So it's wrong ?
It's a key point I guess

Thanks

Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5662425/

Topic: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: jetblueguy22
Posted 2013-01-16 09:44:43 and read 26934 times.

This is a continuation of Part 1 which got quite long. Part 1 can be found here ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding (by eksath Jan 15 2013 in Civil Aviation)
Thanks
Blue

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 09:48:46 and read 26954 times.

Ok since my reply was last in the other one and because I added information to it ill repost it here:


-
I just finished translating an article from the Asahi Shimbun, another major news source in Japan.
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0116/TKY201301160371.html?ref=rss

Please bear with me as its a lot of information.
On the morning of the 16th, NH 692, JA804A, took off from Yamaguchi Airport in Ube, at 8:28 local.
30 minutes into flight, the pilot flying contacted ATC in Fukuoka (FUK) and stated there was smoke in the cockpit, with a slight English anomaly: "cockpit in smoke."
Passengers reported that smoke began appearing in the cabin at the same time.
A gradual descent was initiated.
Sensors on board detected serious smoke in the cargo hold under the main cabin.
The actual lithium ion battery by the APU indeed failed as it overheated as established from other sources.
No power output therefore could occur. Auxilillary batteries would have had to been activated.
Because of that, and the smoke not subsiding, the pilots requested emergency landing at TAK, as it would have been right by TAK at that time.
Descent and landing took about 10 minutes, which passengers described as extremely tense and nervous. By this time the whole cabin was filled with an acrid smell.

The plane, as we have established, made its successful emergency landing on the runway and pulled off to a runway exit and evacuated using emergency slides. 1 person was taken to the hospital with hip injuries and other abrasion related injuries were treated on site. Smoke subsided in the cabin after landing but poured from an outflow valve while on the ground.

TAK was closed but I think they towed ship 804 to a remote for investigation. I'll check later when the airports normally open if TAK is open for business today.

Please refer to this for updated news and factual information. But as for the Japanese public, they're quite shaken by this. The Asahi Shimbun is calling this a strange anomaly, which are words which could create nervousness among the society.


Please excuse any erroneous translation, as my Japanese isn't the best. This took about 30 minutes to do.

Non translation references:
Ube Airport in Yamaguchi has the IATA code of UBJ with runway 7/35 as 2500 m, 8,202 f.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 09:52:01 and read 26940 times.

To (partially) recap, an NH 787 (JA804A) delivered exactly one year prior gave the flight crew indications of a possible issue with the Ship's (main) Battery located in the Forward Equipment Bay under the flight deck. There was a report of a "strange smell" in the flight deck and cabin. The flight crew chose to divert to TAK and once they cleared the active runway, they stopped the plane and ordered an emergency evacuation via slide. One person was injured (I believe during the evacuation). The Ship's Battery showed signs of discoloration and the electrolysis solution had leaked.

NH and JL have subsequently grounded their 787 fleets. At this time, all other 787 operators are continuing to fly the plane. A QR 787 flight was cancelled prior to departure from LHR, but it appears other QR 787 flights are operating.

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:57:26]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 09:53:13 and read 26886 times.

If the translated article is correct, and yesterday's incident indeed was the APU battery - the second one in a week- what arguments are there to be made, not to ground all 787s until this issue is resolved?

Deciding to keep flying the 787 until investigations are complete and just pop the slides and evacuate pax if a problem arises would be inconvenient for passengers and crew, plus the expense of repacking slides, no?

Just asking for discussion's sake - not advocating either way.

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:53:52]

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:54:36]

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:54:53]

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:58:11]

EDIT: See an automatic translation I just did, below. I do not see APU battery listed?


[Edited 2013-01-16 10:11:14]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: lhrnue
Posted 2013-01-16 09:55:34 and read 26844 times.

I am looking forward to read how Randy tries to give a positive spin to this incident.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 09:57:31 and read 26800 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The flight crew chose to divert to TAK and once they cleared the active runway, they stopped the plane and ordered an emergency evacuation via slide. One person was injured (I believe during the evacuation).

Yes during evacuation. Other abrasions were treated on site.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
a possible issue with the Ship's (main) Battery located in the Forward Equipment Bay under the flight deck. There was a report of a "strange smell" in the flight deck and cabin, but reports of smoke inside the flight deck and/or cabin have not been confirmed (and may have been erroneously reported).

Was it main? The articles I've seen said it was APU. Smoke was confirmed by Asahi and Yomiuri reports by the fire department and pax interviews.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: mham001
Posted 2013-01-16 09:58:27 and read 26756 times.

Given the large discrepencies between posts #2 and #3, I'd say we don't really know much yet.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 09:58:58 and read 26773 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 3):
If the translated article is correct, and yesterday's incident indeed was the APU battery - the second one in a week- what arguments are there to be made, not to ground all 787s until this issue is resolved?

Reports say the problem was with the Ship's (main) Battery, which is located under the flight deck. Reports also say that the battery showed signs of discoloration and electrolysis solution leakage.

As to why not ground the fleet? Based on the evidence presented to date, neither issue appears to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality. In the case of the APU battery fire, the containment box looks to have done it's job based on pictures of it and of the installation area on the 787. In the case of this incident, there were reports of "leakage and discoloration", but no reports of fire or combustion/thermal damage. In no way am I implying that either incident was not serious or that there are grounds for concern that they happened. They need to be investigated both as separate incidents and to see if there is any correlation between them and that is what is happening.


Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
Was it main? The articles I've seen said it was APU. Smoke was confirmed by Asahi and Yomiuri reports by the fire department and pax interviews.

That's what AviationWeek was reporting earlier. They also originally reported that there were no signs of smoke in the cabin, but that is no longer present so they may have edited to reflect the information provided by the Japanese papers.


Quoting mham001 (Reply 6):
Given the large discrepencies between posts #2 and #3, I'd say we don't really know much yet.

I'm recapping all of the discussion in the original thread, which includes multiple news reports posted at different times, so I expect there to be confusion and contradiction as more and correct(ed) information is posted.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:13:45]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 10:02:44 and read 26637 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Reports say the problem was with the Ship's (main) Battery, which is located under the flight deck. Reports also say that the battery showed signs of discoloration and electrolysis solution leakage.


Asahi Shinbun is a very respected news source, but maybe the reporter confused it with the earlier incident and got it wrong.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 10:02:48 and read 26642 times.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 6):
Given the large discrepencies between posts #2 and #3, I'd say we don't really know much yet.


I'll have to say though its all preliminary and i will keep cross checking my sources. This happened 16 hours ago of course we don't know much.

My sources did indeed say there was smoke on board and leakage occurred. I'll have to double check to see if it said anything about battery location.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):

Reports say the problem was with the Ship's (main) Battery, which is located under the flight deck. Reports also say that the battery showed signs of discoloration and electrolysis solution leakage.

Is the main also operated by lithium? If so I will go back and re translate.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-16 10:05:46 and read 26600 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 3):

The translated article contradicts itself and can't be trusted. Reads like a reporter jumping to conclusions without understanding the role of the batteries, their locations, etc. reporter WANTS it to be APU battery, as it makes a better story, but its a different problem than the APU. If the same company makes both batteries, it points to a manufacturing defect. Or it could be maintenance issues. The test birds did not have these problems but were maintained by Boeing, not airlines, and likely had pre-production batteries.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 10:07:35 and read 26548 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Is the main also operated by lithium? If so I will go back and re translate.

Yes it is of the same composition and manufacturer as the APU battery. I believe it is of a higher capacity, however.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 10:10:29 and read 26424 times.

Here is the automatic Babylon translation of that Asahi Shinbun article:


give off a stench Boeing 787 aircraft, emergency landing fall gradually

give off a stench on the flight altitude, lowering the vehicle. The trouble with the state-of-the-art machines that could lead to an accident, a very serious abnormalities. Takamatsu Airport on Wednesday morning, made an emergency landing in Boeing 787 aircraft. Passengers who want to escape the tension tens of minutes. Yamaguchi Ube Airport is approximately 30 minutes after the 8:28 am ANA, 1,692 flights from Fukuoka air traffic control of wireless. smoke in the cockpit." Many of the cockpit of the instrument and the abnormalities were notified. At the bottom of the vehicle ahead in the electric room, the smoke detector battery failure. ... Takamatsu airport to the pilot of the emergency landing.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 10:11:50 and read 26427 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 12):
The translated article contradicts itself and can't be trusted. Reads like a reporter jumping to conclusions without understanding the role of the batteries, their locations, etc. reporter WANTS it to be APU battery, as it makes a better story, but its a different problem than the APU. If the same company makes both batteries, it points to a manufacturing defect. Or it could be maintenance issues. The test birds did not have these problems but were maintained by Boeing, not airlines, and likely had pre-production batteries.

Please realize what I translated was copied down sentence by sentence into a notebook and cross checked with a number of other references. I then organizes the article sentences into a readable report. I am not saying it was the APU which caught but I will concede that one or two words may have took me off a bit, especially in regards to where the battery was located.

Upon further reference check I will say I didn't read that right and it indeed was the main battery which had issues, and the APU itself was activated to facilitate the descent, controls, landing, and evacuation. Thats what I got mixed up. See this sentence:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
The actual lithium ion battery by the APU indeed failed as it overheated as established from other sources.
No power output therefore could occur. Auxilillary batteries would have had to been activated.

So for records sake please make that correction.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 13):
Here is the automatic Babylon translation of that Asahi Shinbun article:

.........what the heck was that?

I speak Japanese to a high degree and also can read it well, but for aiding purposes I used a site called rikai which helps me translate words I don't know, in the context of the rest of the article. I don't use google translate or anything like that.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:14:51]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: AA94
Posted 2013-01-16 10:13:03 and read 26366 times.

I have posted this in the other forum several times, but apparently people either disregard or don't see it ...

ANA has stated that there was no smoke in the cockpit or cabin of the 787.

According to ANA, a battery alert was indicated in the cockpit, and a strange smell was detected in both the cockpit and the cabin. At that point, the pilots decided to make an emergency landing.

Quote:
Earlier reports that smoke was seen in the cockpit were inaccurate, ANA said. The pilots also received a warning that there was a fault in the battery system. ANA said the battery in the forward cargo hold was the same type as the one involved in a fire on another Dreamliner at a US airport last week.

"There was a battery alert in the cockpit and there was an odd smell detected in the cockpit and cabin, and [the pilot] decided to make an emergency landing," said Osamu Shinobe, an ANA vice president, at a news conference.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-01-16 10:13:13 and read 26362 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 13):

Thanks a lot. But., man, there sure is some work left to do on those automatic translators...

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-16 10:14:55 and read 26328 times.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 15):
ANA has stated that there was no smoke in the cockpit or cabin of the 787.

I didn't see them state this anywhere, only that they wouldn't confirm it.

Various passengers have now been quoted in several publications as saying there was smoke in the cabin, and we in fact saw smoke in the video of the evacuation. There was smoke.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 10:16:37 and read 26271 times.

Yeah, translating Japanese to English doesn't look like a job for automatic translators, does it? I thought I would just plug it in to see what came out. Note that it did say "forward" part of the aircaft.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-16 10:17:37 and read 26281 times.

tdscanuck.. I know you're monitoring the thread.. or Stitch or CM
Question
is there an optional battery available?(either by manufacturer or different composition). or was this battery sole sourced?

Also, have we received any indication that the bad batteries may have come from a single manufacturing lot like the circuit boards?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 10:18:12 and read 26235 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
The actual lithium ion battery by the APU indeed failed as it overheated as established from other sources. No power output therefore could occur. Auxilillary batteries would have had to been activated.

For clarification's sake for this statement by the reported, the APU battery only starts the APU and then only if there are no other power sources. Since the engines were turning, they would have been used to start the APU even if the APU battery was working fine. And since the engines were turning, the APU was not necessary (though NH procedure may have called for it to be started, anyway, as a backup).

Quoting kanban (Reply 19):
is there an optional battery available?(either by manufacturer or different composition). or was this battery sole sourced?

If the Ship's Battery did indeed stop providing power, the APU battery would not have taken up the load as it is not designed to do so. In this specific case, the engine generators would have provided power, perhaps along with the APU if it had been started.



Quoting kanban (Reply 19):
Also, have we received any indication that the bad batteries may have come from a single manufacturing lot like the circuit boards?

I have not seen any information as of yet, but it is, IMO, critical to know in terms of the investigation. I'd also like to know how long this battery has been in the plane - has it been there all 52 weeks, or was it recently replaced?

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:20:18]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 10:18:43 and read 26233 times.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 15):
According to ANA, a battery alert was indicated in the cockpit, and a strange smell was detected in both the cockpit and the cabin. At that point, the pilots decided to make an emergency landing.

When it comes to Japanese investigations, I trust the reports released by the ministry of transportation and other public departments, such as fire, NPA, and the like, over what's released by the company itself. The company may be saying this only to save its reputation or prevent fear from spreading, which tends to happen quite a bit in japan.

Since the Asahi got its sources from public reports, including what was reported to ATC FUK, I'm sticking by my articles and translation until I hear otherwise.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):

I see, thanks for that. I'm not an expert on the mechanics of the 787. I'm guessing the energy from the engines would have been fine enough to power it to landing.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:20:46]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-01-16 10:19:22 and read 26231 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 3):
If the translated article is correct, and yesterday's incident indeed was the APU battery - the second one in a week- what arguments are there to be made, not to ground all 787s until this issue is resolved?

I'd say it doesn't matter which battery it was, even two in a week (with none preceding) is a ordinary if unfortunate statistical cluster. Batteries can melt themselves into ash and as long as it's contained properly it's not really a safety-of-flight issue, and hence not (as far as I can tell) a reason for a fleet grounding. (I DO NOT mean to say that it's not serious, it is; just that if containment is holding there's no imminent danger to passengers.)

What I would be more concerned about are the reports of smoke in the cabin in flight. If that is confirmed, it's possible that there is something wrong with smoke containment and that is a big deal. I don't think it warrants a fleet grounding *before* having some idea of what actually happened, but I'm sure that the smoke / smell issue is receiving top attention at the moment. If it turns out to be a design or build flaw that needs to be corrected, then I could see the possibility of a fleet grounding until it's fixed (or inspected for).

This is all armchair opinion of course, I'm not a flight test or safety engineer.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:22:21]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 10:19:29 and read 26227 times.

Not trying to split hairs, but I'm not that concerned with trying to differentiate between smoke and smells. Smells are composed of molecules, as is smoke. Molecules from something were getting into the cabin - that much is agreed upon.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: 71Zulu
Posted 2013-01-16 10:21:41 and read 26173 times.

Ungrounded or FA error?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...3/history/20130116/1610Z/RJTT/EDDF

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-16 10:23:28 and read 26138 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
As to why not ground the fleet? Based on the evidence presented to date, neither issue appears to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality.

So in other words unless we have fatalities or a hull loss, there is no reason to worry? Because "neither issue **appears** to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality"???

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-16 10:27:10 and read 26715 times.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 23):

Ungrounded or FA error?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A.../EDDF
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nh203

May be a 772.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 10:27:23 and read 27065 times.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 21):
What I would be more concerned about are the reports of smoke in the cabin in flight. If that is confirmed, it's possible that there is something wrong with smoke containment and that is a big deal.

Smoke cannot get into the flight deck or the cabin from the Electrical Bays while the plane is in cruise - the air-flow system is designed to prevent this and it was required that this be proven during the certification process.

That being said, once the plane is on the ground, there is no longer any air-flow and therefore smoke probably can find it's way out of the bays and into the cabin.

Yes, it may seem pedantic to some to make this distinction, but it is an important distinction. The cabin cannot fill with smoke or fumes from the batteries or a fire in the bays during flight. And even though it may fill up once on the ground, it cannot do so before the plane can be evacuated - that also had to be proven during certification.



Quoting sankaps (Reply 24):
So in other words unless we have fatalities or a hull loss, there is no reason to worry?

I stated in my post that both incidents needed to be investigated to see if there is any correlation between them and that is what is happening, but you willfully chose to selectively quote me so you could then accuse me of something I specifically did not say. Quite discourteous, IMO.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:34:36]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: capri
Posted 2013-01-16 10:32:13 and read 27446 times.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 23):

flightradar24 shows 777

flightaware don't update fleet quickly

someone beat me to it

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:33:36]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 10:32:21 and read 27461 times.

Before everyone becomes an armchair investigator/engineer and elects to toss the battery manufacturer under the bus, please keep this in mind:

1. Batteries are connected to the powergrid of the aircraft. This alone means there are variables to account for in tracking down the problem, not just the battery itself;

2. Lithium Ion batteries are more sensitive then other battery types to "out of norm" variations in current. They are lighter and pack more power per kilo than other commercially available batteries which is likely why they were chosen.

3. The batteries are housed in containment units designed to protect the airframe in the event of a "thermal event" with the battery. This could include the battery melting down or going up in flames. The length of time this containment could be expected to hold isn't public knowledge. We do know from the Boston incident that the containment unit worked fine (at least until it met the axe of a firefighter).

This isn't a simple, oh the battery is dead/bad, get another manufacturer onboard. The electrical system needs to be checked and if there are "beyond tolerance" spikes/changes in current within the system due to either a material/manufacturing issue within the system or a design issue with the system, those must be corrected.

The batteries of course will be checked. However, the battery manufacturer is one of the best so I don't buy the whole theory that their batteries are terrible and must be replaced wholesale.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:33:21]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-16 10:34:14 and read 27481 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
is there an optional battery available?(either by manufacturer or different composition). or was this battery sole sourced?

The battery is sole source. The supplier is Thales and the manufacturer is GS Yuasa.

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
Also, have we received any indication that the bad batteries may have come from a single manufacturing lot like the circuit boards?

No idea, but I know the investigation will look for all common causes, including manufacturing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
the APU battery only starts the APU and then only if there are no other power sources. Since the engines were turning, they would have been used to start the APU even if the APU battery was working fine. And since the engines were turning, the APU was not necessary (though NH procedure may have called for it to be started, anyway, as a backup).

The main battery works in concert with the APU battery during APU start - they are both used to start the APU. The APU battery, is only used for APU start. If the main engine generators are making power, neither battery is ever used for any airplane function, including APU start.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 24):
So in other words unless we have fatalities or a hull loss, there is no reason to worry? Because "neither issue **appears** to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality"???

The point is "worry" has nothing to do with what we are dealing with. If the FAA and Boeing make a decision to ground the airplane it will be based on an evaluation of the likelihood and consequence of an event, not worry, concern, fear, hysteria, anger, embarrassment or any other emotion people may or may not feel as a result of recent events.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: solnabo
Posted 2013-01-16 10:36:22 and read 27356 times.

From RT on YT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ifPCarjAmI

//Mike

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-16 10:38:33 and read 27228 times.

Thanks, PHX787 for the translation!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
As to why not ground the fleet? Based on the evidence presented to date, neither issue appears to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality.

Probably not required in the technical sense, but IMHO probably is required in the public relations sense. You can explain all you want about how the system is designed to contain battery fires, but I'm thinking we've got to the tipping point where some (many?) pax won't fly on it till the root cause is discovered, explained and corrected. The "random event" in BOS doesn't look so random to many now. Someone quoted the expected failure rate of the batteries in an earlier thread. I don't remember the exact number, but it certainly wasn't this frequent.

Note there was an injury, after a pax hurt a hip on the emergency slide. I point this out because if nothing else, pax don't find exiting down an emergency slide a nice way to end a trip.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Yes it is of the same composition and manufacturer as the APU battery. I believe it is of a higher capacity, however.

The other threads said the two have the same part number. I don't know if that means they can draw more power in one config or the other, though.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 15):
ANA has stated that there was no smoke in the cockpit or cabin of the 787.

And re-reading the translation, either the report has it wrong, or ANA meant that there was no smoke during flight. The translation is consistent with the BOS scenario, where the smoke traveled once the plane landed and the AC was no longer running.

In any case, I'm sure there's still some reconciling of the reports required. It's been a week+ since BOS and there's still a lot of ambiguities out there.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-16 10:43:23 and read 27150 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 29):
The point is "worry" has nothing to do with what we are dealing with. If the FAA and Boeing make a decision to ground the airplane it will be based on an evaluation of the likelihood and consequence of an event, not worry, concern, fear, hysteria, anger, embarrassment or any other emotion people may or may not feel as a result of recent events.
CM, I respect your posts but I think we are splitting hairs over semantics here. If the "evaluation of the likelihood and consequence of an event" results in a sufficiently worrisome finding, then they will ground the aircraft. Not hysteria, unfounded fear, or media pressure, but if they find a genuine cause to be sufficiently concerned ("worry") about the risk to safe operation.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:43:56]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 10:45:32 and read 27109 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 25):

Today's flight is supposed to be operated by a 772.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):

 
I'll keep you guys updated. Japan wakes up in a few hours so when that happens expect another update from the major news sources.


Looks like it indeed came from the front of the aircraft.

