Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS Part 2  
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2781 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 14416 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

The previous thread became a little long. Please continue the conversation here.
The last thread can be found here Breaking: Japan Airlines Is Smoking Up At BOS (by boeingbus Jan 7 2013 in Civil Aviation)
Blue


You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineaviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14159 times:

For those who were criticizing my comments about the APU and APU battery location....

Look, they stuck a camera in my face and started asking me about APUs. I was wrong about the location of the 787 APU battery, but the rest of what I said was based on what was known about the fire AT THE TIME. It was not yet being reported as an equipment bay fire, but rather as an APU fire.


PS



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7394 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13757 times:

So I've been unable to seriously keep up; anyone wanna summarize for me?


次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13723 times:

Quoting aviateur (Reply 1):

For those who were criticizing my comments about the APU and APU battery location....

Look, they stuck a camera in my face and started asking me about APUs. I was wrong about the location of the 787 APU battery, but the rest of what I said was based on what was known about the fire AT THE TIME. It was not yet being reported as an equipment bay fire, but rather as an APU fire.

And you do admiringly well in the harried circumstances, errors notwithstanding. Who don't make mistakes?
I am sure there are many others on here who would join me in thanking you for your insights and opinions.
Your informed views are always welcomed, warts and all.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7394 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13522 times:

Looks like wiki linked an article talking about multiple issues regarding electronics depredations. The 787 cancelled in LAX yesterday was a result of faulty wiring which may have caused a short circuit which lit the battery on fire.

Similar wiring issues have tricked the fuel dump vents to open, which may have cause the fuel leak.

Of course I'm not a NTSB  



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13281 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
So I've been unable to seriously keep up; anyone wanna summarize for me?

On Monday, the APU battery on a JAL 787-8 caught fire while the aircraft was on the ground with cleaning crew onboard. They reported smoke and contacted the airport. ARFF responded, identified a heat source in the aft EE bay using thermal imaging, entered the aft EE bay, and extinguished the fire about 40 minutes after the event started. NTSB, JAL, Boeing, FAA, and the JCAB are investigating. NTSB has released a press statement that the APU battery had significant thermal damage and peripheral thermal damage up to 20" around the battery. CM confirmed that an internal battery fire was a design condition for this area of the aircraft and the limited photos and NTSB reports seem to bear this out.

A.net speculation has been rampant but focussed primarily on two topics:
-Could this have happened in fight/what would happen if it did? Consensus seems to be that the battery could catch fire in flight but smoke penetration into the passenger compartment would not occur (ECS design condition) and the fire would self-extinguish (aft EE Bay design condition) without impact to continued safe flight and landing.
-Is this related to any of the other electrical EIS issues the 787 experienced? There is no consensus...as far as I can tell nobody know.

An less discussed topic is if/how this would impact ETOPS rating...consensus seems to be that it wouldn't (the issues that the event presents aren't altered by the presence or absence of ETOPS operations).

Reading the prior thread is probably recommended but, if desired, I can summarize more here.

Tom.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11177 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13083 times:

We have a picture:



Source http://twitter.com/NTSB/status/288768832972136448/photo/1

[Edited 2013-01-09 01:04:50]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 13019 times:

Cool picture! The damage does appear to be minor. I'll bet the investigation takes longer than the repairs.

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3472 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 12911 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here's an interesting summary http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...84827_787fireinvestigationxml.html

Granted it's summary of news and statements.. one line appears to suggest that more damage occurred from the battery after it was removed .


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7394 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10811 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):

I appreciate it. My iPad had prevented me from being able to keep up while my MacBook is in the shop.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20479 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10740 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
Here's an interesting summary http://seattletimes.com/html/busines....html

Without trying to be alarmist, this is the part of the story that's a bit confusing and concerning at the same time:

"The fire aboard an empty 787 Dreamliner parked at Boston's airport Monday left the floor of the jet's electronics bay blackened and plastic dripping underneath — and that was after firefighters ripped out and tossed a burning high-energy, lithium-ion battery onto the tarmac, according to a person with inside knowledge of the investigation."

Would the fire have been less damaging if it had been allowed to simply self-extinguish after the energy from the battery had been expended within its containment unit? That seems to be what I'm reading in posts in another thread here. I don't know if there's a way to test for that, and if it can be, was that scenario tested during certification.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1316 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10595 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 10):
"The fire aboard an empty 787 Dreamliner parked at Boston's airport Monday left the floor of the jet's electronics bay blackened and plastic dripping underneath — and that was after firefighters ripped out and tossed a burning high-energy, lithium-ion battery onto the tarmac, according to a person with inside knowledge of the investigation."

Actually - this makes perfect sense to me. I think I mentioned in another post that the way you put out a LiIon battery fire is put it on something non-combustible and bury it.

