they'll do a thorough investigation to determine if they're connected but I haven't seen any evidence leading towards that conclusion yet.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 180):
I do like swimming, but that is probably not an option if i wanna go to say Ireland! lol! For the time being I've got plenty of other aircraft options when I do go...
Quoting babybus (Reply 208):
Would it not be a good idea to keep those planes on the ground until these electrical problems are sorted out? At this present moment in time I would not fly this plane.

I don't see any reason to fear flying on a 787.
Keep in mind that the last fatal accident of a mainline aircraft into, out of, or within the United States was over a decade ago. While the situation may sound scary trust that the FAA, NTSB, Boeing, and all the airlines won't put you on an aircraft that is unsafe. They have the experience to know what's safe and what's not safe and they have an incredible safety record to back that up.
I was on the 787 in November, hopefully have another flight coming up in the next month, and wouldn't hesitate to get on a 787 right now.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: KELPkid
Posted 2013-01-08 08:36:45 and read 11442 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 196):
How did the Chevrolet Volt recovers from it's seldom batteries mishap ?

By proving that no one is going to leave one lying around with major vehicle damage and the (traction) battery connected for three weeks (except possibly the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration)  

Seriously, most US fire departments are trained to disconnect the traction battery in the Toyota Prius in the event of a major accident...

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: aerobalance
Posted 2013-01-08 08:42:01 and read 11369 times.

Boeing stock downgraded by analyst.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/boe...to-hold-from-buy-at-bbt-2013-01-08


Main issue: "The most critical aspect of any commercial aircraft's electrical architecture is the ability of the system to automatically detect, isolate and quarantine a problem well before it can reach the level of overheating,"

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-01-08 08:42:13 and read 11331 times.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 218):
Seriously, most US fire departments are trained to disconnect the traction battery in the Toyota Prius in the event of a major accident...

The most explosive thing on a Toyota Prius is the gas tank!

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: moo
Posted 2013-01-08 08:57:29 and read 11101 times.

Question related to the APU talk - from when I was following the 787s development in 2005, 2006 and 2007, I distinctly remember that the APU was supposed to be on all the time during flight to provide the additional electrical capacity over what just the engines themselves provided for the fully electric 787. Did this change, and if so why?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: faro
Posted 2013-01-08 09:05:20 and read 10970 times.

Quoting aerobalance (Reply 219):
Boeing stock downgraded by analyst.

Perhaps someone at B can tell them that the APU batteries in question are only used on the ground. Analysts can be ignorant too, not just reporters.


Faro

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-08 09:05:42 and read 11001 times.

Quoting aerobalance (Reply 219):
Boeing stock downgraded by analyst.

Considering financial analysts don't know finances, I wonder how knowledgeable of the aerospace industry and it's product design they are.  

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: jollo
Posted 2013-01-08 09:12:27 and read 10844 times.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 192):
Why would the APU be started on the ground with no crew on board? To me it looks like the event happened when the batteries were not in use.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 199):
It wouldn't (and couldn't). But, if the airplane was on ground power, the battery chargers would be keeping the batteries topped off.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but batteries are kept topped up during flight also. So:

- the APU battery is "used" (power drain) only when starting the APU, usually (but not necessarily) on the ground
- the APU battery is "unused", but kept topped up (charge), at all other times when a suitable power source is available, and that includes:

  • * on the ground (power source = ground power)
  • * in flight (power source = running engines)

In my opinion, and whether the battery thermal runaway theory is confirmed or not, the Boston event developed in a situation quite similar to an in-flight usage scenario (APU battery "unused" but in-charge). I see no grounds to dismiss the whole matter as "battery is used only on the ground, couldn't have happened in-flight".

[Edited 2013-01-08 09:27:06]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-01-08 09:14:50 and read 10807 times.

Quoting jollo (Reply 224):
I see no grounds to dismiss the whole matter as "battery is used only on the ground, so no ETOPS relevance".

If the RAT provides power in an engine out scenario, why does it have ETOPS relevance?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 09:15:15 and read 10854 times.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 214):

I'm not taking issue with your point, but your example is factually incorrect...