Posted 2013-01-16 10:45:48 and read 27079 times.

http://www.flightradar24.com/LOT3

LO 787 is still on way to ORD for the inaugural flight.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-16 10:46:35 and read 26998 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 29):
The point is "worry" has nothing to do with what we are dealing with. If the FAA and Boeing make a decision to ground the airplane it will be based on an evaluation of the likelihood and consequence of an event, not worry, concern, fear, hysteria, anger, embarrassment or any other emotion people may or may not feel as a result of recent events.

Right, but it's my recollection in the QF32 incident QF and SQ grounded their A380s before the authorities did, and I suspect they did so to avoid the "worry, concern, fear, hysteria, anger, embarrassment or any other emotion people may or may not feel" occurring in the minds of their pax.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-01-16 10:49:41 and read 26877 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Smoke cannot get into the flight deck or the cabin from the Electrical Bays while the plane is in cruise - the air-flow system is designed to prevent this and it was required that this be proven during the certification process.

Indeed, but there were (possibly incorrect) reports of smoke and/or smell in the cabin *in flight* anyway. If those reports were false then I see very little cause for a fleet grounding. If the reports had been confirmed it would have pointed to a flaw or defect that might have been of sufficient concern to warrant a grounding (for inspection if nothing else).

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:50:10]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 10:54:44 and read 26737 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 36):
Right, but it's my recollection in the QF32 incident QF and SQ grounded their A380s before the authorities did, and I suspect they did so to avoid the "worry, concern, fear, hysteria, anger, embarrassment or any other emotion people may or may not feel" occurring in the minds of their pax.

Which is why ANA and JL grounded the a/c. Part is to conduct an inspection and part was a p/r tactic. Both airlines are likely burning up the phone/internet lines to PAE to get information from Boeing about their progress in tracking these issues.

While most airline passengers don't really care what a/c they fly, the more often "major events" happen, the more likely it is the flying public will focus on the a/c type. This is a major event given the evacuation and the fact it's an issue related to the battery/electrical systems on the a/c.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-16 10:57:57 and read 26767 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 33):
CM, I respect your posts but I think we are splitting hairs over semantics here.

My point is this: having sat through many Safety Review Board meetings (they are held regularly for all models), the conversation is never about people saying "I'm worried about X.." or "I'm concerned about Y..." As I mentioned earlier, the standardized SRB process uses a scorecard which looks at probabilities and the consequence of events and results in a score (literally categorizes the event into a bucket which dictates the action required). The product of an SRB review is not "sufficient concern" or "enough worry" to warrant a decision about the airplane. The SRB simply results in a prescriptive result - no grey areas or descriptions based on undefined/emotional terms. I think it is actually quite important that subjective terms like "worry" and "concern" are excluded from the process. We'll leave those terms for the press releases, Randy and the PR teams.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-16 10:58:09 and read 26737 times.

I've lost two big replies due to a.net/bad-internet connection so I'm not going to try to reply to quotes this time in the hopes I can actually get a reply off.
-The main and APU battery are the same P/N. That's so you can swap the batteries if the main goes down.

-Smoke containment protects the main deck from the lower lobe. It does not protect from smoke (or smells) that come from the main deck or inside the ECS system.

-The smells/smoke distinction is actually very important because smoke triggers smoke detectors and smells don't. Triggering the smoke detectors is one of the ways the ECS system will know to reconfigure to protect the main deck. Smells won't trigger that automatic response, so crews would have to manually shut down the recirculation fans (with switches for that purpose on the flight deck) if they want to stop smells from spreading.

-Lack of immediate threat to safe flight and landing isn't sufficient reason to not ground a fleet. As CM has posted, there are established protocols and thresholds for this (defined by the regulators, not the OEMs). If there is signs that the battery fire is more than a fluke event and that whatever the cause is may be present on more than one aircraft, that *may* meet the grounding threshold (but I am in no position to know if it does).

-Given that the the 787 was designed for ETOPS330 (whether it actually has that certification or not), the battery containment has to be good for at least that long. Given how battery fires work, that's functionally indefinite containment since a battery isn't big enough to burn for 330 minutes.

Tom.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 10:59:41 and read 26636 times.

I'm having issues editing my last post. I found an article from the Wall Street Journal. (Which I am having issues posting the link of)
Smell originated from front of aircraft, confirming what Stitch said.


JL to keep fleet grounded until late Thursday at the very least. Maybe reactivation on thurs night but not confirmed; if anything it may be reactivated Friday.

NH remains indefinite.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-16 11:00:14 and read 26595 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 38):

While most airline passengers don't really care what a/c they fly, the more often "major events" happen, the more likely it is the flying public will focus on the a/c type.

I heard two different extended reports before I left the house (NPR, BBC) and both were quite focused on the a/c type, the idea that it was all-new, and the fact that it uses a lot more electricity than any previous type.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: BIZJETTECH
Posted 2013-01-16 11:04:58 and read 26522 times.

If I had to take a wild guess here, the Lithium Ion batteries will soon be removed from this aircraft and replaced with standard NiCad. That is if they prove the battery at fault. There has been issues with Li Ion batteries in other aircraft. Hopefully the solution is as simple as that!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-01-16 11:05:42 and read 26490 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
As to why not ground the fleet? Based on the evidence presented to date, neither issue appears to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality. In the case of the APU battery fire, the containment box looks to have done it's job based on pictures of it and of the installation area on the 787.

That may be the case, and the containment box may even have withstood the fire if nobody had come to extinguish it.
But I can fully understand that JAL does not want to have to rely on the containment box in pax operations on a daily basis until they can be reasonably sure to understand what caused the fire and how likely it is to occur again.

To draw a comparison from my own work experience - I used to work in enterprise storage support; we're talking about big cabinets with - usually - at least two battery packs for uninterrupted power supply. If one of these had ever caught fire, even if that fire was contained as planned, you could have been sure to see some customers (not all, of course) elect to at least stop using the battery packs (and quite possibly the whole cabinet if they're in a position to move to other equipment quickly enough) until the root cause was known.
And this would be "just" to not risk fire damage to a data centre (which probably replicates data to another location and has some disaster recovery plan in place), without a planeload of lives at stake.

My point being that I don't think it's any more extraordinary for ANA and JAL to ground their 787 fleet for the time being than it was for Qantas to ground their A380 fleet after the engine failure. In both cases, other operators (in the case of the A380 even those with the same type of engines) continue(d) to operate the type.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 11:08:41 and read 26390 times.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 37):
Indeed, but there were (possibly incorrect) reports of smoke and/or smell in the cabin *in flight* anyway. If those reports were false then I see very little cause for a fleet grounding. If the reports had been confirmed it would have pointed to a flaw or defect that might have been of sufficient concern to warrant a grounding (for inspection if nothing else).

People can be confused as to what they experienced. Or they may have truly experienced it, but not when some people are making the assumption that they experienced it (during cruise).

Boeing had to show that smoke could not travel from the bays to the cabin while the aircraft was in cruise. There may be areas of the flight when smoke could get from the bays to the cabin, but I would expect those are at low-speeds (like final approach) or during deceleration on the runway.

IMO, there is a relevant difference to the cabin "filling with smoke" at FL350 and "filling with smoke" parked on the ground in terms of how it impacts the safety of the flight and the passengers.


Quoting anfromme (Reply 44):
That may be the case, and the containment box may even have withstood the fire if nobody had come to extinguish it. But I can fully understand that JAL does not want to have to rely on the containment box in pax operations on a daily basis until they can be reasonably sure to understand what caused the fire and how likely it is to occur again.

If they wish to undertake that action of their own volition, then I believe they are perfectly free to do so. Just as AA was perfectly free to ground their 757 fleet to double-check the bolts holding passenger seats to the floor.

But AA grounding their 757 fleet was not proof that every seat was improperly bolted to the floor across the entire active 757 fleet and therefore the entire 757 fleet should have been grounded. Even if another 757 operator had seen a set of seats break free, that would still not be proof it was a fleet-wide issue.

And before some folks correctly point out that a loose seat is not as serious an issue to the overall safety of an airframe as a battery fire is, I would like to note that we currently have no confirmation that there was a battery fire aboard JA804A or that there was imminent danger of a battery fire aboard JA804A.

But even so, I expect everyone is going to be checking their batteries very carefully and we may very well see an Emergency AD issued that calls for very frequent inspections of the batteries until a final cause is identified and a fix confirmed. And for the record, if such an Emergency AD is issued, I would consider it an appropriate action warranted by the investigation to date. On the flip side, if an EAD is not issued, I would also consider it an appropriate action warranted by the investigation to date.

[Edited 2013-01-16 11:18:40]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 11:08:55 and read 26401 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 42):
I heard two different extended reports before I left the house (NPR, BBC) and both were quite focused on the a/c type, the idea that it was all-new, and the fact that it uses a lot more electricity than any previous type.

I got up to see the BBC World News report at noon GMT and it was long on sensationalism and short on facts. This is the downside to the information age, it takes no effort to toss information (correct or not) into the air. Investigators can't get to an incident scene fast enough plus investigate plus publish information to correct erroneous reports.

As a result, we'll have more than our share of doomsayers, naysayers and spin meisters speculating. Hopefully, all of us can keep things in perspective. I don't think this a/c is unsafe but do think there will be some changes incorporated into the electrical system of this a/c. What's both amusing and frustrating is it may turn out to be a relatively small design or manufacturing change somewhere in the system that stops the issue cold.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-16 11:12:45 and read 26267 times.

Does anyone know if Boeing has multiple suppliers for the batteries? I would hope they are working on that, if not.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 11:19:20 and read 26135 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 47):

Does anyone know if Boeing has multiple suppliers for the batteries? I would hope they are working on that, if not.

They are sourced from a single supplier who receives them from a single manufacturer. Its way to early to consider switching battery suppliers until the source of the problem is isolated; the battery reports we are getting may be a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 11:20:01 and read 26170 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 47):
Does anyone know if Boeing has multiple suppliers for the batteries? I would hope they are working on that, if not.

They do not.

This is a specialized battery in design and composition. I fully expect there is not another option available "off the shelf" that could be substituted.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 11:22:20 and read 26063 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
People can be confused as to what they experienced. Or they may have truly experienced it, but not when some people are making the assumption that they experienced it (during cruise).

Boeing had to show that smoke could not travel from the bays to the cabin while the aircraft was in cruise. There may be areas of the flight when smoke could get from the bays to the cabin, but I would expect those are at low-speeds (like final approach) or during deceleration on the runway.

Now remember the pilot reported to ATC that the cockpit was "in smoke." I gotta check on Yomiuri but the article I had yesterday said that the fire department detected smoke on board.

I've heard of course of smoke alarms tripping false reports but given the incidents I'm going to go out on a leg and say that this one was no false alarm.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-16 11:28:54 and read 25903 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 46):
I got up to see the BBC World News report at noon GMT and it was long on sensationalism and short on facts. This is the downside to the information age, it takes no effort to toss information (correct or not) into the air.

One of the two reports I heard had AvWeek's Guy Norris on it, and he's pretty good. I thought it was the BBC?

In any case, here's Guy's report, just the facts, ma'm.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_01_16_2013_p0-537245.xml

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 46):
Investigators can't get to an incident scene fast enough plus investigate plus publish information to correct erroneous reports.

Indeed as above the BOS events and their exact sequence aren't clear to me yet.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 46):
What's both amusing and frustrating is it may turn out to be a relatively small design or manufacturing change somewhere in the system that stops the issue cold.

I agree. I imagine some Dreamliner team members must be thinking "if it wasn't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all"!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-16 11:29:39 and read 25783 times.

This is the latest article on the subject (1 hour old) which does not mention smoke, it seems to be a direct quote from ANA:

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines..._anaboeingxml.html?syndication=rss

"All Nippon Airways confirmed in a statement that its 787 made an emergency landing in Japan Wednesday morning local time because of an overheated main battery and “an unusual smell in the cockpit as well as in the cabin.”

The battery was found to be blackened after the incident."

As to likely causes we have to add one possible cause, software. The 1 year difference between the affected frames makes manufacturing faults in the aircraft less likely and if the ANA battery was not changed recently also a batch problem on the battery side less likely. A new software release affecting the electrical system function on the load or top-up side of the batteries should be able to go onto both a new frame and one in service about the same time.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 11:30:15 and read 25616 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 50):
Now remember the pilot reported to ATC that the cockpit was "in smoke." I gotta check on Yomiuri but the article I had yesterday said that the fire department detected smoke on board.

I've heard of course of smoke alarms tripping false reports but given the incidents I'm going to go out on a leg and say that this one was no false alarm.

As I understand it, a smoke alarm was triggered in the forward equipment bay. It is possible that this is what happened and it is being incorrectly reported. Or it happened at a later part of the flight than when the smoke alarm was first triggered (which sounds like it happened at cruise or nearly so).



I'm honestly not try to be argumentative, pedantic or dismissive of the report of smoke in general. I wasn't aboard the flight, so I cannot definitively prove via direct observation that there was no smoke in the cabin. But I do know that Boeing had to show that smoke could not get into the plane from the EE bays during cruise. And from what I understand, they didn't show this with like a firework smoke ball. I have been led to believe that the amount of smoke generated to test this was a significant amount - sufficient to completely enclose the volume of the bay. This strikes me as being far more smoke than a battery could generate - even if said battery was fully aflame, which does not appear to have been the case with JA804A.

[Edited 2013-01-16 11:49:48]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 11:44:48 and read 25347 times.

Interesting enough Boeing is testing N787FT today.
Who is this one destined for?
http://i46.tinypic.com/2vln0ye.jpg

It's clear these incidents aren't phasing Boeing much.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-01-16 11:47:50 and read 25213 times.

Quoting solnabo (Reply 30):
From RT on YT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ifPCarjAmI

//Mike

Some interesting items in this video that I noted:

- No visible smoke inside, though that does not mean not smoke. It does mean it is not thick.
- 2 of the displays on the back of seats where showing scrolling text - shutdown?
- Open bins - and backpacks on people. Clearly, once again, people did not leave everything behind. At the same time shows lack of urgency.
- Outside the aircraft, the "smoke" behind the nose gear appears to be coming from from liquid on the ground. Note that the breath of passengers and crew is visible. Temperatures at TAK are reported to be in the 30's and 40's - I don't have the temperature at the time of the landing.
--> The question I have - could this "smoke" really be "steam" (not really steam, but vapor) from warm liquid dripping on the ground? Is there a condensation outlet here?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-16 11:48:40 and read 25160 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 54):
It's clear these incidents aren't phasing Boeing much.

It's unclear how you can arrive at that conclusion from seeing a 787 in the air on a test flight.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: blrsea
Posted 2013-01-16 11:56:39 and read 24959 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 48):
the battery reports we are getting may be a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

Agree totally. While recharging in air, could a higher than designed current flow cause the battery to overheat and catch fire?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 12:01:26 and read 24887 times.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 57):
While recharging in air, could a higher than designed current flow cause the battery to overheat and catch fire?

Yes. And this need not be applied across the entire battery. A single cell could start to overheat and catch fire, which could then spread to adjacent cells and, eventually, the entire battery.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: goosebayguy
Posted 2013-01-16 12:06:50 and read 24784 times.

The Daily Mail is reporting that Qatar have cancelled their LHR flight. Could it be that Qatar have grounded their 787's too?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-ground-entire-fleet-aircraft.html

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 12:08:59 and read 24754 times.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 59):
The Daily Mail is reporting that Qatar have cancelled their LHR flight.

They also cancelled the flight to PER, but this may be to free up a plane to go to LHR.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 59):
Could it be that Qatar have grounded their 787's too?

Akbar Al Baker is not one for subtly. As such, I would have expected a formal press release (via bullhorn) prior.  

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 12:14:37 and read 24520 times.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 57):
While recharging in air, could a higher than designed current flow cause the battery to overheat and catch fire?

Overhead/overload yes. As to "fire" etc, I'd defer to someone who is an Electrical Engineer, Chemical Engineer or Tech who works in the field. Since they have to look at the battery as part of the overall system, this is one of the things they will address.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-16 12:18:25 and read 24416 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 54):
Interesting enough Boeing is testing N787FT today.

How is that interesting? Looking at all your posts from the previous thread including the wrong translation, you're really trying to over-dramatize this.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-16 12:23:22 and read 24406 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 3):
what arguments are there to be made, not to ground all 787s until this issue is resolved?

Ummm... The law. The FAA mandates a 10^-6 chance of a crash per flight hour. Only if something is so bad as to increase the chance of a loss of life above that threshold is the FAA allowed to step in. What there is is a reduced chance of APU restart which has a direct effect on ETOPS.

See as noted As noted:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 21):
Batteries can melt themselves into ash and as long as it's contained properly it's not really a safety-of-flight issue, and hence not (as far as I can tell) a reason for a fleet grounding.

The problem was contained. That is what is important.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 48):
Its way to early to consider switching battery suppliers until the source of the problem is isolated

   This isn't an auto part which can be switched quickly. It must be certified for the conditions of the 787 which are likely to be unique as noted:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 49):
I fully expect there is not another option available "off the shelf" that could be substituted.

I believe you are correct.

I personally would like to know how much value the battery puts into starting the APU (which has multiple other ways to start) and how it plays into each ETOPS category.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 12:26:18 and read 24226 times.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 59):

The Daily Mail is reporting that Qatar have cancelled their LHR flight. Could it be that Qatar have grounded their 787's too?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-ground-entire-fleet-aircraft.html

Quoting Stitch (Reply 60):

From all respected views the QR fleet is grounded but some were still flying as of 10 min ago.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 12:28:51 and read 24217 times.

UA 33 returned to the gate in NRT and was checked, then completed its flight to LAX.

UA 32 is airborne to NRT at the moment. Nothing from UA about grounding the aircraft.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: seahawks7757
Posted 2013-01-16 12:33:29 and read 24049 times.

Since this was one of the last post. I'm reposting my last post,
A report about all of the 787 issues in the last several weeks-
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2013/...ner-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Hoya
Posted 2013-01-16 12:40:05 and read 23926 times.

Not sure if this was posted in Part 1, but before today's inaugural WAW-ORD 787 flight, the Polish press asked LOT about the Dreamliner's grounding in Japan. Per LOT (rough translation): "The manufacturer (Boeing) informed us that the flaws in the Japanese planes were observed earlier and removed before the planes were delivered to the Polish carrier."

http://www.tvn24.pl/dreamliner-wysta...inutowym-opoznieniem,300428,s.html

So is this a known problem to Boeing then, and only limited to some of the first deliveries?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-01-16 12:42:30 and read 23834 times.

Quoting Hoya (Reply 67):
So is this a known problem to Boeing then, and only limited to some of the first deliveries?

A known problem that yet wasn't fixed to add to the excitement of the Japanese?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 12:44:36 and read 23811 times.

Quoting Hoya (Reply 67):
So is this a known problem to Boeing then, and only limited to some of the first deliveries?

There was an AD issued for fuel leaks on the 787 for fuel-line connectors, but that was unrelated to the JL airframe that suffered a fuel leak in BOS and again in NRT.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 12:47:09 and read 23800 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 68):

Quoting Hoya (Reply 67):
So is this a known problem to Boeing then, and only limited to some of the first deliveries?

A known problem that yet wasn't fixed to add to the excitement of the Japanese?

I'm not buying that quote from LOT. The JL battery incident was on an a/c delivered in December 2012. The UA incident was on an a/c delivered in November 2012. The ANA incident was on one of the first a/c delivered (L/N 7 or 8).

The three a/c referenced above suffered some sort of issue in the electrical system (which includes panels/subs, generators, batteries, wiring etc). I don't see this as an early line number issue limited to a/c delivered to ANA or JL.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-16 12:50:06 and read 23706 times.

Reposting from the previous thread, as I accidentally posted after closing the thread,.

Quote:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 243):

Finally some information worth going through all the posts. Thank you.

I believe (but my friends who could confirm are being quiet as their NDAs require) that it is a wiring issue. Perhaps a software issue. But not an issue that couldn't be overcome.

As a software engineer I disagree with that. Batteries you can just replace, but with problems in software... just being able to replicate the conditions that lead to inappropriate behavior could turn out to be very difficult. Give me a battery replacement any day over software fix.

Quote:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 242):
Quoting airmagnac (Reply 239):
What facts ? We know close to nothing about what caused the ANA diversion, and little more than "the APU battery caught fire" in the case of JAL. What we are discussing here are claims, guesses and rumours produced to try to fill a lack of knowledge of system engineering, testing protocols and certification rules. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you keep in mind this is all speculation

The underlying problem IMO is really that the human mind tends to think in binary terms - yes/no, good/bad, black/white, or in this case, pro-Boeing/anti/Boeing, normal-and-100% safe/catastrophically-dangerous-the-whole-fleet-has-to-be-grounded. The real world is slightly more subtle and has more shades of gray to it. This problem is certainly not normal, this is certainly bad, this is certainly to be investigated, this is certainly to be solved. But this not does necessarily mean that this battery issue will be

Very well written. I completely agree with your analysis of which I highlighted this part as the best.