It also explains why I did not see signs of Class D extinguisher in the photo.

But to remove it they may have breached the containment.

We'll have to wait and see from the investigation.



rcair1
User currently offline757gb From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10500 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Reading the prior thread is probably recommended but, if desired, I can summarize more here.

Thank you very much for the excellent summary. I'm sure lots of us are grateful.

GB



God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10391 times:

Just totally normal for a new plane......... that is what the boeing people keep saying.

This plane has major image problems. Im not gonna lie i would be a little nervous to get on this thing on a long over water trip this thing has had some many problems already who knows what new will pop up. The boeing fans have said for a while nothing new would pop up the problems were ironed out    Just threw a few logs on the fire


User currently offlineSKGSJULAX From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 10):
Would the fire have been less damaging if it had been allowed to simply self-extinguish after the energy from the battery had been expended within its containment unit?

Previous posts (by tdscanuck and CM, among others) seem to suggest that you are correct. Massport emergency personnel was specifically trained on the 787, so it's unclear why they would rip the battery out of the containment unit and toss it out.



Omnium curiositatum explorator
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10063 times:

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 7):
The damage does appear to be minor

I agree the damage doesn't look so bad based on the photo, but it doesn't really jive too well with the NTSB's assessment of if being "severe" - as quoted in above linked article. We need more photos to get a better understanding of the full extent of the damage.

Quoting SKGSJULAX (Reply 14):
so it's unclear why they would rip the battery out of the containment unit and toss it out.

For all we know, they tossed the whole thing. Pretty much everything is unclear at this point.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6585 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10016 times:

Well, if plastic was dripping, we can guess that the heat was starting to compromise the surroundings, so I'm not sure letting it continue would have been that great an idea.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9994 times:

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 13):
Just totally normal for a new plane......... that is what the boeing people keep saying.

May I ask who the "Boeing people" are?

To my knowledge, there are only two of us participating in this thread who have worked directly with the 787 and neither of us view this as "normal" or have attempted to dismiss it in any way. In the first thread on this topic, I specifically agreed this is NOT a normal "teething" issue (reply #152) and Tom (tdscanuck) stated this event requires a careful investigation to fully understand why it happened (reply #177).

Tom and I have both expressed confidence this event would not have brought down the airplane or choked the cabin with smoke, but this is different than saying the issues are "normal for a new airplane" or in any way acceptable to us.


User currently offlineandz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8449 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9455 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sky News just reported the incidents with visuals of an ANA 787.... oh dear.


After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineCaptainmeeerkat From Russia, joined Aug 2010, 386 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9295 times:

Quoting andz (Reply 18):
Sky News just reported the incidents with visuals of an ANA 787.... oh dear.

Sky are reporting a third 787 incident, namely a brakes problem with an NH 787.



my luggage is better travelled than me!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9295 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flood (Reply 15):
I agree the damage doesn't look so bad based on the photo, but it doesn't really jive too well with the NTSB's assessment of if being "severe" - as quoted in above linked article.

You can have a severe fire affecting a small area, as the one picture we have seen to date could support.


User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9055 times:

Dripping plastic! Does this suggest that the CFRP melted due to the fire? That's scary. I don't know what's worse though, burning alluminum or melting plastic.

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9039 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 17):

May I ask who the "Boeing people" are?

To my knowledge, there are only two of us participating in this thread who have worked directly with the 787 and neither of us view this as "normal" or have attempted to dismiss it in any way. In the first thread on this topic, I specifically agreed this is NOT a normal "teething" issue (reply #152) and Tom (tdscanuck) stated this event requires a careful investigation to fully understand why it happened (reply #177).

Tom and I have both expressed confidence this event would not have brought down the airplane or choked the cabin with smoke, but this is different than saying the issues are "normal for a new airplane" or in any way acceptable to us.

Bless you! It's like a breath of fresh air in these threads reading the comments of you and Tom.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineandz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8449 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Captainmeeerkat (Reply 19):
Sky are reporting a third 787 incident, namely a brakes problem with an NH 787.

Pity I can't rewind and quote him verbatim, Jeremy Thompson said "Japan Airlines" three times in his report and didn't once mention ANA.



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1528 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8895 times:

Lost towards the bottom of the Seattle Times article was that the previous "electrical" issues on ANA or JAL (unreported), UAL, QTR and UAL again were traced to a bad batch of circuit boards--unrelated to the present issue. Whenever you have multiple similar issues checking the serial numbers on the parts more often than not finds them if not sequential to be in the same batch.