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 214):
In the infamous ZA002 incident there was a total power failure

There was never a "total power failure"; at no point were all 4 main engine generators disconnected. One generator never isolated from the bus at all. Before the engines were shut down, after landing, one of the disconnected main generators had automatically tied back into the main bus, meaning two generators were functional and powering the bus (the same power scenario as an engine out).

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 214):
AFAIK the ZA002 landed with standby instruments

ZA002 had some initial display blanking, auto-deployment of the RAT, and the crew was flying on standby instrumentation at the time of touchdown - that much is true. However, the airplane was recovering displays after the first isolated VFSG came back online. The airplane was not airborne long enough for the systems to fully recover, but it was determined afterward they would have. It was also determined ZA002 could have completed an ETOPS segment in the condition it was in, albeit with lots of loads shed.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 214):
powered by 30 minute battery power.

With the RAT deployed, the airplane has indefinite standby power, not just the limits of exhausting the batteries. With two functional VFSGs, standby power becomes a moot point.

Quoting moo (Reply 221):
Did this change, and if so why?

Yes. APU-on for ETOPS segments is always something that is on the table if you have not demonstrated adequate start reliability for the APU (i.e. if you need it and if you aren't sure it will start, then you need to start it before you begin the ETOPS segment). There are aircraft out there with this limitation today. Getting around this requirement for the 787 was a matter of achieving high enough start reliability for the 787 APU.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Unflug
Posted 2013-01-08 09:20:01 and read 10941 times.

Quoting faro (Reply 222):
Perhaps someone at B can tell them that the APU batteries in question are only used on the ground. Analysts can be ignorant too, not just reporters.

It seems these APU batteries were not in use when the incident happened. So even if they are only used on the ground, the same thing could possibly happen in the air.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: moo
Posted 2013-01-08 09:25:49 and read 10843 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 226):
Getting around this requirement for the 787 was a matter of achieving high enough start reliability for the 787 APU.

Thanks for the answer, but I wasn't talking about just for ETOPS purposes - the talk I distinctly remember was that Boeing was using the APU as an electrical generator in normal flight to provide for the all-electric make up of the 787. Again, this goes back to 2006/2007, but I remember having the discussions here on the topic, as there was even talk of a separate fuel supply for the APU, and the fuel weight was offset by the higher efficiency gains.

So I take it that the 787 currently does not have an APU which is used as an electrical generator during normal flight?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-08 09:28:28 and read 10890 times.

Update- UA 787 grounded at LAX.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: ChrisNH
Posted 2013-01-08 09:31:29 and read 10864 times.

I'll bet today's Alaska Air nonstop from Seattle to Boston is half-full of Boeing people...those not high enough on the totem pole to warrant a BBJ ride to Logan, anyway.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 09:35:11 and read 10777 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 228):
So I take it that the 787 currently does not have an APU which is used as an electrical generator during normal flight?

You are correct. The APU is not needed for any normal flight condition.

Quoting moo (Reply 228):
the talk I distinctly remember was that Boeing was using the APU as an electrical generator in normal flight to provide for the all-electric make up of the 787. Again, this goes back to 2006/2007, but I remember having the discussions here on the topic, as there was even talk of a separate fuel supply for the APU, and the fuel weight was offset by the higher efficiency gains.

If this is what was said, it was in error... even in 2006/2007. The problem is I wasn't on A.net back then to help sort it out!  

The 787 is designed to dispatch with a single main engine generator inoperative. That means (when looking at the next worse case failure condition) when the opposite engine fails (the one with two working generators) the 787 will happily cruise along powered by a single VFSG until the APU can start and begin providing power from its two ASGs. At no point did the airplane architecture differ from this design case.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: moo
Posted 2013-01-08 09:43:47 and read 10581 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 231):
You are correct. The APU is not needed for any normal flight condition.

Thanks.

Quoting CM (Reply 231):
If this is what was said, it was in error... even in 2006/2007. The problem is I wasn't on A.net back then to help sort it out!

Very odd, very very odd. I remember indepth discussions about it, and the pro's and con's of the approach etc.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: apodino
Posted 2013-01-08 09:58:14 and read 10387 times.