  

Quote:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 243):
Quoting PITingres (Reply 241):
If you do that you'll see from an official NTSB photo that the containment was so successful that the paint on the battery box was still largely intact.

That says a lot for how good the containment is.

Yes, but the containment was demonstrably not complete. Or else there would not have been smoke in the cabin. We could argue whether the situation would have been different in the air. Tom and CM have given good reasons why it would be, but that's a case that was not tested in Boston.

If (and that's a big if) the Tokyo incident turns out to be an issue with the same battery, I'd argue that containment in the air wasn't perfect for some reason. You could certainly argue that it was good enough, just smells and no dangerous amounts of smoke. But it was not a 100% clean containment.

Anyway, I fully agree with people who are saying we need to understand these events before classifying them or assigning the final significance to them. There is a very big difference between:

* Manufacturing fault in a specific battery model

* Design fault in the electrical system, air flows, containment, etc.

* Software fault in the management system

* General workmanship quality problem

* General design quality problem

We just do not know which category or categories these events belong to. It could be very, very bad depending on the outcome. Or absolutely minor. I'm thinking minor, because battery containment, air flows, fire suppression should be relatively well known issues and the appropriate fixes should have been taken into account by the engineers. I'm keeping thumbs up that FAA studies and airline inspections will indeed verify that all this has been true teething problems. But we just don't know yet. Sorry. You have to wait a few days or even longer before anyone knows what the issues are, and why they are happening.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: tarheelwings
Posted 2013-01-16 12:50:26 and read 23710 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 68):
A known problem that yet wasn't fixed to add to the excitement of the Japanese?

Do you actually believe that Boeing kept this information from their launch customer? That they delivered airplanes with known problems to some of their biggest customers?

Or am I misunderstanding your post?

Hopefully it's the latter.

[Edited 2013-01-16 12:56:38]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 12:53:01 and read 23628 times.

Flightaware is showing that TAK is back open this morning. Can anyone else confirm?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 12:58:17 and read 23492 times.

I sure don't envy the Boeing electrical & computer folks. If the battery can't be definitively ruled out or in ruled out - and maybe it actually is just a bad batch of batteries - checking 5 miles (or is it 50 miles?) of wiring and however many million or billions lines of software code doesn't sound fun!

This is why I drive old cars without computers.... knowing that I am smarter than my car keeps my self-esteem afloat. Putting up with the 8-track sound fidelity isn't the worst trade-off for knowing I can fix my ride with duct tape and a couple coat hangers in a pinch.

Maybe they'll need to check the batteries in a DC-9 test bed.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-16 12:58:33 and read 23488 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 3):
Deciding to keep flying the 787 until investigations are complete and just pop the slides and evacuate pax if a problem arises would be inconvenient for passengers and crew, plus the expense of repacking slides, no?

Any evacuation by slides is inherently dangerous. The passengers are of all ages, sizes, and physical condition. This isn't a plane full of Marines. Thus, minor injuries are almost ubiquitous in any such evacuation and more serious injuries including broken bones are not uncommon. Thus, the decisino to evacuate is not one made lightly. If at all feasible, it is best to taxi the aircraft to the ramp and disembark by the jetway.

When you have a cabin filling with smoke for unclear reasons, an emergency evac is almost certainly appropriate and several professional airline pilots on this forum have agreed with the actions of the ANA crew.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Smoke cannot get into the flight deck or the cabin from the Electrical Bays while the plane is in cruise - the air-flow system is designed to prevent this and it was required that this be proven during the certification process.

And yet there are multiple reports of smoke and acrid smell in the cabin that got worse after landing. Therefore, either smoke CAN get from the electrical bays to the cabin in flight OR the smoke came from somewhere else.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
People can be confused as to what they experienced. Or they may have truly experienced it, but not when some people are making the assumption that they experienced it (during cruise).

That is possible but unlikely, especially when it was reported in the cockpit. The only people reporting the smell in the cockpit would be the pilots. Do you suppose that both of them were "confused as to what they experienced"? That's quite an accusation to throw at professional pilots and I'm surprised you would say such a thing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 60):
Akbar Al Baker is not one for subtly. As such, I would have expected a formal press release (via bullhorn) prior.

I share your surprise that we haven't heard anything from Mr. AB. He should have thrown himself on the floor kicking and screaming by now. Perhaps his silence is something far more ominous?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 13:00:10 and read 23489 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
I share your surprise that we haven't heard anything from Mr. AB. He should have thrown himself on the floor kicking and screaming by now. Perhaps his silence is something far more ominous?

He's shrewd enough to want the facts straight before he explodes.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 13:01:46 and read 23602 times.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20130117a1.html
(English news site)
GS Yuasa KK is sending a team of inspectors to TAK to investigate what happened.


I guess speculation is being raised to if the recharging of e lithium ion batteries could have been the case, such as overcharging. One of my Japanese friends is saying that it could have been an uncontained overcharge of these batteries which obviously could cause such issues.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 13:08:03 and read 23252 times.

It's very interesting that the smoke problems have happened within a wide range of line numbers (something like LN9 and LN84), and didn't crop up with frequency like this during the extended testing phase before EIS. Seems like they should be able to run it to ground pretty quickly. Maybe a software change, or a bad batch of something... but the problem looks to have been introduced to the airframe pretty recently, one would think?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: lastrow
Posted 2013-01-16 13:18:29 and read 22887 times.

sad incident but interesting thread - thanks to all writers so far.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 22):
Not trying to split hairs, but I'm not that concerned with trying to differentiate between smoke and smells. Smells are composed of molecules, as is smoke. Molecules from something were getting into the cabin - that much is agreed upon.

not trying to split hairs as well, but in chemistry you have the distinction that smell can be (usually is) caused by a gas (speaking of the state of matter) and smoke consists of usually fixed matter / particles light enough (maybe because of its temperature) to fly around. For smoke state of matter is solid then. I am not sure if your nose reacts to particles instead to the (gas) molecules.

Detectors for gas and smoke exist. I do not know however, if gas detectors are installed in airplanes.

Overall, I am sad to read the German news pages:

stern.de : "nightmare Dreamliner"
Spiegel.de : "Pilots make jokes about the Dreamliner" (actually is there a good translation for "lästern"?)
sueddeutsche.de : "Boeing's disaster - Boeing was so incredibly proud ..."

It is a shame that press is covering the recent event with these headlines - the reason for this incident has not been determined so far. Only faz.net appears fair, headlining:

"Airlines cancel Dreamliner flights" and before "JAL cancels Dreamliner flights"

 
lastrow

PS. Dreamliner is not in the dictionary of a.net?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-16 13:23:57 and read 22747 times.

Oh boy am I glad that Airbus isn't using names for their planes !

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: jporterfi
Posted 2013-01-16 13:24:17 and read 22633 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 73):

The ANA flight status page shows ANA 534 still scheduled, but with a different a/c type (not sure which one, maybe a 767?) TAK-HND, 9:30-10:45.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 13:25:49 and read 22640 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
And yet there are multiple reports of smoke and acrid smell in the cabin that got worse after landing.

I have been consistent in stating that once the plane has landed that smoke might very well have been able to get into the cabin, so if this is indeed what people experienced, it does not contradict my previous statements on the matter. I have also noted that there may be conditions in the flight regimen that could allow smoke to start coming in.

Do we know what the flight profile was? Did they depart, only climb a bit, then divert? Did they reach cruise altitude and speed? If the majority of the flight was flown within a regimen that prevented the EE bay air-flow system from properly venting the bay...



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
The only people reporting the smell in the cockpit would be the pilots. Do you suppose that both of them were "confused as to what they experienced"? That's quite an accusation to throw at professional pilots and I'm surprised you would say such a thing.

For the record, I was referring to smoke in the cockpit, not smell. And even then, I was referring specifically to smoke at cruise, not on the ground. I've made a conscious effort not to second-guess or armchair quarterback the decisions of the flight crews in any of these incidents.

[Edited 2013-01-16 13:46:51]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-16 13:26:42 and read 22639 times.

Quoting lastrow (Reply 79):
Overall, I am sad to read the German news pages:

Not as bad as businessweek's headline "Boeing's 787: Will this plane kill you?"

They've recently changed it, but the URL reflects old title.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...eings-787-will-this-plane-kill-you

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: musapapaya
Posted 2013-01-16 13:27:54 and read 22594 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 39):
My point is this: having sat through many Safety Review Board meetings (they are held regularly for all models), the conversation is never about people saying "I'm worried about X.." or "I'm concerned about Y..." As I mentioned earlier, the standardized SRB process uses a scorecard which looks at probabilities and the consequence of events and results in a score (literally categorizes the event into a bucket which dictates the action required). The product of an SRB review is not "sufficient concern" or "enough worry" to warrant a decision about the airplane. The SRB simply results in a prescriptive result - no grey areas or descriptions based on undefined/emotional terms. I think it is actually quite important that subjective terms like "worry" and "concern" are excluded from the process. We'll leave those terms for the press releases, Randy and the PR teams.

I like this, same procedure as we use here in the nuclear industry. Very well said.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: peterinlisbon
Posted 2013-01-16 13:46:42 and read 21900 times.

This turned out not to be a serious accident and only 1 person was injured during the evacuation but it makes me wonder - this plane happened to be near an airport and was able to land in just 10 minutes, but what if this had happened whilst it was over the Atlantic or Pacific ocean, maybe more than 3 hours away from the nearest airport? Would they have been able to put out the fire and continue flying for 3 hours? Is it safe to have these planes flying around the world full of passengers and going far out over the sea, knowing that they have a track record of catching fire unexpectedly and no-one really knows why?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 13:51:23 and read 21775 times.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 85):
but what if this had happened whilst it was over the Atlantic or Pacific ocean, maybe more than 3 hours away from the nearest airport? Would they have been able to put out the fire and continue flying for 3 hours?

I have not seen any reports that the battery caught fire. Perhaps the NH crew killed the power to it (or a safety tripped, doing the same) and that stopped whatever reaction was taking place inside before it could escalate to flammability.

If it had caught fire, however, based on the images of the battery compartment on the JL plane, even after the battery was fully involved in fire, the containment box looked to be intact and performing it's role. And the batteries evidently lack sufficient consumable fuel to burn for three hours, so it would have self-extinguished due to fuel exhaustion before then.


I would expect that as part of the investigation, a battery will be deliberately ignited in the box to the point it is fully involved in fire and then the event will be examined to see what happens.

[Edited 2013-01-16 13:53:28]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-16 13:53:26 and read 21736 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 76):
He's shrewd enough to want the facts straight before he explodes.

Not historically...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
Do we know what the flight profile was? Did they depart, only climb a bit, then divert? Did they reach cruise altitude and speed? If the majority of the flight was flown within a regimen that prevented the EE bay air-flow system from properly venting the bay...

They were at 9000+meters when they began their descent, according to the Japanese news sources. Japanese news sources are not like Western ones. It would be very embarrassing for them to post something rash or wrong and in Japanese culture, "embarrassment" can be worse than death.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
For the record, I was referring to smoke in the cockpit, not smell.

The human nose can smell smoke at concentrations about 10-100 times lower than what would be visible to the human eye. If the pilots say they smelled it, then there was smoke in the cockpit. Regardless of whether it was thick enough to cause irritation or loss of vision is irrelevant; it shouldn't have been there.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-16 13:58:07 and read 21506 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Yes, it may seem pedantic to some to make this distinction, but it is an important distinction. The cabin cannot fill with smoke or fumes from the batteries or a fire in the bays during flight. And even though it may fill up once on the ground, it cannot do so before the plane can be evacuated - that also had to be proven during certification.

Perhaps an explanation of the danger smoke in the cabin at 30K presents to the pax, as some may think it is semantics whether on the ground on in the air, smoke in the cabin is smoke in the cabin, in fires whether a/c or buildings, smoke is a very serious threat.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 56):
It's unclear how you can arrive at that conclusion from seeing a 787 in the air on a test flight.

Well Boeing would have to be really callous to have an a/c that is in danger of catching fire mid air and crashing to allow its employees or contractors to take one up for a test flight, on the other hand, it is also possible that they identified something and need to test the solution in flight, both are possible right? Does it phase Boeing the company, I'm inclinded to think that this is the talk all over the company, but unless the entire company is shut down and the investigators identify an immediate threat to the a/c, the company has to continue.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 14:02:43 and read 21370 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 87):
The human nose can smell smoke at concentrations about 10-100 times lower than what would be visible to the human eye. If the pilots say they smelled it, then there was smoke in the cockpit. Regardless of whether it was thick enough to cause irritation or loss of vision is irrelevant; it shouldn't have been there.

Do the relevant FARs actually define how many Parts Per Million of soot may enter the cabin? And if they do, is that level below a concentration that is as little as 10 or as many as 100 times below the limits of human visibility?



Quoting par13del (Reply 88):
Perhaps an explanation of the danger smoke in the cabin at 30K presents to the pax, as some may think it is semantics whether on the ground on in the air, smoke in the cabin is smoke in the cabin, in fires whether a/c or buildings, smoke is a very serious threat.

Well we had a rather surreal debate on what constitutes "fire", and now it looks like we're going to have one on what constitutes "smoke".

So I'll ask you - how much of a danger is it to passengers to be exposed to smoke in concentrations between 10 and 100 times below the limits of human visibility? How difficult does such concentrations make it for cabin crews to operate, especially if they are on supplementary oxygen? How does it impact the ability of passengers to evacuate an aircraft on the ground?

[Edited 2013-01-16 14:06:36]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-16 14:06:26 and read 21293 times.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 85):
This turned out not to be a serious accident

Not to nit pick, but since someone posted a comment in Part 1 that this event had been classified as an "accident", it is worth being clear on the official definition of "incident" versus "accident"...

Accident: An event which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

Incident: An occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.

The ANA event will be officially classified as an "incident" not an "accident". It is not clear to me how the JAL event will be classified, seeing it did not occur during operation of the aircraft.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 85):
what if this had happened whilst it was over the Atlantic or Pacific ocean, maybe more than 3 hours away from the nearest airport?

This has been covered extensively in other threads, but the airplane is designed to handle this specific battery event, for durations up to 5.5 hours while maintaining continued safe flight and landing capability.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 85):
Would they have been able to put out the fire and continue flying for 3 hours?

There is no way for the crew or the airplane to extinguish a battery fire. The airplane architecture is designed to contain the fire without impacting the airplane's ability to safely continue flying - again, for up to 5.5 hours.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 85):
they have a track record of catching fire unexpectedly and no-one really knows why?

They indeed have a track record of battery issues, but only one fire, as far as I am aware.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-01-16 14:07:37 and read 21233 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89):
how much of a danger is it to passengers to be exposed to smoke in concentrations between 10 and 100 times below the limits of human visibility?

Depending on what is the smoke made of it can range from not dangerous at all to lethal...

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: kalvado
Posted 2013-01-16 14:13:26 and read 21073 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 86):
I would expect that as part of the investigation, a battery will be deliberately ignited in the box to the point it is fully involved in fire and then the event will be examined to see what happens.

Should we also expect a demo flight for 6 hours airborne with one engine inop and battery (or maybe both) actually on fire to support ETOPS 330 ratings - with battery fire now close to be considered a non-event?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 14:18:22 and read 20942 times.

Quoting kalvado (Reply 92):
Should we also expect a demo flight for 6 hours airborne with one engine inop and battery (or maybe both) actually on fire to support ETOPS 330 ratings - with battery fire now close to be considered a non-event?

Some of the passengers on the involved jets might not think this out of line  

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: abba
Posted 2013-01-16 14:24:55 and read 20727 times.

Quoting lastrow (Reply 79):
Overall, I am sad to read the German news pages:


Giving airplanes funny names such as Dreamliner comes at a risk. It only makes it too easy for the press to make jokes about it. It is actually interesting to notice what a big story this has become. Even our local newspaper - with a circulation of less than 10.000 copies a day - carries the story.

I find that the press loves certain basic stories. One of them being the hubris-nemesis story about someone claiming more than they can deliver. It is a kind of pre-set story that actual events are read in to and interpreted within.

Whether it is relevant from a technical perspective is another matter. The pre-set story line determines more or less automatically the interpretation of the available facts. And what you are looking fore you find. If you are looking for signs that indicate that the Dreamliner is going to be a Nightmare-liner you will find them no matter what. And it doesn't matter much that informed people find it to be nothing but peanuts. A jurnalist can always find someone they can call an expert who will disagree if it ever comes as far as to a public debate.

I don't think that this PR disaster has much to do with the Internet. Blaming that is to be far too lazy. The Internet does not protest. The PR disaster has on the other hand very much to do with the way that the 787 was promoted in the press. It was a huge mistake to name it the Dreamliner and present it as totally revolutionizing aviation. By doing so Boeing (and Airbus did something similar with the 380) invited all the journalists of the world to look careful for the nemesis. That is: any sign - no matter how insignificant - that could prove and fulfill the pre-set story.

It might well be that the 787 is going to revolutionize the world of aviation. But don't say it. "Let the fingers do the talking".

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-01-16 14:26:09 and read 20666 times.

Quoting kalvado (Reply 92):
Should we also expect a demo flight for 6 hours airborne with one engine inop and battery (or maybe both) actually on fire to support ETOPS 330 ratings - with battery fire now close to be considered a non-event?

No and no.
Battery issues will not require re-certification of the engines.
Containment testing would happen in a test facility on the ground - not in an airplane.
A battery fire is not a non-event.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 14:26:53 and read 20697 times.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 81):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 73):

The ANA flight status page shows ANA 534 still scheduled, but with a different a/c type (not sure which one, maybe a 767?) TAK-HND, 9:30-10:45.

TAK indeed opened today and this flight is a 767 today. Some rumors are circling that there will be a 77w sent to BOS later this week.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-16 14:28:48 and read 20623 times.

All kidding aside, we can talk about containability all we want, but in my opinion if there is one single more occurrence of smoke anywhere on the aircraft, a total 787 grounding should not be considered excessive - and, as can be seen by the building media frenzy, it will be demanded by public pressure.

From the public-relations perspective, Boeing should be now having a serious internal debate whether to ground it now while the furor is small, or wait and see how the next incident plays out, and let the media go on and on how the problem was allowed to fester, at perceived risk to the flying public.

This is aside from the argument over engineering reasons to ground it.

Tricky time here for Boeing to decide what to do. I'm speaking as an experienced PR person.

ETA: What will be the response in the American media when it happens on a UA 787, instead of a foreign carrier? Bears consideration.

[Edited 2013-01-16 14:31:17]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-16 14:29:44 and read 20611 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 88):
Does it phase Boeing the company, I'm inclinded to think that this is the talk all over the company, but unless the entire company is shut down and the investigators identify an immediate threat to the a/c, the company has to continue.

Well yes, of course. I don't really know what your reply has to do with what I posted, since I was addressing a statement from a poster known not to read source material, who'd come to the conclusion that because a 787 was in the air, that this whole ordeal wasn't phasing Boeing in the least.

Almost directly above the post I was quoting a link to the Seattle Times was posted which stated:

"Boeing Commercial Airplanes chief Ray Conner abruptly canceled most of a long-planned, day-long strategy meeting of his leadership executives and senior operational employees — some 900 people gathered at the Washington State Convention Center, including many top engineers — Wednesday morning.

Conner held just a short Q&A session with the employees, answering questions about the emergency landing of a 787 Dreamliner in Japan and its implications.

But the rest of the day, including presentations to the crowd from out-of-town industry analysts and top airline executive Willie Walsh, chief executive of the holding company that owns British Airways and Spanish airline Iberia, was postponed until some unspecified later date.

Those who had flown in for the meeting left for home early as Conner gathered his team to confront the crisis in the 787 program."


That to me appears as if Boeing is taking the current state of 787 affairs very seriously (as they should), and getting to the bottom of the problems is disrupting the normal flow of business at Boeing, at least in some departments.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-16 14:38:11 and read 20392 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 91):
Depending on what is the smoke made of it can range from not dangerous at all to lethal...

Quite true. And modern airworthiness directives work to minimize the sources of toxic smoke on an airplane.

[Edited 2013-01-16 14:54:27]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 14:48:22 and read 20181 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 99):
That to me appears as if Boeing is taking the current state of 787 affairs very seriously (as they should), and getting to the bottom of the problems is disrupting the normal flow of business at Boeing, at least in some departments.

Smart move by Boeing. They should have a war room set up by now and have teams going over each incident (or going over them again) to narrow down the issue(s). I'm pretty happy not to be in Boeing's P.R. dept about now...

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-16 14:49:13 and read 20435 times.

Rumour locally that Qatar has withdrawn the 787 from PER-DOA route, it was scheduled for inauguration on Feb 1st 2013 but aircraft type in SabreTN has now been replaced by 77L.

It would have been the longest over water 787 route to date.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-16 14:52:29 and read 20343 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 98):
From the public-relations perspective, Boeing should be now having a serious internal debate whether to ground it now while the furor is small, or wait and see how the next incident plays out, and let the media go on and on how the problem was allowed to fester, at perceived risk to the flying public.

