Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Grounds 787 Part 2  
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4435 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28835 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

The last thread is over 260 replies, so please continue the discussion here.

Previous thread: FAA Grounds 787 (by brons2 Jan 16 2013 in Civil Aviation)

203 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3868 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

posted this just before cut off
Yuasa makes these batteries for many land surface operations, trains, trucks, etc. and seem to have no problems. Possibly could the problem be related to the pressure differentials when flying... ie water boils at a lower temperature at elevation, so could the organic fluid in these batteries "boil" at altitude and leave the anodes/cathodes bare and in contact?


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28806 times:

Let me attempt to recap and correct me if I am wrong:

The 787 is grounded worldwide indefinitely due to battery issues which brought ANA ship 804 in TAK and lit JL ship 829 on fire in BOS. Anyone know if the MOT has probed Yuasa yet? There was some word going around my circles about it.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28753 times:

Repeating myself, here, but the question got lost in the flood.

Is there continuous, realtime monitoring of the temperatures in the Li-ion batteries?

Are these batteries designed like bricks, that is, one big block (which is a terrible shape to try to dissipate heat out of) or are they designed with intermal channels for coolant circulation?

And, um, if not, why not?

Thanks.


User currently offlinedcann40 From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28699 times:

LOT issued a statement earlier this morning re EASA and the 787. See 4th paragraph.

LOT Polish Airlines Voluntarily Grounds Dreamliner Flights

Quote:
CHICAGO—Following a move by the Federal Aviation Administration, which ordered an immediate halt to Boeing Dreamliner flights by U.S. airlines, LOT Polish Airlines announced it was cancelling its inaugural Dreamliner flight from Chicago’s O’Hare Airport to Warsaw on Wednesday. LOT is the only European airline operating the new high-tech aircraft....



User currently offlinecapri From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 455 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28729 times:

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 3):

here is one battery of 787

http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/01/n...t-boeing-787-battery/#.UPg9Tydnj0c


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 3064 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28557 times:

The 787 "worldwide grounding for safety issues" was the 2nd story on the BBC's main 6pm news.

Must make very unpleasant viewing, not only for Boeing, but British Airways and Thomson also, especially when a BALPA spokesman, by default a spokesman for aircrew, warned these battery issues could cause, his exact words, "a crash."

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 321 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 28541 times:

Picking up from the first thread :

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 236):
I'm in agreement with a few others here which believe the battery fires to be a symptom of a problematic electrical system rather than being the problem themselves.

Operative word : "believe"
to believe : to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

We're not dealing with what you, or I, or any poster on this thread believes. Safety means dealing with cold hard reality, also named the laws of nature. It means objectively assessing how those laws apply to the specific situation being studied, and how that application could become deadly.

That means we need in this case
- confirmed, trustworthy information about what happened in Boston and Japan,
- confirmed, trustworthy information about the design of the battery cells, the pack, the battery system (pack + controller + containement + connectors) and the electrical system of the 787,
- confirmed, trustworthy information about the test results of these various systems, and
- confirmed, trustworthy information about the underlying technologies


From that you can
1) assess which information you still need, but is still missing (the "known unknowns")
2) assess the various failure possibilities of each component, sub-system and system, and assess the impacts on the aircraft as a whole, taking into account fact that you have incomplete information.
3) assess the possible solutions to prevent or mitigate the identified impacts. Solutions which are not just "do nothing" or "ground every aircraft", but also everything in between : inspections, switch parts or replace them, special operating procedures, avoid using the risky component(s), slightly change the installation, etc...


It's called objective reasoning and decision-making, and it's certainly what the FAA did to decide to ground the fleet (with the help of established quantified criteria, as CM described)
Until you can provide the confirmed, trustworthy information, and the analysis that shows the 787 electrical system is dangerous (= points 1) and 2) above), then your belief is as worthy as my belief that this was all caused by klingon spaceships launching photon torpedoes, which just poped into my head after I watched the trailer for the next Star Trek.


Meanwhile, restricting the discussion to a-net and speaking for myself, I consider that in the past year CM has sufficiently established his credentials, and in these threads has sufficiently quallified his statements, so that I can judge his posts as globally trustworthy (although I do sometimes check the info for myself when I can). And I welcome his enlightening insights in this otherwise sad mess. So thanks man ! from an Airbus system engineer.



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3671 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 28251 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Anyone know if the MOT has probed Yuasa yet? There was some word going around my circles about it.

"Probed" them for what? What have they done wrong? What is anyone alleging they've done wrong?

First they need to figure out what the problem is, so any probe of suppliers is premature at best. If the batteries are working as designed (and there is so far no reason to think they aren't), then there is no reason to drag the battery supplier's name through the mud.