25 Post contains images RNAVFL350 : I could not have said that better myself! I have nothing intelligent to add to this topic so will refrain. I wish other people would do the same, but
26 bikerthai : The CFRP does not melt. It chars. Any melting would probably come from the thermoplastic trims and other small parts that are not part of the airfram
27 kanban : I believe he is referring to the thread about the plane having normal teething problems... and has erroneously linked that to this event.
28 Post contains links rwessel : The NTSB said the damage to the APU battery unit was severe: "The NTSB investigator on scene found that the auxiliary power unit battery had severe f
29 AeroWesty : Well sure. We also have reports that the battery was physically removed from the plane and tossed onto the tarmac while the assembly was burning. Wha
30 LTC8K6 : I think it suggests that the battery was melting.
31 Post contains images Aircellist : Absolutely second that. Thanks, Tom and CM for all you're bringing to the discussion.
32 rwessel : Right, but I was commenting on flood's comment that seemed to imply that the NTSB had called the damage to the *EE bay* severe, when in fact the NTSB
33 RickNRoll : Looks like the common factor to these electrical problems was a batch of faulty circuit boards. Except for this one.
34 chrisnh : I think Boeing loses their 'Get Out of Jail Free' card ("Teething problems; normal for a new plane, etc.") because of the nearly decade-long delay in
35 PITingres : Of course you can. You find unexpected problems in service, not while the airplane is sitting on a ramp with techs fiddling around with fasteners and
36 7BOEING7 : Your sense of time is a little out of wack--better get it adjusted. Among the myriad of issues the press is headlining the only one that counts is th
37 Stitch : And even with 7 years of gestation, the A380 still encountered issues once it entered revenue service that were not found during testing.
38 kanban : and they are still finding new ones..
39 Stitch : Exactly. As many members with direct experience in certifying and operating commercial airliners have noted, issues will be found as long as the type
40 Gatorman96 : These teething issues are completely normal, as Boeing has claimed, but that doesn't mean that each issue is treated the same. Some teething issues ar
41 Post contains images rcair1 :
42 tdscanuck : The *delay* wasn't nearly a decade. Total development was nearly a decade. There's a big difference. Yes, you can. You just get different teething pr
43 Post contains links flood : Haven't seen it mentioned, the NTSB has released an update which includes photos of the battery: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130114.html
44 Stitch : So it looks like the containment vessel did it's job pretty well.
45 KC135Hydraulics : Great link! The pictures definitely show that the containment vessel for the most part kept everything together.
46 blrsea : Weren't there flames too? So did the flames make it out of the containment vessel?
47 seahawks7757 : The release said that the aircraft was released back to JAL on 10JAN. Anyone have any idea when it will fly back to NRT?
48 7BOEING7 : I'm guessing it will be a while. Until it's been repaired by AOG I can't see it going anywhere.
49 seahawks7757 : I would speculate a little that Boeing already had the parts shipped ready to go for when it was released to help JAL get it's newest 787 back. But I
50 Post contains images YVRLTN : Maybe. Maybe not, maybe the problem isnt the battery itself but the electrics around it... Im no electrician but arcing near a battery would probably
51 Stitch : UA found some incorrect wiring in the loom that feeds into the APU battery on one of their 787s, so this might be the reason the battery on JL overhe
52 tdscanuck : The battery is only 28 VDC. That's not enough to sustain an arc. The stuff that has enough voltage to sustain an arc isn't near the battery. "Never"
53 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : And a picture of the battery: From http://twitter.com/jonostrower
54 Post contains images PW100 : Why don't you just go to the NTSB release provided earlier . . . : Same picture, but then in high resolution PW100
55 hnl2bos : Question, if JAL had to pull the 787s for inspection what would they send to BOS for replacement flights?
56 Post contains images KarelXWB : Good question, I was probably still sleeping
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is Something Up At LGA? posted Tue Dec 16 2008 18:43:20 by LU9092
Austrian Airlines Is Put Up For Sale posted Wed Jul 2 2008 01:13:55 by GWYIRE
Spirit Airlines A321 Parked Up At LTN posted Sun Mar 23 2008 05:59:19 by Gilesdavies
Japan Airlines Is Flying To IND? posted Sun Aug 7 2005 00:55:07 by Big777jet
Is Something Up At Westjet? posted Sat Jan 10 2004 00:57:19 by CanadaEH
Japan Airlines 777 At PHX?! posted Thu Mar 22 2012 13:43:25 by PHX787
What Is Up At LHR This Am? posted Sat Aug 21 2010 14:08:21 by dldtw1962
Who Is The Dominant Carrier At BOS? posted Tue Dec 30 2008 14:23:27 by Lovetojetblue
Strange Airlines Landing At BOS posted Thu Aug 14 2008 18:00:00 by Turtle
Is Something Up For B6 At SLC? posted Mon Jun 23 2008 07:24:40 by JerseyGuy