This is aside from the argument over engineering reasons to ground it.

Tricky time here for Boeing to decide what to do. I'm speaking as an experienced PR person.

I totally understand the PR considerations, which are very real... perception is reality. However, Boeing could only request operators stop flying the airplane. It would take regulatory action to actually make it a requirement.

As for the "internal debate" and grounding the 787 for PR reasons, See post #39 to understand why it won't happen this way. When it comes to grounding the airplane, it will be only the "engineering reasons" which are considered.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: kalvado
Posted 2013-01-16 14:56:00 and read 20274 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 96):
No and no.
Battery issues will not require re-certification of the engines.

I am actually showing where this downplaying of events lead. It's not about immediate danger of smoke or re-cert of engines. It could be about risks demonstrated for certification of a type. If battery fire is expected every 2000 hours, all single-failure risks would have to be considered in "single failure plus battery fire" combination, all double-failures - as triple-failures. Good luck obtaining new type certification with such increased probabilities.
Joking aside, downplaying these events equals to removing one slice of cheese in everyone's favorite "aligned holes" model.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-16 15:13:13 and read 20040 times.

And there you have it, the FAA grounds the 787

https://twitter.com/Reuters

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 15:21:02 and read 19793 times.

No details yet but sounds like a discrete fix or specified inspection has been identified by Boeing and the FAA is ordering all 787s to be inspected/repaired according to the bulletin which Boeing likely issued today.

Anyone from UA, JL, NH, QR etc confirm?

Its likely the fix won't take long to complete but we'll need to see what is on the list. Nothing on FAA website but multiple news sources say an emergency air worthiness directive is/will be issued by the FAA http://www.nbcnews.com/business/faa-...87s-over-safety-concerns-1B7991426

[Edited 2013-01-16 15:26:18]

[Edited 2013-01-16 15:34:57]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Humanitarian
Posted 2013-01-16 15:36:29 and read 19422 times.

For Immediate Release

January 16, 2013
Contact: Laura Brown or Brie Sachse
Phone: laura.j.brown@faa.gov or brie.sachse@faa.gov

As a result of an in-flight, Boeing 787 battery incident earlier today in Japan, the FAA will issue an emergency airworthiness directive (AD) to address a potential battery fire risk in the 787 and require operators to temporarily cease operations. Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.

The FAA will work with the manufacturer and carriers to develop a corrective action plan to allow the U.S. 787 fleet to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.

The in-flight Japanese battery incident followed an earlier 787 battery incident that occurred on the ground in Boston on January 7, 2013. The AD is prompted by this second incident involving a lithium ion battery. The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes. The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.

Last Friday, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787’s critical systems with the possibility of further action pending new data and information. In addition to the continuing review of the aircraft’s design, manufacture and assembly, the agency also will validate that 787 batteries and the battery system on the aircraft are in compliance with the special condition the agency issued as part of the aircraft’s certification.

United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes in service. When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive, it also alerts the international aviation community to the action so other civil aviation authorities can take parallel action to cover the fleets operating in their own countries.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-16 15:37:52 and read 19380 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 29):
The battery is sole source. The supplier is Thales and the manufacturer is GS Yuasa.

Thanks.. I was afraid of that.. The other question is whether this battery was designed especially for the 787 application and another with a few more cells would lessen the risk of thermal runaway.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 86):
I would expect that as part of the investigation, a battery will be deliberately ignited in the box to the point it is fully involved in fire and then the event will be examined to see what happens.


Thales probably already has.. and I would gamble that they looked at other batteries before the selection.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-01-16 15:39:36 and read 19338 times.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 98):
All kidding aside, we can talk about containability all we want, but in my opinion if there is one single more occurrence of smoke anywhere on the aircraft, a total 787 grounding should not be considered excessive

So - if somebody lights a cigarette and starts a fire in the bathroom (a very common occurence) we should ground the fleet - right?
Or if we have an A/C pack fan go - and that puts smoke in the cabin - we should ground the fleet.

Of course, that is silly, but so are blanket statements like this.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 98):
From the public-relations perspective, Boeing should be now having a serious internal debate whether to ground it now while the furor is small,

If Boeing grounds the fleet they are spending the airlines money. They better have a darn good reason to do that - and it is not PR it is technical.
What Boeing needs to do is act clearly, quickly and carefully - keeping their customers up to date. If there is a flight safety issue, they need to act on it - and they will. But they cannot knee jerk like many here and in the press are.

Oh - BTW - I have PR experience too -many hours doing technical presentations to the press. Sometimes about product failures. Sometimes about product recalls that were safety (fire) issues.

It is a HUGE deal for a company to publicly state they have no confidence in their product. It is HUGER deal if your product kills somebody. These are non-trivial decisions that some PR person is not going to make.

Am I frustrated by these problems with the 787 - yes.
Am I more frustrated by the hysteria - yes.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 15:47:58 and read 19099 times.

Soooo:

The emergency directive is an order to ground the aircraft without a fix specified which means the pressure is on Boeing to pull out the stops to identify and correct the problem.

Though UA is the only airline technically affected, I would expect there would be no 787 flights into the U.S. and likely having the rest of the 787s worldwide grounded.

LO has its first 787 flight land at ORD within the hour.
UA 32 is in mid-flight from LAX to NRT.

The ball is in Boeing's court. Order the take out and break out the cots at PAE, its going to be a long haul.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Scipio
Posted 2013-01-16 15:48:05 and read 19170 times.

CNN Breaking News

FAA grounds B787:

U.S. regulators ordered airlines to stop flying their Boeing Dreamliner jets until they can show they've fixed a fire risk linked to battery failures aboard the jets.
The move by the Federal Aviation Administration follows an emergency landing in Japan that prompted that country's two major airlines to ground their fleets of 787s, and a similar problem aboard a Dreamliner on the ground in Boston nine days earlier.
The FAA said United is the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six in service.
Follow complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, http://www.cnn.com and CNN Mobile.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Part147
Posted 2013-01-16 15:48:31 and read 19174 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 109):
Am I frustrated by these problems with the 787 - yes.
Am I more frustrated by the hysteria - yes.

Has the 787 been grounded by the FAA - yes

Is this a HUGE deal - yes


No hysteria - just the plain fact that a brand new, state of the art Boeing aircraft has basically had it's type certificate suspended...


Now Boeing needs to get it back - and the sooner the better.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-01-16 15:53:13 and read 19070 times.

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 107):
As a result of an in-flight, Boeing 787 battery incident earlier today in Japan, the FAA will issue an emergency airworthiness directive (AD) to address a potential battery fire risk in the 787 and require operators to temporarily cease operations.

Ahh! Some data!

Now - if the FAA could only order temporary cessation of operation for certain peoples mouths.   
Unfortunately, I'm sure we will all roll into "I told you so" and "No you didn't" modes....

I welcome this if only because it means we may actually learn something.

It also means the system is working just as it should.

BTW - I wonder how much input from a.net that the FAA took into account....

I'm guessing - nill.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-16 16:00:54 and read 18704 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 110):
The ball is in Boeing's court. Order the take out and break out the cots at PAE, its going to be a long haul.

The ball is probably in Thales court.. with Boeing looking over their shoulder. Now who wrote the software .. Boeing or ?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 16:07:04 and read 18485 times.

Boeing have or will put together a team consisting of their electrical engineers with the same from Thales and the battery manufacturer and all sub contractors who designed and/or built electrical components which interact with the batteries.

If its not the battery itself, Boeing will need to eliminate each component along the path as the cause. This is time consuming and difficult. Hopefully, they are well along this path already given the diagnostic info the a/c can send to Boeing.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: airmad
Posted 2013-01-16 16:09:38 and read 18430 times.

Lithium ion batteries have features in them/about them to stop thermal run away. Why? Because experience tells us that they need careful design, manufacture and care in-service to stop them overheating, catching fire or even exploding. See Sony's problems for example with laptop battery fires etc.

It seems to me that the B787 battery system designers have looked at these things and concluded that all is well but just in case, we'll add a fire/explosion enclosure around the thing. The arithmetic probably told them it would never be needed.

What appears to have happened here is that safety designed into the battery system has failed and the day was saved by the last safety measure - the metal box. The failure could be manufacture, design or installation/use, it might even be the boxes problem. To have the safety systems fail apparently on a regular basis thus relying on the final safety measure - the metal box - is absolutely not acceptable and would not pass safety standards in other industries.

In my own recent experience building a safety case for the use of Li-ion batteries for use in a standby power system proved to be a disproportionate challenge and we went eventually with sealed lead acid AGM batteries instead. These types are used in the marine industry and they do turn up in aircraft also as they can even be inverted and are vibration resistant amongst other things. The crux was proving that the Li-ion batteries could not run away - hard to prove a negative especially with the things having so much provenance for catching fire. Frankly I'm surprised they got them through the safety reviews, but aerospace is different from the energy industry I suppose.

Boeing were perhaps seduced too much by the weight/volume advantage and the ....ahem....the maintenance free nature of Li-ion.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 16:16:27 and read 18132 times.

I think other a/c types use a Ni-Cad battery type. IIRC lead-acid batteries are too heavy for the power that is required to be produced to be used in an aviation setting.

The concern is the fact this a/c is so electrically focused. By taking out pneumatic features from many of the systems, the focus of this a/c (other than the engines getting the plane off the ground) is the electrical system.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-01-16 16:17:32 and read 18190 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 95):
It was a huge mistake to name it the Dreamliner and present it as totally revolutionizing aviation. By doing so Boeing (and Airbus did something similar with the 380) invited all the journalists of the world to look careful for the nemesis. That is: any sign - no matter how insignificant - that could prove and fulfill the pre-set sto

It is funny that Airbus learned its lesson when they launched the 320. Then they touted technical superiority of the new model, so after Habsheim they where an easy target. Now the Airbus brochure highlights comfort and economy, but not technical details.

Now Boeing is making the same mistakes.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: LAXMIA
Posted 2013-01-16 16:18:33 and read 18158 times.

FAA emergency AD to ground the fleet is a black eye for the 787 program, no doubt. But it may be a blessing in disguise. Boeing will be able to apply whatever fix it finds universally (well to the US fleet at least) before the birds get back in the air, which should help cut down on false alarms by overly sensitive passengers and crews.

This whole ordeal is beginning to feel a lot like Toyota's sudden acceleration drama a few years back. There were a few isolated, legitimate incidents - but as soon as they're known, magically EVERYONE'S Toyota seems to have had this problem until they get some warranty repair that was probably unnecessary to start with.

Hopefully Boeing gets this sorted quickly and permanently... if nothing else to re-prove it is a safe airliner to the hypochondriac prone flying public.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Scipio
Posted 2013-01-16 16:33:16 and read 17558 times.

Quoting LAXMIA (Reply 120):
false alarms by overly sensitive passengers and crews

People want to live. I think that is a legitimate objective. When Boeing, airlines, and the FAA are unable to explain why essential batteries repeatedly go on fire on the B787, I think the flying public has a right to be concerned.

You have no right whatsoever to accuse passengers and crews in this case.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: dc10rules
Posted 2013-01-16 16:35:18 and read 17501 times.

Just wondering will the LOT bird stay at ORD awaiting a repair or will it ferry back empty to WAW?

Regards

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: LAXMIA
Posted 2013-01-16 16:37:04 and read 17459 times.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 122):
You have no right whatsoever to accuse passengers and crews in this case.

Scipio, sorry if my statement was not clear, but I was NOT implying that any crew involved in incidents to date has raised a false alarm. I was simply stating that, with there being so much negative press around the plane at the minute, people might have started to have false alarms out of fear/concern - and used the Toyota example as a case where that happened before.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-01-16 16:42:22 and read 17237 times.

Are there thermistors tucked in next to the battery case so that the temperature of these batteries can be continuously monitored by something? (A very nice battery charger for electric-powered R/C aircraft used to have a thermistor you slid in next to the cells, and it wouldn't even operate without it plugged into the charger.) Even NiCads can get hot under charging conditions -- and lose capacity, too.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 16:46:29 and read 17107 times.

To the above who criticized my posting:
It's not speculation it's simply what's coming to me through the news. Your comment was unnecessary.

Is the UA going to ferry back from NRT or will it stay in Tokyo?
Same with the LOT flight. Is he going back to Poland or are no flights whatsoever allowed?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 16:57:43 and read 16757 times.

I will be optimistic and say that this will be sorted quickly.

UA picked NRT in part to the fact JL is based there and Boeing will have crews there as well. ORD is a UA base so should also have Boeing personnel handy.

I can't speak to whether ferrying is allowed. The directive is focused on UA as the only U.S. based 787 operator. I don't think LOT would be prevented from flying the a/c back to WAW if they desired.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-01-16 17:01:47 and read 16631 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 105):
And there you have it, the FAA grounds the 787

And I bet you're happy and jumping for joy now....  

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: qf340500
Posted 2013-01-16 17:01:57 and read 16634 times.

LAXMIA, i can't believe you are actually saying and moreover posting this comment. I love to be called overly sensitive when my own life is at stake, sorry for that... are you actually serious with your comment?????

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-16 17:13:10 and read 16294 times.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/L...4/history/20130117/0355Z/KORD/EPWA

The inaugural 787 flight for LOT from ORD has been cancelled.. in the home of Boeing.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-16 17:13:13 and read 16399 times.

Seattle Times update:

"Hot chemicals sprayed out of the battery on the 787 Dreamliner in this week’s emergency landing in Japan, leaving a gooey dark residue and suggesting a different malfunction than last week’s 787 battery fire in Boston, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

The residue covered the battery and splattered over nearby instruments inside the forward electronics bay. It left a 12-foot-long dark streak from the battery to an outflow valve through which some of the spray vented overboard during the flight."

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...020149011_787batterydamagexml.html

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-01-16 17:13:56 and read 16361 times.

Quoting LAXMIA (Reply 124):
I was NOT implying that any crew involved in incidents to date has raised a false alarm

I will.

I still haven't seen any rational justification for ANA doing an emergency evac on the tarmac. None.

This really is looking more and more like the MD80 jackscrew in terms of hysteria and pilot actions leading to additional perceived problems. However, the FAA in that administration was apparently less-politically-driven than this one. How interesting that United had returned its a/c to service just prior to the FAA stepping in.

Because the bureaucrats at the FAA plainly know more about the operation and engineering of aircraft than do the folks at United.  

PS I can only imagine how the Obamacrats are fielding calls from their union constituants, seeking various behind-the-scenes concessions from Boeing that have nothing to do with the integrity of the airliner before it is allowed to fly again. Time for me to go find a copy of the Atlas Shrugged movies, and get out my souvenir Reardon Metal.




[Edited 2013-01-16 17:16:50]

[Edited 2013-01-16 17:22:02]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-16 17:30:06 and read 15862 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 132):
I will.

I still haven't seen any rational justification for ANA doing an emergency evac on the tarmac. None.

The justification is called "abundance of caution" when it comes to anything to do with malfunctiion of Li-Ion batteries and reprts of suspicious smells or smoke. After the UPS crash, I think this is absolutely the right thing to do. Flood's post above referencing the Seattle Post article seems to bear out the crew's decision.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 17:32:32 and read 15863 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 132):

Quoting LAXMIA (Reply 124):
I was NOT implying that any crew involved in incidents to date has raised a false alarm

I will.

I still haven't seen any rational justification for ANA doing an emergency evac on the tarmac. None.

The ANA crew was versed with the incident at BOS. They received a number of messages on the flight deck. First a status message then two more warning messages of battery overheating plus what must have been fumes from the battery.

There is no way for the crew to be certain of anything at that point but to get the plane down and get the passengers off the plane. They were not going to spend the time taxing with what could be from their perspective, a battery fire.

It was prudent, conservative and not a false alarm.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Connie58
Posted 2013-01-16 17:32:38 and read 15862 times.

I have been a casual reader for quite a while and this will possibly be my first and only post.

I have also been a mech and manager in aviation for a very long time. Now retired.
New aircraft types were always a pain.
The big change over the years has been the involvement of the chattering classes as these problems have become a form of entertainment for forums and feed stock for the media.
I have little doubt the B787 will go on and prove to be a successful aircraft as have many other types that were quite troublesome but less spoken of due to the problems not being out there for every man and his dog to comment on.

I leave the problems for Boeing to fix. Chattering and getting my rocks off on the sidelines over such issues is not my thing. I have better things to do with my time.

I shall now return from whence I came.

Take it easy.

Connie 58

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: RicknRoll
Posted 2013-01-16 17:35:14 and read 15859 times.

According to the FAA. "Both battery failures “resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke,” says the FAA. " from the flightglobal article.

. “These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.”

That would be enough for a grounding, wouldn't it? The containment has failed.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: solarflyer22
Posted 2013-01-16 17:43:37 and read 15656 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 134):
It was prudent, conservative and not a false alarm.

I agree. There is also a danger of passengers panicking on the ground while you Taxi. Their was a Saudi flight where almost everyone died on the runway because they were overcome by panic and smoke inhalation. The smoke level also rised alot once the plane slowed down and the lack of wind.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 17:47:24 and read 15596 times.

The article from the Seattle times that has circulated on the other 4 threads on this forum (   ) shows one thing:

Boeing needs to get the supplier to address what causes this overheat as soon as they can, and of course there needs to be an investigation on how the battery functions in the first place. This is all just basic news.

It was mentioned above but I didn't see it answered: will Boeing seek a new supplier to the battery? Can a different ion be used with the same effectiveness as the lithium?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: RicknRoll
Posted 2013-01-16 17:49:14 and read 15508 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 135):
It was mentioned above but I didn't see it answered: will Boeing seek a new supplier to the battery? Can a different ion be used with the same effectiveness as the lithium?

I would assume they can. I would also assume that this process will take a long time, when the new equipment has to be recertified.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 17:57:23 and read 15405 times.

Boeing doesn't have time to find a new battery supplier and we don't have proof that the battery leaks/fires/issues isn't a symptom rather than the cause.

All hands on deck from Boeing and the suppliers up and down the electrical system chain will have to work this problem until it is solved. The way the FAA release was worded, they have to be convinced to lift the order not just "inspect x screw or fix y window heater."

Unless someone knows, I'll have to do some checking to see if an order like this was issued before that didn't order a specific fix to be performed (such as we've seen with the MD 80s and others).

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-16 18:07:22 and read 15302 times.

Unfortunately for Boeing, two of the current 787 operators will make life even harder for them... Qatar Airways, who's CEO is notorious for speaking his mind to the media; and Air India, who's bosses, the Aviation Ministry, is also notorious for blowing things completely out of context and out of proportion, as serious as the 787s issues may be.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 18:16:24 and read 15102 times.

Another question, as my Japan News app is currently overloaded:
Will NH replace their service to the states on Friday or Saturday? Obviously My previous prediction on JL starting tomorrow isn't going to happen.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: prebennorholm
Posted 2013-01-16 18:52:13 and read 14683 times.

A qualified guess:

The 787 will fly again in a not too distant future. With Ni-Cd batteries, with charge control software copied and pasted from the 777.

It will take a long time to get to the root cause of all these troubles.

It will take another long time to develop the right design.

It may take forever to convince the FAA that the problem has been fixed.

It will take even longer time to convince the flying public to fly on the 787, unless an understandable fix has been implemented.

Yes, I know that the average Joe Public thinks he is on a "Jumbo Jet" whenever he boards anything lager than an Embraer. But large corporations travel departments have already told airlines that they shall not book their clients on 787s. Business travel agencies have done the same. And if they accidentally get rebooked on a 787, then they shall on request be rebooked on the next feasible connection on any non-787 carrier.

Reason is that large corporation travel departments and travel agencies are too "lazy" to discuss this issue with the 1% of their clients who for the time being have made their decision not to fly on the 787.

Should an airline refuse to make this ammendment to their contract with corporations and travel agencies, then they are out of that part of their business.

No airline can live with such limitations. That's a fact. Then we can discuss for the next hundred years how dangerous it was flying the 787 version 1.0 - it doesn't matter now. What matters is customer confidence.

And airlines cannot wait for Boeing and the FAA to agree upon a fix. They will press Boeing all they can for a fast and understandable solution.

The Ni-Cd batteries will be bulkier and heavier. 100 or 200 lbs more. They may not fit in the EE-bay. Then there will be made room for them somewhere in the cargo compartment. In worst case the 787 will lose a cargo container position.

That is my guess. You want to bet? I am willing to bet, but not more than I can afford to lose.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-01-16 19:04:24 and read 14440 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 130):
The justification is called "abundance of caution" when it comes to anything to do with malfunctiion of Li-Ion batteries and reprts of suspicious smells or smoke.

I'm not going to say the diversion was an error, although I have my own thoughts about that.

What I am saying, so please READ IT THIS TIME, is that there was no justification that I have seen that would support an emergency evac on the runway.

Such an evacuation virtually-guarantees injury to one or more passengers.