In other words, if I have a battery and I send some ridiculous current through it for an extended period and it blows up, do I turn around and probe the battery maker? We first need to know what's actually going on here.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineIBOAviator From Canada, joined Sep 2010, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 28266 times:

Hi all,

This is a true shame to see. The B787 is critical to the future of Boeing, even though they're doing very well with the 777 and 737. It is the public confidence that hurts them here, not so much the airplane being grounded for how ever long it will be grounded.

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 51):
Sounds like the batteries are terrible. I'm shocked this didn't come up during testing though.

You'd think during flight test, the batteries would be put under extra stress?
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 53):
But why wasn't that demonstrated during certification?

I am going to get flamed for this but I am going to look at the FDA for just a minute. From the outside, a reasonably 'good' governing body but a closer look unfolds a ton of corruption. It is very safe to assume that Boeing did battery battery testing to the capacity of putting it through "unusual" tests so it can be assured to function in the regular flying world. What's not to say that Boeing engineers did the testing but didn't deal with any problems they found... fear of preventing the aircraft from entering service and prolonging it's delivery EVEN more when it was already hugely delayed will definately plays on engineers' minds... I am not knocking any one engineer but consider that sometimes people glance over certain things (that maybe are not easily discoverable in the regular world or maybe their best guess that the problem will not arise in the regular world and remaining undiscoverable) to produce the final result and make management happy. I imagine the management was hasty to get this already hugely delayed airplane rolled out into service.

Quoting todareisinger (Reply 49):
It is truly frightening to see how a GREAT company can be so miserably managed.

   Pressure from management to get an airplane out into service is kinda a big player on an engineers mind... The FDA approves drugs for use by the American public that have been not been properly tested, etc, for the sake of getting them out there and keeping drug companies happy (for obvious reasons).

Boeing engineers (thinking of safety of course) also need to keep their job and 'make happy' their management. Maybe not reporting certain "extreme" failed testing results on the battery system, etc that they might say are not ever likely to surface in the real world just might be a little more "better" (but really not) than delaying the airplane even more. I imagine that the FAA would probe to see who and what kind of testing was done? Audit the battery testing? I would hope so...

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 56):
Woow, talk of an over-reaction? The FAA didn't say this airliner will never fly again. I for one don't know what the issue is and I don;t think anyone on scare.net....I mean A.net knows but I can tell you it's not the end of the world for the 787 and I wouldn't be surprised to see them back up in a week.

Like I said above, it is public confidence in the airplane that matters and for that matter public confidence in Boeing. The regular travelling public are sometimes misinformed and do not know that the grounding of an airplane isn't the end of the world. All they are going to see is that the 787 has been grounded... stay away from that plane. People will even go as far as to say "stay away from that airline [operating the 787]" That of course applies to the average, uneducated traveller. Obviously frequent flyers, experienced flyers will think a little bit differently.

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 68):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 38):
It's down a few bucks. On a stock which trades in the 70s, that's not a nose dive. That's a market correction based on news. Boeing isn't falling apart at the seams.

Perfect time to buy....have you seen the backlogs of 777s and 737s

   Yes, exactly! Many people here are exaggerating some sort of nosedive which is hardly the case. But again, public confidence in aviation is huge, even if the stock is doing well.

My thoughts...

Regards,
IBO



Keep Calm and Go Around!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 28145 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 9):
What's not to say that Boeing engineers did the testing but didn't deal with any problems they found... fear of preventing the aircraft from entering service and prolonging it's delivery EVEN more when it was already hugely delayed will definately plays on engineers' minds...

What benefit does Boeing have in putting into service an airframe they know is unsafe?

Beyond the civil liability if there was an accident, if said accident resulted in a fatality, those engineers and managers would be subject to criminal charges up to and including murder.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 28110 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
There was some word going around my circles about it.

What do your "circles" say about your earlier claim of a "nose dive" in Boeing's stock? I note it's up today about 1% at the moment.

(And who are in these "circles" you keep referring to? Industry professionals? Inquiring minds would like to know.)



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineIBOAviator From Canada, joined Sep 2010, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27876 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 9):
What's not to say that Boeing engineers did the testing but didn't deal with any problems they found... fear of preventing the aircraft from entering service and prolonging it's delivery EVEN more when it was already hugely delayed will definately plays on engineers' minds...

What benefit does Boeing have in putting into service an airframe they know is unsafe?

Beyond the civil liability if there was an accident, if said accident resulted in a fatality, those engineers and managers would be subject to criminal charges up to and including murder.