Lovely...now the flight today is returning to the gate for a fuel leak. This is not a good week for JAL in BOS.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: hnl2bos
Posted 2013-01-08 09:59:45 and read 10377 times.

Quoting apodino (Reply 233):

I was just saying in the other thread I hope the electrical isnt anything major, and I hope today is just some ground crew error. I'm flying this flight in April just for the 787.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-08 10:20:11 and read 10035 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 231):
The 787 is designed to dispatch with a single main engine generator inoperative. That means (when looking at the next worse case failure condition) when the opposite engine fails (the one with two working generators) the 787 will happily cruise along powered by a single VFSG until the APU can start and begin providing power from its two ASGs. At no point did the airplane architecture differ from this design case.

And in this scenario would the APU be stared by the single working generator or the APU battery?

[Edited 2013-01-08 10:30:07]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 10:28:38 and read 9929 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 235):
And in this scenario would the APU be stared by the single working generator of the APU battery?

APU battery.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-08 10:30:13 and read 9909 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 229):
Update- UA 787 grounded at LAX.

Facts and data!!!

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-08 10:38:34 and read 9712 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 236):
APU battery.

Thanks for the reply.

Ok so there are scenarios where the APU battery would be used in flight.

Follow up

You say that 787's can be dispatched on ETOPS segments without a functional APU, but if you lose an engine and you are then down to 2 generators which is the minimum safe power requirement?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-08 10:47:24 and read 9575 times.

Quoting aerobalance (Reply 219):
Boeing stock downgraded by analyst.

Which means it's a good time to buy. 777 and 737 at record production levels and order books filled up for MAX trumps the panic selling after these incidents.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-08 10:48:24 and read 9576 times.

Now a fuel leak on another JAL 787 in BOS forces a return to the gate... not a good two days for JAL, for BOS, and for the 787 (and for the pax involved)! http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...pan-airlines-idUSL1E9C88NH20130108 and http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/boeing-...e-landing-boston/story?id=18158025

[Edited 2013-01-08 10:57:55]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-08 10:50:47 and read 9530 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 240):
Now a fuel leak on another JAL 787 in BOS forces a return to the gate...

This thread is long enough...

Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston (by dwcontroller Jan 8 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-08 10:55:05 and read 9430 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 229):
Update- UA 787 grounded at LAX.

Update:

Quote:
BREAKING WSJ: United Airlines Inspects Boeing 787s Following JAL Fire In Boston - Source
http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/288717335613800449

Quote:
BREAKING WSJ: Inspection Reveals Improper Battery Wiring On One United 787 - Source
http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/288717418895904770

[Edited 2013-01-08 10:57:33]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: KC135Hydraulics
Posted 2013-01-08 10:58:47 and read 9287 times.

Man... they need to stop hiring 18 year old mechanics over there in Washington!

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 11:09:09 and read 9172 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 238):
You say that 787's can be dispatched on ETOPS segments without a functional APU

Tom said it, but yes; the 787 may dispatch with the APU inop, provided it remains within 180 minutes of a suitable airport (ETOPS 180).

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 238):
but if you lose an engine and you are then down to 2 generators which is the minimum safe power requirement?

The MEL is entirely predicated on the "next most critical failure" (NMCF). In the case of dispatching the airplane under MEL with the APU inop, the NMCF is loss of an engine. In this case, the airplane would be required to operate for up to 3 hours on just 2 main generators. The MEL and NMCF conditions are all based on an airplane retaining "safe flight and landing" capability. There is not a condition called "minimum safe power" but the airplane can certainly continue flying with less than 500Kva power generating capability - what 2 VFSGs can generate. However, there is no foreseen dispatch configuration + single failure condition which would result in the airplane operating with less than 500Kva available.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-08 11:17:23 and read 8958 times.