The Saudi incident referenced had nothing to do with panic and everything to do with suffocation d/t the pressure not being released and the doors not being openable in the face of smoke and overwhelming fire.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-16 19:26:57 and read 14271 times.

Quoting LAXMIA (Reply 118):
FAA emergency AD to ground the fleet is a black eye for the 787 program, no doubt. But it may be a blessing in disguise. Boeing will be able to apply whatever fix it finds universally (well to the US fleet at least) before the birds get back in the air, which should help cut down on false alarms by overly sensitive passengers and crews.

Well, they also had years after the initial roll out to fix a number of issues, so its the same circle. The problem this time is in service errors which they were not able to test and or identify during those years, so they will work to correct these errors, get the a/c back in the air, then do the same thing again when new errors are discovered.
Reality is that this a/c is now different from all others, any error / fault on return to service will be magnified.
Another reality, we were all concerned on the CFRP being an issue, ramp rash etc. etc. etc., go figure that the things bringing the a/c down are old style technology, power, its generation and storage.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 140):
It will take even longer time to convince the flying public to fly on the 787, unless an understandable fix has been implemented.

One may also question how much of the back log wil be lost to the 787 program or Boeing, what else can Boeing convert orders too, 767 / 777????

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 140):
The Ni-Cd batteries will be bulkier and heavier. 100 or 200 lbs more. They may not fit in the EE-bay. Then there will be made room for them somewhere in the cargo compartment. In worst case the 787 will lose a cargo container position.

The thought of a re-wire of the a/c is probably a major fear, that would be costly and time consuming, loosing cargo capacity will affect operator financial forecast, definately a bad day, when the stock market opens in the morning all eyes will be fixed on Boeings stock.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-01-16 19:29:30 and read 14245 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 141):
What I am saying, so please READ IT THIS TIME, is that there was no justification that I have seen that would support an emergency evac on the runway.

The justification is what I stated: Don't tak chances, get them off the aircraft ASAP. British Airtours 737 in MAN wasted valuable time taxying off the runway, time that could have saved lives!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Wolbo
Posted 2013-01-16 19:41:19 and read 14036 times.

Are aircraft purchasing contracts so defined that the supplier has to reimburse it's customers for the financial damages caused by a grounding that is the result of an aircraft defect or is this considered a buyer's risk?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-01-16 19:43:12 and read 14044 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 143):
The justification is what I stated: Don't tak chances, get them off the aircraft ASAP. British Airtours 737 in MAN wasted valuable time taxying off the runway, time that could have saved lives!

Dude, there was no indication of fire.

By your standard, they would do an on-runway evac every time there was even a hint of a funny smell. That's not the standard. Sorry.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 19:53:13 and read 13894 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 145):
By your standard, they would do an on-runway evac every time there was even a hint of a funny smell. That's not the standard. Sorry.

1. Multiple messages indicating first a battery fault then battery overheat;
2. The NH pilots are well aware of the fire on the JL aircraft parked at a gate in BOS;
3. They are airborne and climbing;
4. They smelled an odor which turned out to be fluids from the battery sprayed on the walls of the forward equipment bay;
5. #4 was despite the venting system design;
6. Given numbers 1 and 2 and knowing that any fumes/smoke will spread into the cabin once you land, you don't wait to get to a gate, you get your passengers off the plane.

I don't see why this is difficult to understand. You don't take chances with what they know was a battery issue when days before there was a fire on an identical aircraft. Period.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-01-16 19:53:31 and read 13873 times.

Question: Why could they not have used airstairs on the taxiway to deplane?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 19:59:38 and read 13811 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 147):
Question: Why could they not have used airstairs on the taxiway to deplane?

They'd have to wait for the airstairs with the fumes/smoke coming up into the cabin - that's not the procedure.

The Captain decided to divert and make an emergency landing. Given the information he had at the time, he wasn't going to take any chances with waiting for anything.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-16 20:07:13 and read 13710 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 147):
Question: Why could they not have used airstairs on the taxiway to deplane?

They could have, the questions would be if the emergency services planned for it, those mobile stairs would have had to be driven out to the designated area assigned for the a/c to park. We have seen this done for some types of emergency landings, such as engine failure, blown tires, etc. once the situation is not one that requires immediate evacuation.

In an emergency situations where pax must be deplaned, the fastest way to get them off is via the slides, however, even when doing evacuation test for a/c certification people do get hurt.
Use of the slides could be considered a no win situation, you know someone will get hurt, against more people getting hurt or possible killed from the danger within the a/c, against no one getting hurt if you just take more time to deplane.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-16 20:40:41 and read 13388 times.

One of the articles stated that the battery that caused the ANA emergency landing was recently replaced. The JAL battery was on an aircraft less than a month old. It seems to me these problems are recent batteries. Wouldn't more batteries have failed during testing and up until now if there was a general design problem?

It is good that it seems the fire was contained but it the protection can be better obviously if there was material leaking out.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 20:45:07 and read 13332 times.

Yomiuri update: JL not flying it Friday at all, however there is no word on replacement service. The issue they are having is rebooking all of these pax.



If anyone has word if JL is sending a replacement craft to the states please let me know. I am within very limited confines to checking previous replies because if my iPad.

I'll keep checking from my databases and contacts for Japanese related updates. To those getting pissed at me, please think of it like this: don't shoot the messenger.


PHX787

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 20:58:13 and read 13234 times.

Now from Japan Today. English website.

The Japanese are taking this very very seriously. Out of the 1 or 2 articles per news site I've seen in America, the Japanese have 3 on one site itself.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...s-dreamliners-must-remain-grounded
The 787s not moving in japan any time soon. We could possibly talking weeks.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/o...-787-has-regulators-fliers-worried
A nice summary q and a article for those just breaking in.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/b...-pose-threat-to-japanese-suppliers

Japanese suppliers in the investment hotseat this Friday.

Quote:
By the close Toray had tumbled 4.13% to 510 yen, Mitsubishi Heavy fell 3.23% to 478 yen and battery maker GS Yuasa plunged 4.46% to 321 yen. Fuji Heavy was off 2.87% to 1,150 yen.

The Japanese are taking this really really seriously.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-16 21:00:21 and read 13390 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 140):
What I am saying, so please READ IT THIS TIME, is that there was no justification that I have seen that would support an emergency evac on the runway.
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 144):
By your standard, they would do an on-runway evac every time there was even a hint of a funny smell. That's not the standard. Sorry.

Isn't this a classic definition of Armchair quarterbacking? I am sorry but I'd trust the ANA captain to do what he did with the evac than you who don't even know why he made that decision.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-16 21:06:42 and read 13321 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
is there an optional battery available?(either by manufacturer or different composition). or was this battery sole sourced?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
If the Ship's Battery did indeed stop providing power, the APU battery would not have taken up the load as it is not designed to do so. In this specific case, the engine generators would have provided power, perhaps along with the APU if it had been started.
Quoting kanban (Reply 106):
Thanks.. I was afraid of that.. The other question is whether this battery was designed especially for the 787 application and another with a few more cells would lessen the risk of thermal runaway.

There is a potential alternative supplier. They can and will build one for the 787 but it will take 12 to 15 months to certify.

http://www.eaglepicher.com/technolog...es/battery-power/lithium-ion-liion

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-16 21:13:22 and read 13267 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 153):
There is a potential alternative supplier. They can and will build one for the 787 but it will take 12 to 15 months to certify.

I don't think that will be an exceptable answer.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-16 21:14:54 and read 13241 times.

The only answer to a problem is often likely to ba acceptable.

NS

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 21:16:29 and read 13248 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 153):
There is a potential alternative supplier. They can and will build one for the 787 but it will take 12 to 15 months to certify

Here's the issue I see: if the FAA or MoT says that lithium ion batteries are unsafe to have power an aircraft, then they can say there needs to be a battery not powered by lithium.

Has anyone even referenced the 5X flight that crashed in Dubai because the batteries it was carrying on board-lithium- caught fire?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-16 21:21:43 and read 13194 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 156):
Here's the issue I see: if the FAA or MoT says that lithium ion batteries are unsafe to have power an aircraft, then they can say there needs to be a battery not powered by lithium.

That's not likely to happen. There are other Lithium Ion batteries in aircraft. Many, including this one. are all certified to a much stricter standard - the batteries from the 787 were initially conceived almost 10 years ago...


NS

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: blrsea
Posted 2013-01-16 21:23:11 and read 13171 times.

Aren't Li-Ion batteries used in lots of other aircraft too? It could either be a manufacturing issue or the circuit/software controlling the current flow through the battery might be shot.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-01-16 21:23:58 and read 13175 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 144):
Dude, there was no indication of fire.

By your standard, they would do an on-runway evac every time there was even a hint of a funny smell. That's not the standard. Sorry.

Well, there was smoke reported in the cabin after landing from what I read above. On the flipside, did the A330 that landed with smoke in the cockpit get evacuated on the runway/tarmac? I honestly don't know.

Regardless, the ANA crew did what they felt was prudent. Enough said.

-Dave

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: mham001
Posted 2013-01-16 21:54:33 and read 12892 times.

Quoting airmad (Reply 114):
In my own recent experience building a safety case for the use of Li-ion batteries for use in a standby power system proved to be a disproportionate challenge and we went eventually with sealed lead acid AGM batteries instead. These types are used in the marine industry and they do turn up in aircraft also as they can even be inverted and are vibration resistant amongst other things. The crux was proving that the Li-ion batteries could not run away - hard to prove a negative especially with the things having so much provenance for catching fire.

There are several types of lithium batteries and they cannot all be classed together. Lithium phosphate (LiFePo4) is relatively safe. It is primarily the lithium cobalt used by Yuasa that has had problems.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-16 22:02:37 and read 12832 times.

Switching to a different supplier isn't a viable solution to the immediate issue and the FAA directive. Boeing will need to solve this issue with Thales and Yuasa.

The longer term solution could be to switch to a more stable battery technology. The problem is the aircraft was designed and balanced for the current battery. Switching to a different technology could change the size of the battery considerably which introduces possible structural changes to the a/c design; retrofits would be required for existing planes and a redesign for the planes not yet built. On top of that, the certification process itself takes over a year and would take place under a cloud of suspicion. The FAA will be all over it as will every other regulatory body all over the planet. That would be a worst-case scenario.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a quick and clean solution based on the failure of a single part that is easily replaced.

[Edited 2013-01-16 22:09:39]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 22:20:38 and read 12709 times.

The last 787 in the sky approaching NRT.

http://i45.tinypic.com/33w30gz.jpg

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PITingres
Posted 2013-01-16 22:45:11 and read 12448 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 139):
The 787 will fly again in a not too distant future. With Ni-Cd batteries...

I'll take you up on that.   My (entirely unqualified!) guess is that Boeing (and Airbus, on the A350) are all-in on Li batteries and we'll see refinements to the battery construction, as well as some sort of enhancement to containment. Short term, I'm guessing that there will be either a manufacturing defect inspection or a hardware/software change related to charging.

The Li battery has always been a sort of "holy grail" thanks to Li's position in the electrochemical series, plus its light weight. Of course one of the downsides is that once you have Li ions running amok they are hard to contain, Li being an alkali metal that can dissociate water. I'm sure that Boeing and Airbus both thought that the tech was ready for flight, and what airframe engineer is going to turn down a 2x (minimum) advantage in weight and size if all else is equal? (Plus NiCd is on the RoHS sh*t-list if I'm not mistaken, and NiMH is not without its own issues of self-discharge and weight.)

We've had the Li batteries in 787 fly and sit around for multiple years now. I'm wondering if we are looking at another "Sony Lithium battery recall". I'm an optimist, I think that Li batteries can be aircraft-safe, but maybe it takes more care in manufacturing and/or monitoring than has been recognized up till now.

Edit: typo

[Edited 2013-01-16 23:00:42]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: slinky09
Posted 2013-01-16 22:47:23 and read 12437 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 149):
One of the articles stated that the battery that caused the ANA emergency landing was recently replaced. The JAL battery was on an aircraft less than a month old. It seems to me these problems are recent batteries. Wouldn't more batteries have failed during testing and up until now if there was a general design problem?

The problem in Boston was on an early model 787, the ANA flight on a much more recently delivered model - potentially all 787s could have this problem.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-16 22:54:39 and read 12341 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 162):
The last 787 in the sky approaching NRT.

LAN still en route to SCL:
www.flightaware.com/live/flight/LAN603

Looks like QR still flying... unless it's an FA glitch, departed for MUC half an hour ago.
www.flightaware.com/live/flight/QTR3

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-01-16 23:02:57 and read 12266 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 149):
One of the articles stated that the battery that caused the ANA emergency landing was recently replaced.

Do you have a reference - I'd be interested in seeing that.

I did see a reference that the expected in service time for the batteries was 12-18 months - so it would not be unreasonable for the ANA battery to have been replaced. But I'd like to know.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 153):
There is a potential alternative supplier. They can and will build one for the 787 but it will take 12 to 15 months to certify.

That would be a really looong grounding.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-16 23:03:36 and read 12277 times.

Quoting flood (Reply 165):

Oh I didn't see those. Still kinda sad to see.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: FlyingAY
Posted 2013-01-16 23:27:33 and read 12083 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 152):
Isn't this a classic definition of Armchair quarterbacking? I am sorry but I'd trust the ANA captain to do what he did with the evac than you who don't even know why he made that decision.

+1 on this. It is not like the captain had to make this decision in a split second. There was probably plenty of time to discuss this the co-pilot and the ground and the conclusion was that it would be safest to perform an evac as soon as possible.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: spacecadet
Posted 2013-01-16 23:39:02 and read 12034 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 144):
Dude, there was no indication of fire.

By your standard, they would do an on-runway evac every time there was even a hint of a funny smell. That's not the standard. Sorry.

Sheesh, what part of the quote below do you not understand? I'll help explain it to you if you point it out.

The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes. The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.

That's from the FAA. Are you going to continue insisting you know more about this plane and the situation surrounding this emergency landing than:

a) the pilots who fly the 787

b) the airlines who own the 787

c) the FAA?

I'm giving you the opportunity to climb out of the hole you've dug for yourself here - will you take it?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-16 23:42:55 and read 12022 times.

Guys, I understand that the reason the batteries failed has to be found. And fixed. And unless we are surprised I'd expect that to be relatively easy.

But the battery failure is NOT the main issue I'd guess Boeing and FAA are looking at now. To me the main issue is containment. Why did it fail? Is there some design fault in the aircraft that prevent a successful handling of this statistically rare but still possible event? I do not think the certification requirements call for no battery failures - they call for safe operation even if one happens.

THAT is the issue, and the solution may involve stronger casing, different venting mechanisms, different procedures, or something else. In the worst, worst possible case structural modifications to move the batteries to a different location, reroute vents, etc. I do not expect that to happen, but it is not completely ruled out either.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: uta999
Posted 2013-01-17 05:38:02 and read 10502 times.

Question:

Is the problem with the 787 batteries related to them constantly being charged to 100% when in operation?

That should be easy to fix at least temporarily.

surely a simple cut-out when they reach say 90% of charge would stop them getting hot.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-01-17 06:59:37 and read 10097 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 166):
Do you have a reference - I'd be interested in seeing that.

Cannot give sources.

Earlier in 2010, concerns about batteries that were only giving 6 months of life, now with a change, they are supposedly able to get 4 years out of them. This compares to the 6-10+ years of the less expensive NiCad batteries. For reasons of cell voltage balancing, it is said that it will not be allowed to replace one or more main battery cells. All cells must be replaced.

Believe they were hoping for a 5 year service life. But with higher ambient temperatures rather than room temperature, it looks like the battery life to be significantly less for a constant AOT in the E&E compartment of +45 °C than for a constant AOT of +25 °C, an estimated 2 years vs. 4 years, or half the life. It might be seen that a airline in LHR with significant aircraft ramp time in LHR and average AOT of 30 °C achieves a battery life of 4.2 years, whereas a airline in IAH with ramp time in IAH and average AOT of 40 °C achieves only 2.8 years. These batteries do not like high temps.

Acceptable inspection intervals are 6 mos, 9 mos, 12 mos, or 2 years, problem is, if you do not catch the battery and it needs replacement or overhaul, that battery costs approximately $50,000. A 777 NiCad battery costs about $19,000, 737NG and 767-400 batteries cost only about $6800 each.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 139):
The Ni-Cd batteries will be bulkier and heavier. 100 or 200 lbs more. They may not fit in the EE-bay. Then there will be made room for them somewhere in the cargo compartment. In worst case the 787 will lose a cargo container position.

These are very high energy batteries, which are needed for the 787 power demands. The 787 battery has about the same footprint as the 777 battery, but is about half as tall. The 787 battery weighs 66 lbs, the 777 NiCad battery weighs 106 lbs. To design a NiCad battery for the 787, it has been said that it would weigh approx 3 times as much as a 777 battery, or 300+ lbs, to meet the massive electric demand of the 787.

Concerns have been expressed about the potential explosiveness of this very high energy Li-ion batteries if mishandled, dropped, wrongly serviced with a tool, so forth. Once thermal runaway begins in one cell, the sudden fire will have the intensity of a large welding torch in one’s midst. The safety precautions for personnel, aircraft, components, and facilities will need to be very rigorous.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-17 07:31:19 and read 9868 times.

CALTECH is an insider at sCO now UA. I haven't seen him go overboard and overstate/misstate positions regarding a/c in this forum. In other words, you can trust what he is saying is solid.

Boeing is stuck with the current battery and battery supplier; bringing in another supplier and/or a different technology means starting the certification process over - 12-15 months worth after the new design is validated. This isn't something that is sitting on a warehouse shelf that you can just plug into the 787.

The best Boeing can hope for is the rest of the electrical system checks out and the battery needs some kind of minor tweak which will limit the downtime and the resources needed to fix the problem.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-17 07:38:52 and read 9792 times.

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 164):
The problem in Boston was on an early model 787, the ANA flight on a much more recently delivered model - potentially all 787s could have this problem.

JA804A (the NH plane) was delivered one year to the day prior to the diversion to TAK. However, I did see someone post that the battery had recently been replaced on this airframe.

The JL bird was delivered about three weeks before the issue on the ground at BOS.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: oldeuropean
Posted 2013-01-17 07:39:57 and read 9788 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 169):
Sheesh, what part of the quote below do you not understand? I'll help explain it to you if you point it out.

The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes. The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.

That's from the FAA. Are you going to continue insisting you know more about this plane and the situation surrounding this emergency landing than:

a) the pilots who fly the 787

b) the airlines who own the 787

c) the FAA?

I'm giving you the opportunity to climb out of the hole you've dug for yourself here - will you take it?

Thank you, spacecadet.   

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-17 08:04:44 and read 9568 times.

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 164):
The problem in Boston was on an early model 787, the ANA flight on a much more recently delivered model - potentially all 787s could have this problem.

You have that backwards:

BOS was JAL Line #84 (the latest line number delivered)

ANA issue in Japan was on an airplane delivered a year ago or so Line #9

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: mham001
Posted 2013-01-17 08:54:39 and read 9435 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 172):


Believe they were hoping for a 5 year service life. But with higher ambient temperatures rather than room temperature, it looks like the battery life to be significantly less for a constant AOT in the E&E compartment of +45 °C than for a constant AOT of +25 °C, an estimated 2 years vs. 4 years, or half the life. It might be seen that a airline in LHR with significant aircraft ramp time in LHR and average AOT of 30 °C achieves a battery life of 4.2 years, whereas a airline in IAH with ramp time in IAH and average AOT of 40 °C achieves only 2.8 years. These batteries do not like high temps.

Acceptable inspection intervals are 6 mos, 9 mos, 12 mos, or 2 years, problem is, if you do not catch the battery and it needs replacement or overhaul, that battery costs approximately $50,000. A 777 NiCad battery costs about $19,000, 737NG and 767-400 batteries cost only about $6800 each.

If Yuasa is really getting $50k/pack today, somebody is getting bilked. I understand aircraft quality but last month I bought a lithium phosphate pack of at least twice the capacity, (it's not that large) for $2k. I think a little competition would fix that as battery prices have dropped considerably. For example, the Tesla battery of similar chemistry is $650/kWh installed with BMS. A little difficult to tell but the 787 batt appears to be under 2kWh.

What type of battery are they using in the 737?

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 172):
These are very high energy batteries, which are needed for the 787 power demands. The 787 battery has about the same footprint as the 777 battery, but is about half as tall. The 787 battery weighs 66 lbs, the 777 NiCad battery weighs 106 lbs. To design a NiCad battery for the 787, it has been said that it would weigh approx 3 times as much as a 777 battery, or 300+ lbs, to meet the massive electric demand of the 787.

There seems to be some confusion in this thread about what exactly the APU batt is responsible for.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-01-17 09:05:39 and read 9357 times.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 177):
If Yuasa is really getting $50k/pack today, somebody is getting bilked. I understand aircraft quality but last month I bought a lithium phosphate pack of at least twice the capacity, (it's not that large) for $2k. I think a little competition would fix that as battery prices have dropped considerably. For example, the Tesla battery of similar chemistry is $650/kWh installed with BMS. A little difficult to tell but the 787 batt appears to be under 2kWh.

Has that battery passed aircraft standards testing,FAA approval ? Is it rated for flight ? The testing done for aircraft use approval are some of the biggest costs involved in parts. The old stories of expensive parts were true.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 177):
There seems to be some confusion in this thread about what exactly the APU batt is responsible for.

A remotely parked 787 with no grd power available would be one. The APU battery can start up the APU all by it's lonesome. That is a very big point, especially if you find one of your 787s in a airport that is not capable of providing support for your 787.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-17 09:23:42 and read 9197 times.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 177):
There seems to be some confusion in this thread about what exactly the APU batt is responsible for.


The APU battery starts the APU if external/engine power is not available--also powers the navigation lights during towing ops--that's it for the most part.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-17 09:32:31 and read 9097 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 174):
JA804A (the NH plane) was delivered one year to the day prior to the diversion to TAK. However, I did see someone post that the battery had recently been replaced on this airframe.

IIRC he was also the 3rd delivered to NH because of 803 not being taken Immediately...wasn't 804 also heavily tested?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: mham001
Posted 2013-01-17 11:23:20 and read 8784 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 178):
Has that battery passed aircraft standards testing,FAA approval ? Is it rated for flight ? The testing done for aircraft use approval are some of the biggest costs involved in parts. The old stories of expensive parts were true.

Understood and why I mentioned aircraft-grade but 25x commercial-grade?. it is apparently an off-the-shelf aviation battery (or of similar construction in a different package) so testing costs should be amortized beyond just 800 787's. $50k sounds like 2003 prices. The BMS surely needed more research, development and testing than the battery itself. Is a new BMS installed for every new pack? Is that included for $50K? In the EV world, the battery monitor systems routinely cause the most problems. Competition would be a very good thing here.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 179):
The APU battery starts the APU if external/engine power is not available--also powers the navigation lights during towing ops--that's it for the most part.

This is not as large a draw as being presented. Essentially, a small engine starter and some lights but probably massively oversized. Do you know the draw of those lights? Similar but much smaller lithium batts are now commonly being used as race car starters and soon on domestic cars.
Before I get jumped on for mixing battery uses, the chemistry and characteristics are much the same.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-17 11:52:15 and read 8719 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 179):
The APU battery starts the APU if external/engine power is not available--also powers the navigation lights during towing ops--that's it for the most part.
Quoting mham001 (Reply 181):
This is not as large a draw as being presented.

The Ship's (main) battery and the APU battery are identical. This is because you can send a 787 out with the APU battery MEL'd, but not the Ship's Battery. By having the identical battery for both roles, an airline can pull the APU battery and install it as the Ship's battery.

So the APU battery is indeed oversized for it's role to start the APU, but that is because it also needs to be able to serve as the Ship's battery.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-17 12:48:01 and read 8543 times.

Because of the flames on the other thread ill post updates from japan here.

So far it's a quiet news day in Japanese aviation because of the hostages taken in Algeria from japan.....

Either way here's an article from a Hong Kong source:
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaki..._detail.asp?id=30689&icid=a&d_str=
And from japan times:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nb20130118n1.html
Looks like Yuasa is cooperating fully, but despite the grounding and the desire to reactivate fleets as soon as possible, it's going to take the Yuasa investigators a long time to figure all of this out. In my opinion here, if the FAA wants to be ensured that the battery is completely safe they're going to wait for this whole thing to get sorted out by Yuasa. That could take a long time.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: mham001
Posted 2013-01-17 13:13:21 and read 8434 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 182):
The Ship's (main) battery and the APU battery are identical. This is because you can send a 787 out with the APU battery MEL'd, but not the Ship's Battery. By having the identical battery for both roles, an airline can pull the APU battery and install it as the Ship's battery.

It would be interesting to know the draw on the main pack.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: quiet1
Posted 2013-01-17 13:52:39 and read 8347 times.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 16):
Various passengers have now been quoted in several publications as saying there was smoke in the cabin, and we in fact saw smoke in the video of the evacuation. There was smoke.

Witness testimony can be unreliable. On UA826, the 747-100 flying NRT-HNL which encountered severe turbulence and quickly lost altitude causing chaos in the cabin, multiple passengers claimed the seat belt sign was not on. It wasn't until the flight recorders were analyzed that it was determined that the seat belt sign WAS on. It's not a stretch for people to have smelled an odor inflight, and later "remembered" smoke in the cabin.

Also, if there were smoke in the cabin inflight, isn't it odd that nobody captured it on a cell phone video? They surely had cameras out for the evacuation. Of course, if there were no smoke, there'd be nothing to film.

Plus, to quote just one of the times this has been asserted:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Smoke cannot get into the flight deck or the cabin from the Electrical Bays while the plane is in cruise - the air-flow system is designed to prevent this and it was required that this be proven during the certification process.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-17 13:56:52 and read 8320 times.

There was a cell video of the evac from the NH 787. I did not appear there was smoke in the cabin. No way to tell if there were unusual odors of course.

Later in the video when the camera was on the ground, there appeared to be some smoke coming from the lower portion of the a/c on the co-pilot's side.

We've already seen from the FAA directive and multiple reports that battery fluid was splashed about in the equipment bay.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-17 14:32:17 and read 8186 times.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/b...-flights-after-dreamliner-grounded

JL canceling the SAN route until the 25th.

Editing: oooops! Thanks sonomaflyer. Long day.

[Edited 2013-01-17 14:39:21]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-17 14:34:11 and read 8161 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 187):

http://www.japantoday.com/category/b...-flights-after-dreamliner-grounded

NH canceling the SAN route until the 25th.

JL runs that route. Its a drag but there is isn't another a/c in the JL fleet which can do the route profitably given the runway limitations/field challenges at SAN.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: jreuschl
Posted 2013-01-17 14:59:47 and read 8073 times.

Why would they announce that the SAN route would operate again on the 25th if they have no other aircraft that can fly the route? Do they know something we don't know about the 787 inspections?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-17 15:08:30 and read 8028 times.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 189):
Why would they announce that the SAN route would operate again on the 25th if they have no other aircraft that can fly the route? Do they know something we don't know about the 787 inspections?


It could be that this could be re-issued if nothing is discovered/fixed by this time. Or, JL could be shuffling around to find a replacement craft in case the 787 is still grounded.


It makes no sense to cancel entire flights for a long distance of time, such as for multiple weeks or a month; a week of cancellations isn't good but its a smart idea during the investigations and groundings.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-17 16:35:18 and read 7898 times.

Boeing will now get some time to blame its workers for further delays. Boeing rejected SPEEA's counter offer today. SPEEA will begin a vote to strike. Boeing says it will be just fine without its engineers. Pretty rough skies at Boeing lately.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-17 16:40:18 and read 7868 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 191):

Boeing will now get some time to blame its workers for further delays. Boeing rejected SPEEA's counter offer today. SPEEA will begin a vote to strike. Boeing says it will be just fine without its engineers. Pretty rough skies at Boeing lately.

I don't think this is a wise move by Boeing given the it is grappling with the 787 issues. There comes a time when folks in the executive suite need to take a "big picture" view of things and not get tunnel vision. I doubt there would've been too much upset if there was a brief recess in negotiations while management focused on the 787 problem; SPEEA would've looked good by offering to recess and everyone could advance the illusion that everyone was pulling together in a time of crisis.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: rcair1
Posted 2013-01-17 17:35:57 and read 7756 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 186):
Later in the video when the camera was on the ground, there appeared to be some smoke coming from the lower portion of the a/c on the co-pilot's side.

I'm repeating a previous post I made about because I heard no comments and I think maybe it got missed.
Often by the time I compose and post a reply - the 'thread' has moved so far forward, I think people miss posts.

The key is the item marked -->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ifPCarjAmI

Some interesting items in this video that I noted:

- No visible smoke inside, though that does not mean not smoke. It does mean it is not thick.
- 2 of the displays on the back of seats where showing scrolling text - shutdown?
- Open bins - and backpacks on people. Clearly, once again, people did not leave everything behind. At the same time shows lack of urgency.
- Outside the aircraft, the "smoke" behind the nose gear appears to be coming from from liquid on the ground. Note that the breath of passengers and crew is visible. Temperatures at TAK are reported to be in the 30's and 40's - I don't have the temperature at the time of the landing.
--> The question I have - could this "smoke" really be "steam" (not really steam, but vapor) from warm liquid dripping on the ground? Is there a condensation outlet here?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-01-17 17:47:34 and read 7751 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 193):
Clearly, once again, people did not leave everything behind. At the same time shows lack of urgency.

Look at the AF evac in Toronto, and the US airways evac on the Hudson - people seen getting out of the aircraft with their laptop bags.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 193):
At the same time shows lack of urgency.

Shows people coveting their ipads!

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 193):
- 2 of the displays on the back of seats where showing scrolling text - shutdown?

I noticed that too - I would have thought that the non essential electrical systems like IFE would automatically shutdown.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-01-17 18:53:48 and read 7612 times.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 181):
Understood and why I mentioned aircraft-grade but 25x commercial-grade?. it is apparently an off-the-shelf aviation battery (or of similar construction in a different package) so testing costs should be amortized beyond just 800 787's. $50k sounds like 2003 prices. The BMS surely needed more research, development and testing than the battery itself. Is a new BMS installed for every new pack? Is that included for $50K? In the EV world, the battery monitor systems routinely cause the most problems. Competition would be a very good thing here.

It sometimes could be that the cost of development, testing, certification, liability and continued tech support that it would not be economical for more than one suppler of a component. It would become way to expensive or no profits to be made on that component. This is a leap in technology. It has been said that there is no going back to Ni-Cads on the 787. One doesn't see two different manufacturers of the very expensive A-380 aircraft wings, though there are some expensive components that have been opened up to other suppliers, such as the F100 and F110 engine programs.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 181):
This is not as large a draw as being presented. Essentially, a small engine starter and some lights but probably massively oversized. Do you know the draw of those lights? Similar but much smaller lithium batts are now commonly being used as race car starters and soon on domestic cars.
Before I get jumped on for mixing battery uses, the chemistry and characteristics are much the same.

The main battery has to be close to fully charged, believe it is around 85% of capacity, to provide power for the worst case of a max energy high-speed aborted takeoff. Plus running essential systems in case of power failures until the RAT can be deployed. The battery has many responsibilities. The main and APU batteries are identical. The APU battery is like a on board spare to swap in case of main battery failure. This is while it may seem massively oversized, it really is not.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-01-17 19:32:04 and read 7545 times.

There are less volatile and unstable Lithium battery types...Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries, (A123 type), are much more stable and safe. They can take higher charge and discharge rates, aren't nearly as dangerous in over/under charge conditions. They are also much less prone to catch fire if subject to impact. They are about 10% heavier than the equivalent capacity Li-ion battery but still significantly lighter than any other common rechargeable battery.

I suspect they'll go with NiMh or some other relatively bulletproof tech until they can get some reliable Lithium batteries...just to get the fleet back into the air.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-17 20:19:36 and read 7427 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 196):
I suspect they'll go with NiMh or some other relatively bulletproof tech until they can get some reliable Lithium batteries...just to get the fleet back into the air.

This is an option of last resort. They must go through the entire certification process again in order to switch battery types/brands. That is a 12-15 month process ONCE there is a battery built to the specs needed. Boeing cannot afford to have this plane grounded for over a year.

Hopefully, they have some minor defects in workmanship on the two batteries. They'll tweak the mfr process a tad, perhaps make some safety modifications to the control software to further protect the batteries and that will do the trick.

The process you suggest JoeCanuck would be a disaster for Boeing. I also don't think it will be necessary (just my intuition, no insider info).

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-17 20:47:53 and read 7392 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 182):
So the APU battery is indeed oversized for it's role to start the APU, but that is because it also needs to be able to serve as the Ship's battery.

   Now I know why you are on my RU list, it is finding out details such as this that brings me back to a.net! That is a fascinating little engineering detail.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 195):
It sometimes could be that the cost of development, testing, certification, liability and continued tech support that it would not be economical for more than one suppler of a component.

It is usually the case where a vendor will only develop a part with an exclusive.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 196):
I suspect they'll go with NiMh or some other relatively bulletproof tech until they can get some reliable Lithium batteries...just to get the fleet back into the air.

I've been arguing Boeing will have to switch battery types just to get the plane in the air. But there is that pesky question, what else could handle the job in the space available?

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-01-17 20:53:41 and read 7354 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 199):
I've been arguing Boeing will have to switch battery types just to get the plane in the air. But there is that pesky question, what else could handle the job in the space available?

I don't know how much was removed, but in that photo of the burnt out battery in place, there was plenty of room around it. Wouldn't a completely new battery type cause a huge delay in recertification? It would require completely new management software, and integration into the electrical system, since the charge and discharge profiles would be completely different.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-17 21:02:42 and read 7342 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 200):
I don't know how much was removed, but in that photo of the burnt out battery in place, there was plenty of room around it. Wouldn't a completely new battery type cause a huge delay in recertification? It would require completely new management software, and integration into the electrical system, since the charge and discharge profiles would be completely different.

Yes which is why this option isn't realistic. This isn't a plane where you can pull an aviation battery off the shelf or from another a/c program and just plug it in. This is all custom designed, built and certified to work as a system.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: rwessel
Posted 2013-01-18 00:27:01 and read 7189 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 200):
I don't know how much was removed, but in that photo of the burnt out battery in place, there was plenty of room around it

The space issue (might) be even worse that people are assuming. Li-Ion's may have three times the energy density of NiCd's on a mass basis, but it's more like five times on a volume basis. So the mass of the equivalent NiCd might be triple that of the Li-Ion, but it would need five times the space.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: vfw614
Posted 2013-01-18 01:02:29 and read 7251 times.

On a lighter note:

As a reaction to the FAA grounding, the 787 has also been withdrawn from use at the MiWuLa, a huge German miniture world based in Hamburg with railways and a fully-functional miniature airport:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...10151663579369988_2037523405_n.jpg

(information about the attraction: http://www.miniatur-wunderland.com/)

(soory if this has been posted already, I cannot read through all 787 threads)

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-01-18 01:19:15 and read 7148 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 198):

It would only be a disaster if they had to go with a currently uncertified battery. If they could shoehorn a battery already certified for another aircraft, (and not necessarily a Boeing aircraft), they could significantly cut that time back.

Judging by the pics of the burned battery compartment, it looks like there is a lot of room to play with in the compartment. A few extra hundred pounds would be a small price to pay to get the wheels up on the fleet.

True, the best case scenario is that defects are found in the specific batteries which failed but there are a lot of batteries currently certified for use in airliners which may prove to be a viable, temporary substitute.

The thing about switching out Li-ion batteries for another type is that just about any other battery is easier and safer to charge and discharge, so modifying Li-ion charging hardware and software to another chemistry is much easier than the other way around.

Li-ion has a power density of 230Wh/litre. NiMh has a power density of 300Wh/litre. Lead acid has a power density of 100Wh/litre. So basically, even though they are heavier by a lot, NiMh batteries would actually take up less space than the equivalent size Li-ion, for the same storage capacity. You'd need 2.3 x the space for lead acid.

Hands up anybody who thought the Achilles heel of the 787 would be the damned batteries.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-18 02:16:47 and read 6942 times.

Sorry if it has already been discussed, but from what I have seem on twitter (S Trimble as I recall)

What I read :
Dreamliner

Battery is one supplier : GS Yuasa
Charging device is another : https://t.co/6MnurrsM (Meggitt)
All this stuff seems to be under Thales responsability, but does Thales choose components ?
And having boeing on top of that.

For the A350
It seems that saft is providing the batteries AND the charging device : http://www.saftbatteries.com/SAFT/Up...iles/PressOffice/2008/12-08_fr.pdf (sorry in french)

Off course, as pointed above, batteries on the 787 are oversized acting as buffer for system in the event off a system generation failure ... so that's different from A350,
Size of the batteriy, IMHO, can't be the cause of the failures... but it implies that solving this issues will be more complicated

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2...7/photos/787_Battery_undamaged.jpg

Have a good day

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-01-18 04:02:18 and read 6652 times.

The 787 will use Lithium batteries or won't be.

Like anything that pioneers a technology (at least for that use on that scale), if there's an issue with it, they're bound to run into it at some point.

And like any technology, based on reasonable research and experience, there is a way to make it work and they will.

The only questions to be asked are:

When?
How much?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-18 04:36:28 and read 6579 times.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but newspapers have shown a picture of the ANA battery as well. Looks very familiar to the pictures from the earlier incident.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-18 05:10:26 and read 6439 times.

Thanks
Nice shot
Looks like some plastic cover on the right new battery

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-18 05:55:30 and read 6339 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 192):
I doubt there would've been too much upset if there was a brief recess in negotiations while management focused on the 787 problem; SPEEA would've looked good by offering to recess and everyone could advance the illusion that everyone was pulling together in a time of crisis.

At this point it's not about looking good. It is said Boeing just rejected the engineer's offer yesterday right as the current crisis was raging and right when they need their engineers the most. It must be pretty de-motivating to be asked to give your utmost while your wildly profitable company is seeking to reduce your benefits.

It will be interesting to see if/how the SPEEA uses this crisis to their advantage.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 207):
Nice shot

+1

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 207):
Looks like some plastic cover on the right new battery

I'm thinking the plastic cover is present in both pictures, in the left in its burnt form.

Pretty much drives home the point that there was no fire in the ANA epsiode.

Of course, I'm not seeing where the brown sticky gooey electrolyte left the battery on the left.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-18 07:36:18 and read 6200 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 203):
If they could shoehorn a battery already certified for another aircraft, (and not necessarily a Boeing aircraft), they could significantly cut that time back.

Would it really be that simple?

I mean if the 777 battery provided, say, 50% of the capacity, can Boeing just stack two of them together and wire them to tap their combined capacity? There would be no need to insure how the battery interfaced with the pre-existing wiring and control software?



Quoting Revelation (Reply 208):
Of course, I'm not seeing where the brown sticky gooey electrolyte left the battery on the left.

The material running down the sides?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-18 07:47:47 and read 6138 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 209):
I mean if the 777 battery provided, say, 50% of the capacity, can Boeing just stack two of them together and wire them to tap their combined capacity? There would be no need to insure how the battery interfaced with the pre-existing wiring and control software?

They would have to reconfigure the software and hardware to match the new battery. This is all custom designed stuff - not an off-the-shelf application. If they use a previously approved battery (say the 777 NiCad one), I suppose it could shorten the process as far as the battery design itself but this battery would be interacting with an entirely different a/c with a completely different power demand structure.

I would expect there would still be a long period of testing/proving to receive certification. Also, the battery will not be the same size nor weight so that will affect everything from a new containment box to weight balancing to redoing all of the load calculations for every airline given their needs vary from one to the other given custom equipment which is installed.

I just don't see any short-cut available to bring in a different battery and call it good. I believe Boeing has already run through that scenario and will still consider it a last resort given the issues listed above and the likelihood they can fix the existing system.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-18 08:03:43 and read 6098 times.

Morning from Arizona

Today's articles from japan regarding the incident:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...-overheating-safety-inspector-says

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 206):
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but newspapers have shown a picture of the ANA battery as well. Looks very familiar to the pictures from the earlier incident.

Yep, according to that article it's exactly what happened.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...-may-take-weeks-says-battery-maker
If the probe will take weeks, is the 787 going to be grounded for weeks?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CO953
Posted 2013-01-18 08:14:17 and read 6071 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 203):
Hands up anybody who thought the Achilles heel of the 787 would be the damned batteries.

I'll bite....

I always felt that 787 EIS issues would be electrical, just due to the complex design... but certainly not something this fundamental!

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-18 08:25:54 and read 6030 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 210):
Also, the battery will not be the same size nor weight so that will affect everything from a new containment box to weight balancing to redoing all of the load calculations for every airline given their needs vary from one to the other given custom equipment which is installed.

Let's not make this harder than it already is--the battery doesn't power the IFE, galleys, etc.

The APU battery starts the APU (if no other electrical source is available), powers the navigation lights for towing, refueling ops and a couple of more minor items that are not customer sensitive.

The MAIN battery assists the APU battery for APU starts but after that it does nothing on a "normal" flight--with loss of all electrical power it powers the Captain's intsruments until the RAT drops, helps start the APU and is backup power for the brakes--none of this is customer sensitive.

If you have external power plugged in when you get to the airplane, on a "normal" flight, these batteries do nothing but sit there and maintain a charge. It's only on the ground or when an emergency occurs that they are used.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-18 08:35:54 and read 6040 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 213):
If you have external power plugged in when you get to the airplane, on a "normal" flight, these batteries do nothing but sit there and maintain a charge. It's only on the ground or when an emergency occurs that they are used.

Hello
Ostrower in WSJ states that :
Quote:

The urgency of protecting the plane from smoldering or burning power packs is heightened by the fact that the batteries can't simply be left disconnected until necessary fixes are made. That's because the 787's main lithium battery serves as the primary source of electricity for some key systems when the jetliner is flying.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-18 08:43:30 and read 6031 times.