To show how complex the 787 is:

Quote:
While we have complete confidence that Boeing will ultimately rectify this problem, our experience has shown that random electrical issues with aircraft can be very difficult to troubleshoot. If the problem is in the software, there are millions of lines of code to examine. If the problem is in the wiring there are over 50 miles of wiring and 50,000 connectors that could be the cause. Hardware problems are the easiest to fix, but at this stage we find it hard to believe the problem is related to such highly tested items. The fact that Boeing (1) made major replacements of traditional copper wire with aluminum wire and (2) for the first time in its history outsourced the production and installation of its electrical connection systems only increases our concern that this issue may be more difficult to solve than most are assuming.

- Carter Leake

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: stlgph
Posted 2013-01-08 11:40:37 and read 8609 times.

Initial investigative findings:

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130108b.html


• The NTSB investigator on scene found that the auxiliary
power unit battery had severe fire damage. Thermal damage to the
surrounding structure and components is confined to the area
immediately near the APU battery rack (within about 20 inches)
in the aft electronics bay.

• Preliminary reports from Japan Airlines representatives
indicate that airplane maintenance and cleaning personnel were
on the airplane with the APU in operation just prior to the
detection of smoke in the cabin and that Boston Logan Airport
Rescue and Fire Fighting were contacted.

• Rescue and fire personnel and equipment responded to the
airplane and detected a fire in the electronics and equipment
bay near the APU battery box. Initial reports indicate that the
fire was extinguished about 40 minutes after arrival of the
first rescue and fire personnel. One firefighter received minor
injuries.


Also: UAL finds one improper battery wiring after it inspected its 6 787's. However, complete inspection results are not being shared by United.

[Edited 2013-01-08 11:44:57]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-01-08 11:49:05 and read 8439 times.

Is it just me, or is this unclear?

Quoting stlgph (Reply 246):
Thermal damage to the
surrounding structure and components is confined to the area
immediately near the APU battery rack (within about 20 inches)
in the aft electronics bay.
Quoting stlgph (Reply 246):
fire in the electronics and equipment
bay near the APU battery box.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Aither
Posted 2013-01-08 11:50:50 and read 8425 times.

Maybe now we will, depending of the cause, see the true cost of outsourcing key aircraft designs.
Fact is you can't test everything in modern aircraft. A proper, well made design by experienced people who also understand the overall aircraft design, is better for reliability than hiring an army of testers, controllers and consultants.

[Edited 2013-01-08 11:55:00]

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 12:05:17 and read 8235 times.

Could Mr Leake have possibly brought up any more items which (so far as we know) have nothing to do with this issue?

Quoting Carter Leake (Reply 245):
software
Quoting Carter Leake (Reply 245):
wiring
Quoting Carter Leake (Reply 245):
connectors
Quoting Carter Leake (Reply 245):
replacements of traditional copper wire with aluminum wire
Quoting Carter Leake (Reply 245):
outsourced the production and installation of its electrical connection systems

I guess when you fire your shotgun, you're bound to hit something. Perhaps he hopes this will make him look like a genius. Meanwhile, you gotta love how he downplays what appears to be the most likely culprit:

Quoting Carter Leake (Reply 245):
Hardware problems are the easiest to fix, but at this stage we find it hard to believe the problem is related to such highly tested items.

As if everything in else in his list does not undergo rigorous testing? [sigh]

Quoting Aither (Reply 248):
Maybe now we will, depending of the cause, see the true cost of outsourcing key aircraft designs.

Fact is you can't test everything in modern aircraft. A proper, well made design by experienced people who also understand the overall aircraft design, is better for reliability than hiring an army of testers, controllers and consultants.

How do you come to this conclusion? The cause is almost certain to be a manufacturing defect in the battery (by far the leading cause of runaway in Li-ion batteries). The batteries are supplied by Thales (a long-time top-shelf supplier in this business) and were made for Thales by Yuasa of Japan (one of the world's leading battery manufacturers). Are you suggesting it would be a better battery if Boeing made it in-house?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-08 12:09:41 and read 8181 times.

Quoting Aither (Reply 248):
Maybe now we will, depending of the cause, see the true cost of outsourcing key aircraft designs.

First, neither Airbus nor Boeing make APUs nor do they make APU batteries. So every APU and APU battery is "outsourced design" by the supplier.

Second, UA has found an improperly connected APU battery in one of their 787s, so that may very well be the case with the JL bird.