So I go

CM should be answering this message.
It's not from me
It's taken from Seattle Times, via Leeham (Flying frog)

Quote:



Coming from one recent of the Seattle times comments:

“Other potential issues the FAA should revisit:

1) The all composite construction depends on multiple layers of construction for lightning strike protection. There are about 40,000 fasteners going into all three fuel tanks. Each fastener must fit into a Class 1 hole, be protected by a dielectric faying seal, and overlaid with a wire mesh that is also encased in sealant. Any failure or degradation of any of these holes provides a potential energy transfer point into the fuel tank. All of these fasteners are latent failure points- there is no way to inspect each and every one of them on a regular basis. A mechanic dropping a heavy tool, or walking on the wrong area of the wing, can potentially destroy the dielectric, and you’d never know it by looking at it. Sure, Boeing will tell you that the OBIGGS (On Board Inert Gas Generation System) will provide an additional layer of redundancy, by inerting the fuel tanks- but the OBIGGS can’t keep up with the ullage vapor phase transformation during descent below 20K feet. Guess where most lightning strikes occur?
2) The aft E/E (electronics) bay is where main power distribution is handled. Main power (500 KVA from each engine, 2 generators per engine) , plus 250 KVA from the APU) is channeled through the P100/200 main power distribution panels, and the P500 (I think) APU power distribution panel. All of these panels are subject to exposure to liquid threats from the P700/P800 power electronic cooling system (PECS) power panels, which have several gallons of coolant that is highly ionic (think Prestone on steroids). There are several connectors to the P700/P800 racks, which are all coolant leak points. Any one of these failing may leak fluid at about 150 PSI throughout the bay, which may lead to loss of both the P100 and the P200 main power panels, in which case, you lose the airplane. The 787 cannot fly without main electrical power available 100% of the time, and main power loss for more than 2 seconds means that the flight control computers can’t keep the airplane stable, and it departs controlled flight. Also, the aft lavatory/galley system, as well as anything else liquid in this area, pose a threat. So, this is another maintenance headache (PECS connectors), as well as a potential safety issue.
3) The flight control system on the 787 is highly dependent on everything working right 100% of the time. The airplane is inherently unstable- if you lose a critical combination of hydraulics (or power electronics cooling, which keeps 4 of the 6 hydraulic pumps cooled), and/or flight control computers for more than 2 seconds, the airplane will depart controlled flight.
4) The miles of wiring in the 787 provide a thermal threat to the composite structure. The sidewall panels and cabin ceiling were enlarged, in order to provide more spaciousness for passengers, at a cost to systems runs. Another maintenance headache (chasing down wire faults), as well as a potential safety issue.
5) Systems separation (fuel lines from hydraulics tubes, etc.) is extremely tight, due to diminishing area and systems growth during the design phase. The worst areas are in the fuselage, wing body join, and aft of the wing rear spar. These are all operational, maintenance, and potential safety of flight items.
6) Loss of cabin and/or flight deck inflow has become an airplane level safety issue, for the first time. The heat load from the wiring and associated systems is so much, that a loss of environmental cooling systems (ECS) causes a rapid temperature rise in the flight deck (over 120 deg. F), which is over the FAA threshold for flight crew capabilities.
7) The heat load due to the wiring, and the composite structure (which acts like a Thermos bottle), limits the operational capabilities of the airplane, and is a potential safety issue.
8) The engines are bleedless, and being all electric, the airplane has no pneumatic system. There will be operability issues with them that aren’t “discovered” (or disclosed), until they get into the fleet. Heavy engine vendor support will be required.
9) Composite maintainability- it is the opposite of what Boeing claims. It’s much more difficult to detect delamination, and skin panels are much tougher to replace than aluminum. Therefore, foreign object debris (FOD) damage will be that much more difficult to detect.
10) Anti- ice- another example of the supercritical airfoil on the 787. The ECS is already overloaded. Lose any two anti-ice panels on the wing, you lose the airplane.
11) Electric brakes- the 787 has electric brakes. The software required to support these is very , well, finicky. Also, the brakes have a tough time dissipating the heat load. More landing gear headaches, requiring special engineering and maintenance support, and possibly a safety issue. ”

This guy visibly knows what he is speaking about!
Isn’t it time to give a look at these issues as well?

CM it's up to you !
Thanks

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-18 08:46:22 and read 5972 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 214):
Hello
Ostrower in WSJ states that :
Quote:
The urgency of protecting the plane from smoldering or burning power packs is heightened by the fact that the batteries can't simply be left disconnected until necessary fixes are made. That's because the 787's main lithium battery serves as the primary source of electricity for some key systems when the jetliner is flying.

I mixed up some items, refueling and towing ops are on the Main battery, but it only serves as a primary source for key systems after normal power is lost--Mr Ostrower needs to do his homework. Yes you can't disconnect them but they're not doing any work until called upon.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-18 08:49:59 and read 5977 times.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 213):
If you have external power plugged in when you get to the airplane, on a "normal" flight, these batteries do nothing but sit there and maintain a charge. It's only on the ground or when an emergency occurs that they are used.
Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 214):
Ostrower in WSJ states that:

Primary electrical power for the 787 is provided by two sets of two generators each (so a total of four), each set powered by one of the engines.

If both engines fail, taking all four generators off-line, then the Ship's Battery will provide electrical power for the systems necessary to maintain controlled flight until the APU can be started, at which point the APU would take up the load from the Ship's Battery. If the APU cannot be started, then the Ship's Battery will continue to provide said power. If the Ship's Battery fails (or is exhausted), then the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) would take over.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-18 09:35:21 and read 5895 times.

Looks like the 787 may have one other issue to get in order for japan to lift the grounding order:

According to NHK World, faulty fuel valves were detected on the JL aircraft that had issues in BOS because of the leaks.

Here's an excerpt from the NHK. I can't link it because this is from my iPad app.

Quote:
Japan's transport ministry says it found a defect in a fuel valve control system of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet that had 2 fuel leaks.......fuel spilled from 2 nozzles on the plane's left wing that were designed to release excess fuel from tanks. No one was hurt in the incidents.The team says the defective system for adjusting fuel flow to the nozzles is powered by an electric motor and operated from the cockpit.In the case at Narita, the plane's pilots reportedly told the team that a display panel in the cockpit showed that the valve responsible for the leak was closed when it was open.A British company made the device and another defective valve that investigators say caused the leak in Boston.The ministry plans to send officials to Britain as early as next week to question the maker.

So if more faulty valves are detected in these safety inspections, would this also delay the E.D. lifting ?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-18 09:45:48 and read 5827 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 218):
So if more faulty valves are detected in these safety inspections, would this also delay the E.D. lifting?

Depends on the amount of fuel that can leak past them. Both events were under 100 liters, as I recall, which is less than 1000th of the fuel capacity of a 787.

If the fuel leak is minimal, then we'd be looking at an A.D. that would not ground the fleet.

If a leaky valve can drain the tanks in flight, then we might be.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-18 09:51:44 and read 5821 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 218):

Looks like the 787 may have one other issue to get in order for japan to lift the grounding order:

According to NHK World, faulty fuel valves were detected on the JL aircraft that had issues in BOS because of the leaks.

LOL.. Some of your posts crack me up...it's like adding fuel to the fire. The AD is for the battery issue, period! The FAA said nothing about faulty fuel valves, and that only happened on one bird. I am surprised you didn't also mention the cracked windshield..or the brakes issue too.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-01-18 09:55:12 and read 5798 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 209):
Would it really be that simple?

It could be. Batteries are certified for capacity, drawdown, charge/discharge characteristics, and a host of other parameters. Rigging batteries in series, parallel or both has been going on for over a century. It's pretty well understood. The key is to make sure that loads are balanced, they can handle the highest load necessary, (probably by the 1.5x margin), and a failure of a cell just means less power available.

I'm taking a shot that it was contamination in the chemistry of these particular batteries which caused an internal short, which creates heat, which leads to melting cells...which leads to more shorting, ad nauseum, until whatever is burning has exhausted itself.

It's a characteristic of Li-ion battery fires...and they are notoriously difficult to extinguish. It wasn't very long ago that Li-ion batteries used in radio control models were recommended to be charged and even stored in a fireproof container...just in case. Remember a few years back there were a host of Sony batteries cooking laptop computers? They'd work for a while then cook, even though no design parameter was exceeded.

Until they certify a safer Lithium battery, (such as LiFePo4), I say go old school with something that works and is available. The primary reason to use Li-ion batteries is weight savings.

As has been pointed out, these batteries basically just start the APU's...and batteries have been doing that forever.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):

I can't speak to all of it but most of what this guy is talking about is either not specific to the 787 or overblown. The electric racks and fly by wire, for instance. Every plane has power distribution and thousands of planes use fly by wire. Merely having an electrical system with greater loads doesn't make the plane inherently unsafe. The 777 uses more power than the 737 yet somehow it manages.

I believe the 787 can go into 'direct law', which means the controls are not manipulated by computers, but act directly and proportionally from pilot commands, much like cables or hydraulics. If the plane was inherently unstable, direct law wouldn't be able to control the plane...so that point is just wrong...and if he's wrong about that, it doesn't do his credibility on the rest much good.

Airliners aren't fighter jets. They don't have to dodge missiles or ground fire...and manoeuvrability is just about the only reason to make a plane inherently unstable. There just isn't any reason for airliners to be so aerodynamically unstable. It beggars logic to suggest any company would put a control system in place, (or any government would certify it), that can cause a plane full of passengers to plummet out of the skies because of a 2 second outage. I believe the Airbus planes all have some 'direct law'.

Sounds like a disgruntled, ex-employee to me.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: AdmiralRitt
Posted 2013-01-18 10:06:42 and read 5758 times.

A battery is simple element, with known failure modes and thermal limits. IMO the battery must not be
the primary cauising agent. It would show up in testing. And I can't believe that each battery
(custom made) is not tested before shipping. If the battery makers parameters were set by boeing and they followed them, and theyre wrong then Boeing is the one with the big problem.

With a complicated electrical system aberant loads can exist for a time,
but the weakest element (battery) will give out eventually, I would say Boeign, is going to have to do in-situ testing of it's airplanes under operating flight conditions.
(this means having a small skeleton mock passengers to put a realistic in flight load on the electrical system.)

Hopefully the DREAMLINER electrical system has extra diagnostic output panels

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-18 10:13:34 and read 5909 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
CM it's up to you !

Answered in order:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
1) The all composite construction depends on multiple layers of construction for lightning strike protection. There are about 40,000 fasteners going into all three fuel tanks. Each fastener must fit into a Class 1 hole, be protected by a dielectric faying seal, and overlaid with a wire mesh that is also encased in sealant. Any failure or degradation of any of these holes provides a potential energy transfer point into the fuel tank. All of these fasteners are latent failure points- there is no way to inspect each and every one of them on a regular basis. A mechanic dropping a heavy tool, or walking on the wrong area of the wing, can potentially destroy the dielectric, and you'd never know it by looking at it. Sure, Boeing will tell you that the OBIGGS (On Board Inert Gas Generation System) will provide an additional layer of redundancy, by inerting the fuel tanks- but the OBIGGS can't keep up with the ullage vapor phase transformation during descent below 20K feet. Guess where most lightning strikes occur?

ANSWER 1) The 787 fuel tanks have many layers of independent/redundant protections against ignition sources, which include lightning. As the original comment notes, preventing lightning from entering the tanks is one layer of protection. The 787 is the first airplane in history to implement this design philosophy. All other aircraft flying are designed to pass lightning energy (direct and inductive) THROUGH the tank. What the poster is commenting on is just one of multiple levels of protection. If the surface level of lightning protection fails and permits lightning energy to enter the wing, now the 787 is where every other airplane flying is in terms of protections... There are still safe (conductive) paths through the inside of the wing and the ullage is inerted (and has demonstrated in certification to meet the FAR requirement). Also, the dielectric caps the comment referred to are not going to be damaged by walking on them and it would be highly unlikely that dropping a tool would have any effect either.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 214):
2) The aft E/E (electronics) bay is where main power distribution is handled. Main power (500 KVA from each engine, 2 generators per engine) , plus 250 KVA from the APU) is channeled through the P100/200 main power distribution panels, and the P500 (I think) APU power distribution panel. All of these panels are subject to exposure to liquid threats from the P700/P800 power electronic cooling system (PECS) power panels, which have several gallons of coolant that is highly ionic (think Prestone on steroids). There are several connectors to the P700/P800 racks, which are all coolant leak points. Any one of these failing may leak fluid at about 150 PSI throughout the bay, which may lead to loss of both the P100 and the P200 main power panels, in which case, you lose the airplane. The 787 cannot fly without main electrical power available 100% of the time, and main power loss for more than 2 seconds means that the flight control computers can't keep the airplane stable, and it departs controlled flight. Also, the aft lavatory/galley system, as well as anything else liquid in this area, pose a threat. So, this is another maintenance headache (PECS connectors), as well as a potential safety issue.

ANSWER 2) The PECS fluid running in the HVDC racks is running in 3000 PSI titanium hydraulic lines. Running at 150 PSI is not a risk. The PECS fluid connectors for the ATRUs and Motor Controllers have triple-redundant seals and with the mating joint located in a shroud which drains overboard. In other words, even if they failed the PECS fluid would not spray in the equipment bay. The power panels in the bay have enclosures without openings that would permit PECS spray to enter the panels.

Loss of main power from the power panels for 2 seconds (or 2 hours) will not have any effect on the flight control computers or disrupt the stability of the aircraft. The 787 flight control computers are independent from the airplane IMA avionics system. In addition, they have their own independent power supplies - they are powered by 4 permanent magnet generators. Should something happen to the PMGs, the flight control computers have independent battery power sources which provide an uniterupted power source that is completely independent from every other system on the airplane. Loss of all power to the main bus on the airplane, loss of both P100 & P200 panels, loss of power to the main IMA avionics computers will have no effect on power to the flight control computers.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
3) The flight control system on the 787 is highly dependent on everything working right 100% of the time. The airplane is inherently unstable- if you lose a critical combination of hydraulics (or power electronics cooling, which keeps 4 of the 6 hydraulic pumps cooled), and/or flight control computers for more than 2 seconds, the airplane will depart controlled flight.

ANSWER 3) All airliners are inherently stable. The 787 has multiple degraded flight control modes, including "direct", with no flight control computer augmentation of the pilot commands to the surfaces. The 787 has already demonstrated acceptable handling characteristics in test with the flight control computers not augmenting the pilot inputs. This claim that the airplane will depart controlled flight with the computers out of the loop is possibly the most ridiculous of the claims this person has made.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
4) The miles of wiring in the 787 provide a thermal threat to the composite structure. The sidewall panels and cabin ceiling were enlarged, in order to provide more spaciousness for passengers, at a cost to systems runs. Another maintenance headache (chasing down wire faults), as well as a potential safety issue.

ANSWER 4) 787 composite structures and the airplane configuration itself have all had extensive analysis and testing to ensure temperatures are properly managed in order to maintain required strength margins. Where system or environmental temperatures could be a threat to the structure, many methods have been used to address the concern. Sometimes it is as simple as shielding, in other places where very high temperatures cannot be avoided Bis-Maleimide CFRP composites are used, or CFRP has been avoided and metals used instead. As for there being some areas which are difficult to access, I can't argue with this statement, but it doesn't create a safety issue as the poster claimed.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
5) Systems separation (fuel lines from hydraulics tubes, etc.) is extremely tight, due to diminishing area and systems growth during the design phase. The worst areas are in the fuselage, wing body join, and aft of the wing rear spar. These are all operational, maintenance, and potential safety of flight items.

ANSWER 5) Systems separation is a cert requirement. These are all areas where compliance has been demonstrated. Unless this person can point to exceptions to compliance (all of which are listed in the 787 TCDS), he/she has absolutely no leg to stand on with this claim.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
6) Loss of cabin and/or flight deck inflow has become an airplane level safety issue, for the first time. The heat load from the wiring and associated systems is so much, that a loss of environmental cooling systems (ECS) causes a rapid temperature rise in the flight deck (over 120 deg. F), which is over the FAA threshold for flight crew capabilities.

ANSWER 6) The flight deck on the 787 has demonstrated acceptable inflow in a pack-out scenario, including management of temperatures. In addition, the 787 has an Alternate Ventilation System (you'll find the inlet just below the LH CAC inlet) which provides fresh air to the cabin in the case of loss of both packs. This system is above and beyond the cert requirement for cabin inflow without packs, which the 787 has already demonstrated compliance to.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
7) The heat load due to the wiring, and the composite structure (which acts like a Thermos bottle), limits the operational capabilities of the airplane, and is a potential safety issue.

ANSWER 7) There are some instances where extremely high daytime temperatures could limit the 787s ability to operate. However, we are talking about a truly exceptional circumstance. It has been shown to be a level of daytime heat experienced at some of the world's hottest airports for about 1 hour twice in a decade. It is also a temperature where many other aircraft experience operational limitations.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
8) The engines are bleedless, and being all electric, the airplane has no pneumatic system. There will be operability issues with them that aren't "discovered" (or disclosed), until they get into the fleet. Heavy engine vendor support will be required.

ANSWER 8) This is nothing more than tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff. There are no specific claims made which I can consider or intelligently address.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
9) Composite maintainability- it is the opposite of what Boeing claims. It's much more difficult to detect delamination, and skin panels are much tougher to replace than aluminum. Therefore, foreign object debris (FOD) damage will be that much more difficult to detect.

ANSWER 9) Composites already prove their maintenance advantage every day in revenue service. They have been doing so for decades. Regarding delaminations: Extensive testing, the cert philosophy of the composite structure, and decades of commercial service experience for laminate CFRP composites all show that undetected delaminations is not a concern. This issue has been addressed without end (here and elsewhere) since 2002. If this guy still has concerns about this, providing him/her with more data will not help.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
10) Anti- ice- another example of the supercritical airfoil on the 787. The ECS is already overloaded. Lose any two anti-ice panels on the wing, you lose the airplane.

ANSWER 10) The 787 has flown in test with ice shapes on the wings, and in icing conditions with the WIPS system deactivated. These are required tests for cert and are all done to show the airplane remains controllable with icing on the wings.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
11) Electric brakes- the 787 has electric brakes. The software required to support these is very , well, finicky. Also, the brakes have a tough time dissipating the heat load. More landing gear headaches, requiring special engineering and maintenance support, and possibly a safety issue.

ANSWER 11) Yes, the 787 has electric brakes. Yes, there have been some minor software issues in flight test and early in service - not a surprise. No, the brakes do not have trouble dissipating the heat. I suspect the person wrote this because they are aware it was believed by Boeing a couple years ago that heat from the brakes may limit the life of some brake electronics which are housed in the axles. This turned out to not be the case. Flight test showed we were conservative in our thermal analysis and the brake electronics actually handle the heat without any problem. No landing gear headaches, no special engineering and maintenance support and definitely no safety issue.

[Edited 2013-01-18 10:26:46]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-18 10:36:54 and read 5645 times.

Looks like the Ship's Battery on the NH flight was subjected to voltage higher than design limit:

Quote:
The burned insides of a battery in the Boeing 787 at the center of a worldwide grounding of the aircraft indicate it operated at a voltage above its design limit, a Japanese investigator said Friday, as U.S. officials joined Japan's probe into the incident.

Japan transport ministry investigator Hideyo Kosugi said the state of the battery indicated "voltage exceeding the design limit was applied" to it.

Kosugi-san went on to mention that NH's Ship's Battery and JL's APU battery appeared to suffer similar damage and he believes this suggests the possibility of a common cause between the two incidents.

CBS News Report


I can't load the Japan Today site, so not sure if PHX787's links are for the same report.


The Wall Street Journal also confirmed that the Ship's Battery on the NH plane was replaced in October after it failed to start the plane's engines. So this was also a "new" battery, like the APU battery on the JL plane.

[Edited 2013-01-18 10:46:27]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-18 11:06:52 and read 5448 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 224):
Kosugi-san went on to mention that NH's Ship's Battery and JL's APU battery appeared to suffer similar damage and he believes this suggests the possibility of a common cause between the two incidents.

CBS News Report


I can't load the Japan Today site, so not sure if PHX787's links are for the same report.


The Wall Street Journal also confirmed that the Ship's Battery on the NH plane was replaced in October after it failed to start the plane's engines. So this was also a "new" battery, like the APU battery on the JL plane.

I read a different report that said the same thing earlier from Yomiuri so I'm guessing CBS is quoting from news released in japan. The Japan today article is simply stating the status of the report thus far.

I think we did say something earlier about the battery being replaced.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2013-01-18 11:37:32 and read 5271 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 224):
Quote:
The burned insides of a battery in the Boeing 787 at the center of a worldwide grounding of the aircraft indicate it operated at a voltage above its design limit, a Japanese investigator said Friday, as U.S. officials joined Japan's probe into the incident.

I've been troubleshooting and repairing burned battery packs for a while now, and that statement sound premature to say the least. Although getting hit by a voltage spike can cause that kind of damage, so can arcing caused by breakdown of insulating layers. Cause and effect of that sort of runaway like that isn't obvious.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-18 12:14:23 and read 5208 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 223):
Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 215):
CM it's up to you !

Answered in order:

Thank you CM

Designing the 787 seems to have been truly challenging, pushing the limits. Hope this breaktrough can be leveraged in other Boeing Design sooner rather than later

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: BEG2IAH
Posted 2013-01-18 12:32:13 and read 5117 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 223):
Answered in order:

CM, this was a great post. Thanks for all your patience, I wish I had 1% of it.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-01-18 12:52:54 and read 5026 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 221):
Until they certify a safer Lithium battery, (such as LiFePo4), I say go old school with something that works and is available. The primary reason to use Li-ion batteries is weight savings.

As has been pointed out, these batteries basically just start the APU's...and batteries have been doing that forever.

I doubt they can simply change to a different battery type because the the charge/discharge control is a part of the already certified electrical system of the aircraft, and most likely that has to be altered to suit new type of battery.

It is not that simple to change a certified system without doing some re certification or demonstration, and I would expect that to take months

The quickest way to get the 787 airborne again would be through some changes in operating procedures, or if it would be possible to run some tests on the batteries in order to give them clean bill of health possibly for a short period of time like 50 hours.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: frmrcapcadet
Posted 2013-01-18 13:13:50 and read 4948 times.

As always I much appreciate the answer our reliable experts give when the rest of us ask questions.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: Speedbird128
Posted 2013-01-18 13:20:57 and read 4938 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 111):
order temporary cessation of operation for certain peoples mouths

With all due respect - I sure as hell don't want to be on a plane where equipment is catching fire. Nothing is ever 100% contained.

Given the rather notorious production standards of this plane, who's to say all these containment sections are to spec?

Simple fact is it should not be catching fire. Period. Yeah sure things go wrong, but if it takes a grounding to ensure passenger safety (as is the case now), then its clearly not such a minor issue.

[Edited due to CM clarification - thank you - and apologies.]

[Edited 2013-01-18 13:53:55]

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-18 13:28:43 and read 4952 times.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 231):
Nothing is ever 100% contained as many of the Boeing people here (very unsurprisingly, to be honest) play down.
Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 231):
Really. Downplaying fire/runaway chemical reactions on planes is, in my opinion, illogical. What else are you guys playing down if a top-drawer event like this is nothing???

To my knowledge, Tom (tdscanuck) and I are the only "Boeing people" who have posted in this thread. That being the case, you'll have to be specific about which comments you are referring to where we have been "playing down" this event. If you point out the comments, I'll (at least for mine) be happy to have a conversation about the parts you are taking issue with.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-01-18 13:35:26 and read 4850 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 224):

Looks like the Ship's Battery on the NH flight was subjected to voltage higher than design limit:

Quote:
The burned insides of a battery in the Boeing 787 at the center of a worldwide grounding of the aircraft indicate it operated at a voltage above its design limit, a Japanese investigator said Friday, as U.S. officials joined Japan's probe into the incident.

I'm not necessarily doubting the investigator's statements or the reporting thereof. But I have to ask, how would they know? A burned battery is not a proof that higher voltage was applied, there are several other possible reasons. Perhaps they have already accessed some history data from the control computers and those show high voltage. That being said, I'm not clear on how a battery control computer would record a high voltage value and not regulate it properly at the same time.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-01-18 13:47:58 and read 4800 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 217):
If both engines fail, taking all four generators off-line, then the Ship's Battery will provide electrical power for the systems necessary to maintain controlled flight until the APU can be started, at which point the APU would take up the load from the Ship's Battery. If the APU cannot be started, then the Ship's Battery will continue to provide said power. If the Ship's Battery fails (or is exhausted), then the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) would take over.

Actually anytime 3 or more generators go offline the APU starts automatically. As long as power isn't lost to the Captain's instruments nothing else happens. If the Captain's instruments loose power the Main battery provides power initially, the RAT automatically drops and provides electrical power to the Captain's instruments and finally the APU completes its autostart procedure and provides even more power. Note: On the 777 once the RAT starts powering the Captain's instruments even after full recovery of all the ships generators the RAT continues to power them until rollout on landing--not sure about that on the 787.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 224):
The Wall Street Journal also confirmed that the Ship's Battery on the NH plane was replaced in October after it failed to start the plane's engines. So this was also a "new" battery, like the APU battery on the JL plane.

The Main battery doesn't start the engines--somebody is confused.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-01-18 15:22:54 and read 4438 times.

Quoting AdmiralRitt (Reply 222):
A battery is simple element, with known failure modes and thermal limits. IMO the battery must not be
the primary cauising agent. It would show up in testing.

Some batteries are simple elements...Li-ion's really aren't. Under light draw, and low amperage charging, they really shine, lasting for a very long time, (usually), without getting a 'memory'. It's a different world with high amperage draws. Standard Li-ion batteries aren't at their best pushing loads of current. Lead acid, Ni-cd and NiMh have been tested by decades of use under all sorts of load, charge, discharge and physical abuse conditions. Their chemistry is significantly more stable than Li-ion. They are robust, reliable and predictable.

Lithium batteries have had the hell tested out of them but no matter the testing, (as these incidents show), some tiny, seeming insignificant flaw, (and undetectable at production and testing), starts a cascade meltdown. Even at low draws, some batteries run cool and reliably, some identical batteries in the same device, (iphone 5's are a recent example), run hot.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 226):
I've been troubleshooting and repairing burned battery packs for a while now, and that statement sound premature to say the least. Although getting hit by a voltage spike can cause that kind of damage, so can arcing caused by breakdown of insulating layers. Cause and effect of that sort of runaway like that isn't obvious.

Agreed...which is why I think they'll have to start from scratch with their batteries and go to a more predictable chemistry in the interim. Other battery chemistries seem more resistant to failure due to overcharging or voltage spikes and rarely burn when they fail.

Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries provide similar power density and are proving to be significantly more robust against over/under charge, high current drain and physical damage. I've been working with them for a while now and they're going great. I had one cell of one ten cell, (36v) pack fail and all it did was give me a weaker battery...which is how one wants a failure to go.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 229):
I doubt they can simply change to a different battery type because the the charge/discharge control is a part of the already certified electrical system of the aircraft, and most likely that has to be altered to suit new type of battery.

Of course it's not simple...certification never is...but starting with a battery system which is already certified for use on commercial airliners is seems like a good place to maybe save some time and effort and get the things back into the air.

I won't be surprised if the certification of the current 787 batteries is pulled and the planes are grounded until a substitute is certified. I doubt any governing body will allow passengers on the 787's with these batteries.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-18 15:42:38 and read 4307 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 224):
Kosugi-san went on to mention that NH's Ship's Battery and JL's APU battery appeared to suffer similar damage and he believes this suggests the possibility of a common cause between the two incidents.

So then that does suggest that the issue is in the interface between the electrical system and the batteries, after all, no?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 235):
I won't be surprised if the certification of the current 787 batteries is pulled and the planes are grounded until a substitute is certified. I doubt any governing body will allow passengers on the 787's with these batteries.

How long do you think that will take?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: rwessel
Posted 2013-01-18 16:00:58 and read 4210 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 223):
Loss of main power from the power panels for 2 seconds (or 2 hours) will not have any effect on the flight control computers or disrupt the stability of the aircraft. The 787 flight control computers are independent from the airplane IMA avionics system. In addition, they have their own independent power supplies - they are powered by 4 permanent magnet generators. Should something happen to the PMGs, the flight control computers have independent battery power sources which provide an uniterupted power source that is completely independent from every other system on the airplane. Loss of all power to the main bus on the airplane, loss of both P100 & P200 panels, loss of power to the main IMA avionics computers will have no effect on power to the flight control computers.

I was wondering if you could expand on that for those of us who are curious about the systems.

Some specific questions:

As I understand it, the hydraulics that actual move the control surfaces are powered directly by the engines (left and right systems), and the center system is driven electrically. With the massive electrical failure you described, you'd still have the left and right systems. Is there a transfer pump to power the center system from the left and/or right system in that case?

The power needed to operate the hydraulic values that move the control surfaces comes from where? The same system that powers the FCCs? Or the main (and emergency) electrical power busses?

The four PMGs are where? One on each engine, APU and RAT??? Do the FCCs also draw power from the main electrical systems, or are the FCCs strictly isolated from the rest of the electrical system?

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-18 17:12:43 and read 4063 times.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 237):
As I understand it, the hydraulics that actual move the control surfaces are powered directly by the engines (left and right systems), and the center system is driven electrically. With the massive electrical failure you described, you'd still have the left and right systems. Is there a transfer pump to power the center system from the left and/or right system in that case?

The Left and Right hydraulic systems each have an engine driven pump (EDP) and and an electric motor pump (EMP). The Center hydraulic system has two EMPs.

Left and Right systems are used primarily for flight controls. The center system share some in the flight controls but is used primarily for peak demand activities (low speed, takeoff, landing, etc). It's a little hard to describe without a graphic, but here is what each system provides power to:

Left System:
-L Aileron
-L & R Flaperon
-Spoilers 3 & 12
-L Elevator
-Rudder
-Left Thrust Reverser

Right System:
-R Aileron
-L Flaperon
-Spoilers 2, 6, 9 & 13
-R Elevator
-Rudder
-Right Thrust Reverser

Center System:
-L & R Ailerons
-R Flaperon
-Spoilers 1, 7, 8 & 14
-L & R Elevators
-Rudder
-Flaps
-Slats
-Nose gear steering
-Landing Gear

With this arrangement, any single hydraulic system can provide full control of the airplane. As you can see, all critical control surfaces are powered by two or even three hydraulic systems:

Rudder - L, R & C
L Aileron - L & C
R Aileron - R & C
Elevators - L, R & C
L Flaperon - L & R
R Flaperon - R & C

With a loss of all three hydraulic systems, the airplane has electrically actuated surfaces in pitch and roll axis, which permits control of the airplane even if all three hydraulic systems are gone.

With a full electric failure and operating on standby power, you loose the center system, but retain full hydraulic function of the L & R system. Flaps and gear have alternate extend mechanisms.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 237):
The power needed to operate the hydraulic values that move the control surfaces comes from where? The same system that powers the FCCs? Or the main (and emergency) electrical power busses?

With a full electric failure and operating on standby power, the actuator electronics are powered by standby power.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 237):
The four PMGs are where? One on each engine, APU and RAT??? Do the FCCs also draw power from the main electrical systems, or are the FCCs strictly isolated from the rest of the electrical system?

4 PMGs; there are 2 on each engine. The FCCs are always powered by the PMGs

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-18 17:26:38 and read 3998 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 236):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 235):
I won't be surprised if the certification of the current 787 batteries is pulled and the planes are grounded until a substitute is certified. I doubt any governing body will allow passengers on the 787's with these batteries.

How long do you think that will take?

Good question, as a non-mechanical person thinking of it I'm thinking months, identify an alternative that can meet the existing power requirements - not meeting them may mean re-certifying more items -, identify and prep a new storage location if the existing one is inadequate, modify the existing battery monitors, verify software integration, test the finished product then proceed to certification. Disclaimer, non-mechanical person, computers and software only.

I would not be shocked if the time frame is too long financially for Boeing and the current operators that they also request a temporary fix be allowed to get some a/c back in the air with ETOPS ratings lowered even further. In any event, based on what is published and being leaked, no hard and fast fault has yet been determined, so it is already a safe bet to say at least 2 weeks down for problem identification.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2013-01-18 17:30:15 and read 3987 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 236):

Quoting Stitch (Reply 224):
Kosugi-san went on to mention that NH's Ship's Battery and JL's APU battery appeared to suffer similar damage and he believes this suggests the possibility of a common cause between the two incidents.

So then that does suggest that the issue is in the interface between the electrical system and the batteries, after all, no?

No. Not sure how you figure that eliminates the batteries or cells themselves, or the battery control and monitoring in each pack. I have no idea how similar or otherwise the interface is between the two, but since each battery has a different role then there are certainly going to be some differences between how they interface with the electrical system.

Similarity in the failures doesn't eliminate the cause being the interface, but nor does it point to the interface being the cause ahead of other potential causes.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2013-01-18 20:33:31 and read 3713 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 172):
that battery costs approximately $50,000. A 777 NiCad battery costs about $19,000, 737NG and 767-400 batteries cost only about $6800 each.
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 172):
To design a NiCad battery for the 787, it has been said that it would weigh approx 3 times as much as a 777 battery, or 300+ lbs, to meet the massive electric demand of the 787.

This is interesting to me, so does eliminating an extra 468+ lbs (x2 batteries) of weight really equate to saving more than $62,000 (777 battery) or $86,400 (764 battery) of fuel per year (assuming the battery has to be replaced each year based on this NH a/c)?

Really the basis that these Li batteries are being used is that they are more efficient - they save weight = fuel burn, but do airlines really save bottom line if they cost so much more to buy and need replacing so much more often?

Genuine question.

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 228):
CM, this was a great post. Thanks for all your patience, I wish I had 1% of it

Indeed, thanks for taking so much time here when your valued brains could well be profitable employed elsewhere... like getting the 787 flying again   

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 226):
I've been troubleshooting and repairing burned battery packs for a while now, and that statement sound premature to say the least. Although getting hit by a voltage spike can cause that kind of damage, so can arcing caused by breakdown of insulating layers. Cause and effect of that sort of runaway like that isn't obvious.

There is clearly a faulty bunch of batteries, but as with most incidents there is not usually one cut and dried cause, the holes of the cheese line up. I do think there is a further issue elsewhere and this battery defect or whatever it is has caused the holes to line up as the weakest link (or ironically the most powerful or volatile) in the chain or system.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-18 20:45:08 and read 3702 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 241):
Indeed, thanks for taking so much time here when your valued brains could well be profitable employed elsewhere... like getting the 787 flying again

I'm off working on the next new Boeing airplane now, so no more 787 for me. The problem is my heart is still with the 787 and it's hard to think about anything else when she's sitting on the ground.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-01-18 20:57:15 and read 3637 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 236):
How long do you think that will take?

Well, I won't even guess, especially considering my theory is in itself a guess. It is based on the fact that the batteries have undoubtedly gone through some very serious and extensive testing already...and we have at least 2 mysterious failures. That calls into doubt that any more testing would ever be enough to satisfy the agencies doing the certifying but even if they call them safe, it is doubtful the airlines would ever take the PR chance of flying with these batteries.

Even if the failures were precipitated by the aircraft system overcharging the batteries, it is likely that batteries of different chemical composition could have handled an overcharge less dramatically. The charging system itself will have the heck tested out of it as well but the public focus will probably remain on the batteries.

Boeing needs as simple a fix as possible, and my shot in the dark is they go with something with a long, proven track record in other aircraft and shoehorn that into the 787...at least as an interim step to get the planes back into the air.

If these planes fly with these batteries in them again, the press will be brutal. "How long", they will wonder out loud, "before another one of these brand new technology, undertested batteries EXPLODES, and puts hundreds of lives at risk".

Remember, these accidents happened over a year after the planes went into service...and it doesn't matter if these exact planes haven't been flying for over a year...that's not how the press will spin it...another incident free year won't be enough. "How many more batteries", they will continue, "are ticking time bombs?".

Whatever they choose to do, you can bet it's job 1 until it's done.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-01-18 20:59:50 and read 3625 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 242):
I'm off working on the next new Boeing airplane now, so no more 787 for me. The problem is my heart is still with the 787 and it's hard to think about anything else when she's sitting on the ground.

Exactly what I was thinking. When you help create something, you put a little piece of yourself into it. The statement from an Airbus manager, "I honestly wish all the best for Boeing to get 787 back into service" "We have suffered a lot in the past so we are not in a position to give lessons to anybody". He's been there too.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: rwessel
Posted 2013-01-18 21:06:27 and read 3598 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 238):
With a full electric failure and operating on standby power, you loose the center system, but retain full hydraulic function of the L & R system. Flaps and gear have alternate extend mechanisms.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 237):
The power needed to operate the hydraulic values that move the control surfaces comes from where? The same system that powers the FCCs? Or the main (and emergency) electrical power busses?

With a full electric failure and operating on standby power, the actuator electronics are powered by standby power.

Where is standby power from? Is it different from what we'd usually consider the emergency bus? And what loads are on it other than the actuators?

Quoting CM (Reply 238):
Quoting rwessel (Reply 237):
The four PMGs are where? One on each engine, APU and RAT??? Do the FCCs also draw power from the main electrical systems, or are the FCCs strictly isolated from the rest of the electrical system?

4 PMGs; there are 2 on each engine. The FCCs are always powered by the PMGs

And in the event of a double engine failure, the FCC battery? Standby power? Even when on the ground? I assume you'd usually want the FCCs up and running before engine start.

I assume the redundant FCCs can be powered by various combinations of the PMGs (and whatever other backup power there is), with sufficient isolation built into things so that a badly failing PMG or FCC can't short out a power bus from/to other PMGs/FCCs?


Thank you, BTW, interesting stuff.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-18 22:29:40 and read 3461 times.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 245):
Where is standby power from? Is it different from what we'd usually consider the emergency bus? And what loads are on it other than the actuators?

"Standby Power" as a formal term means all 6 generators are lost. On standby power, all electrical power on the airplane is provided by the RAT and various batteries. Even a dual engine out will not get you to standby power, because you would still have the APU and its 2 generators. The only realistic scenario which gets you to standby power is fuel exhaustion. Even in a dual engine out situation, you will still have hydraulic power for the L and R systems because the windmilling engines will still turn the gearboxes and drive the EDPs.

Electrical functions powered on standby power include:
-Captain's displays
-Engine (EICAS) display
-Autoflight/Autopilot
-Selected radios, and intercom
-Flight Management Computer
-Navigation functions
-Center air data system
-Fire detection/protection
-Flight controls
-Some cabin and flight deck area lighting
-etc.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 245):
And in the event of a double engine failure, the FCC battery? Standby power? Even when on the ground? I assume you'd usually want the FCCs up and running before engine start.

In normal operations, the APU is started before the engines, then the engines are started from APU power. If the APU is inop, the 787 can start from ground power, which provides power to essential systems during engine start.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 245):
I assume the redundant FCCs can be powered by various combinations of the PMGs (and whatever other backup power there is), with sufficient isolation built into things so that a badly failing PMG or FCC can't short out a power bus from/to other PMGs/FCCs?

The 787 has four cabinets (literally equipment racks) dedicated to the Flight Control Electronics. Each FCE cabinet contains a Power Control Module box (PCM), and an Actuator Control Electronics box (ACE) and three of the cabinets contain a Flight Control Module or FCM (what you have been calling the Flight Control Computer). Each FCE cabinet is entirely independent from the others, including its power sources (PMG, battery, etc). The airplane can be dispatched with any of the 3 FCMs inoperative and still retain full flight control functionality. Should other failures occur in flight, the 787 remains capable of flying with any or all of the remaining FCMs failed, with progressively degraded flight control functionality down to "direct mode" when all FCMs are failed. There is no common failure mode for the four FCE cabinets. They are truly independent; located in separate parts of the airplane, powered by independent power supplies, etc.

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-18 22:33:00 and read 3435 times.

Not sure if this was mentioned (these threads update so fast and I'm quite busy myself so I can't really read everything)
but some of the investigators are suggesting that it could only be a bad batch of batteries which is causing all of this mess, and not the whole Yuasa lithium battery itself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...-11e2-8f16-7b37a1341b04_story.html

Someone mentioned the product number of the ANA and the JAL batteries matched the same line, so this could possibly be a case. And thankfully, if indeed that is the case, the 787's AD could be lifted sooner.

Per Japanese law if a single batch of bad batteries is to blame either the ministry of commerce or the ministry of transportation (or both, and maybe the NPA if there is a criminal negligence alligation) would open an investigation, using evidence from the NTSB (BOS) and the J-TSB (TAK) to verify what went wrong. (correct me if I translated the law wrong)

Reading through the threads it seems as if these batteries couldn't handle overcharging, but this is a rookie question- just like if you leave a laptop or phone plugged into the wall, it doesn't overcharge........shouldn't there be some sort of component to do the same thing on a lithium battery on board the 787?

Now this is all pure amateur speculation: if the overcharge error is the case and the batteries from this one batch only are the culprit with some sort of charging defective, then the subsequent batteries would be replaced, and measures would be taken to prevent overcharging in the future.....right?

anyway here is Yuasa's Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GS_Yuasa

Topic: RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2
Username: NZ1
Posted 2013-01-18 23:06:20 and read 3330 times.

Due to the length of this thread it is time to lock it. Rather than start a new part, any new information or further discussion can probably be carried on here:

FAA Grounds 787 Part 2 (by iowaman Jan 17 2013 in Civil Aviation)

NZ1
Forum Moderator


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/