Third, if it was some design fault, one would think we'd have seen it occur already during flight test or with NH's birds.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: faro
Posted 2013-01-08 12:16:11 and read 8052 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 250):
Second, UA has found an improperly connected APU battery in one of their 787s, so that may very well be the case with the JL bird.

I believe the info so is simply improper connexions on a battery in one of their 787's; is there a precise reference to the APU battery somewhere?


Faro

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-08 12:19:11 and read 8127 times.

Quoting faro (Reply 251):
I believe the info so is simply improper connexions on a battery in one of their 787's; is there a precise reference to the APU battery somewhere?

United examined electrical components associated with the auxiliary power system, or APU, inside a small compartment underneath the cabin of the Dreamliner, an area known as the aft electrical equipment bay, said a person familiar with the inspections.

The person said United found an improperly installed bundle of wires that connect to the APU battery...


http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intel...mliner-mishap-fuel-leak-in-boston/

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: faro
Posted 2013-01-08 12:25:02 and read 8015 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 252):
Reply 252

Ok thanx Stitch.


Faro

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: SKGSJULAX
Posted 2013-01-08 12:32:52 and read 8028 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 249):
The batteries are supplied by Thales (a long-time top-shelf supplier in this business) and were made for Thales by Yuasa of Japan (one of the world's leading battery manufacturers).

This is an interesting supply chain choice. Why wouldn't Boeing go directly to Yuasa (arguably THE top battery manufacturer in the world) to buy the batteries?
Or is Thales responsible for a sub-system that includes the battery?

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-08 12:47:11 and read 7993 times.

Quoting SKGSJULAX (Reply 254):
Or is Thales responsible for a sub-system that includes the battery?

  

It is pretty common in this business to create system packages which are sent out for proposal from multiple suppliers. Thales happened to win a chunk of the 787 power management system which includes the batteries, as well as the infamous P100 & P200 panels. It is Thales' choice how to procure the battery. Boeing simply provides the design specification.

This is not a practice that is new to the 787. While very old Boeing jets (727 / 707) had considerable Boeing-built systems components, Boeing gradually divested themselves of this piece of the business over the past 40 years. The 777 and 787 would be similar in terms of 3rd party supplier-built systems content and packagin

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-08 12:50:04 and read 7986 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 182):
The Roadster is actually the most underperforming model from either company, but that's another thread.

I'm not sure what you mean, it accelerates faster, drives faster, turns faster... The sedans weigh far too much to be any good as sports cars.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 177):
On some designs, yes. Many can start off battery, generator, or GPU.

What I really meant was that it was always electric and not using some kind of stored pneumatic or hydraulic energy, so that a battery would be a given if you want to start the plane without assistance.

Thanks for the confirmation.

As an aside I'm interested in battery powered planes and gliders, and I'm now thinking about a fire starting in their batteries, with the aircraft being made of plastic just like the 787... At least in gliders you have a chute !

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-08 15:49:58 and read 7170 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 202):
I honestly dont remember an A380 electrical fire so post details if you have them if not maybe don't throw shade on another aircraft?

I was the one mentioning it and I'm more a fan of the A380 than of the 787. The incident happened two years ago :

http://avherald.com/h?article=4372b1e1

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-01-08 16:11:47 and read 7000 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 255):
The 777 and 787 would be similar in terms of 3rd party supplier-built systems content and packagin

Not even close. The 787 is a significant step beyond the 777 in this regard. I'll keep my editorial comments to myself (and keep my job).

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-01-08 16:38:56 and read 6705 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 191):
As others have noted, the usual cause of thermal runaway in a Li-Ion battery is a manufacturing defect.

It is, but there are other causes that can't be written off.

Environment.
Overcharging.
Overloading.
Short circuit.

I have read that the other 787 that was pulled out of service was after faulty wiring was found.

Topic: RE: Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS
Username: jetblueguy22
Posted 2013-01-08 17:10:25 and read 6506 times.

Due to the large amount of posts in this thread Part 2 has been created. Please continue the discussion there
Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS Part 2 (by jetblueguy22 Jan 8 2013 in Civil Aviation)
Blue


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/