Here is how I see it. The benefit is that they get the airplane into service without causing anymore huge delays. What if it was thought that any potential "failed" extreme battery testing results were very unlikely to surface in the real flying world? If it could be justified (to the extent of the person signing off on it), then those results become "extraneous" and are likely to never appear unless the airplane is put through such extreme circumstances which the POH would already prohibit.

I am NOT saying the above claim is by any means the case but rather an idea to consider. Boeing is a great American company but sometimes management creates pressures that cannot be turned away.

There are many examples where "products" are released to the public without proper testing and as long as there is no evidence of those tests ever being run (and thus results never being ignored or discovered) then it's a different ball game. No one person is to blame.

I am NOT an aircraft engineer and do not work for an aircraft manufacturing company so I do not know how they are regulated/do not know the internal workings of Boeing. This is merely an idea, a possible situation to consider.

Regards,
IBO

[edit] grammatical error x 2


[Edited 2013-01-17 10:54:10]

[Edited 2013-01-17 10:56:13]


Keep Calm and Go Around!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27820 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):

What benefit does Boeing have in putting into service an airframe they know is unsafe?

knowing something is unsafe and not knowing if something is safe are very different things, I would wager that Boeing (or relevant responsible company) would much more likely be 'guilty' (for want of a better word) of the latter.

Fred


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3071 posts, RR: 37
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27768 times:

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 13):

Read CM's description of the testing/certification processes on the first thread. OCA is all over them.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6947 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27773 times:

Lithium Ion batteries need careful management, with electronics and software. Even the ones in phones and the like.

So what I would like to know is if this is done by the plane itself (some circuits near the battery in the bay), or if it is part of the battery itself.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27694 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 14):
knowing something is unsafe and not knowing if something is safe are very different things, I would wager that Boeing (or relevant responsible company) would much more likely be 'guilty' (for want of a better word) of the latter.

I am in agreement with that statement. And if Boeing and the FAA do identify the battery situation as an "unknown unknown" that cropped up, it will likely lead to more stringent future certification criteria.

However, IBOAviator put forward the theoretical possibility that Boeing may have known something on the 787 was unsafe and shipped it anyway with the hope that this unsafe condition would never occur in order to start booking revenue through deliveries. In such a theoretical scenario, Boeing and it's employees would be putting themselves at considerable personal risk.



Quoting Aesma (Reply 17):
So what I would like to know is if this is done by the plane itself (some circuits near the battery in the bay), or if it is part of the battery itself.

I believe both the charging system and the battery itself have management functionality.

[Edited 2013-01-17 11:07:02]

User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A simple heightened inspection program won't cut it in this case. Once they go through the process airmagnac described above, they will have an action plan. That plan will be shared with all stakeholders and the FAA.

The FAA will need to approve the plan and see how its implemented and once completed, whether the incidents can be replicated. If not, they have the needed solution and the change can be pushed out to the airlines (Boeing will likely oversee the work or do it directly). It's not a quick fix and will take time.


User currently offlinefrmrcapcadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1743 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27611 times:

Per other posts and today's Seattle Times article on lithium batteries (I supplied a link to near the end of the original thread) really is not just a battery, at least in the sense that might have been true 50 years ago. The battery, its cooling system, wiring and equally important software and packaging comprises the basic unit.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27583 times:

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 3):
Is there continuous, realtime monitoring of the temperatures in the Li-ion batteries?

Are these batteries designed like bricks, that is, one big block (which is a terrible shape to try to dissipate heat out of) or are they designed with intermal channels for coolant circulation?

And, um, if not, why not?

Answered in order:

Yes, the Main and APU batteries both have active temperature monitoring.

The batteries contain a number of individual Li-ion cells, electrically ganged together to produce ~29V. This is very similar to the basic architecture of Ni-Cd batteries on other aircraft. There is no cooling provision in the 787 battery architecture. Actively cooling the batteries would certainly be possible and active air-cooling is common in Ni-Cd batteries on some other aircraft (777 batteries have an integral fan), but this would not have helped in the case of the two battery incidents on the 787. Thermal runaway in a Li-ion battery is not typically brought on by high operating temperatures (although it could be). There are much more common causes of thermal runaway such as internal defects and problems with managing the state of charge. Once the battery begins a thermal runaway, no amount of cooling will help; the process is exothermic and is self sustained until the energy source (lithium) is depleted.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 7):
I consider that in the past year CM has sufficiently established his credentials, and in these threads has sufficiently quallified his statements, so that I can judge his posts as globally trustworthy (although I do sometimes check the info for myself when I can). And I welcome his enlightening insights in this otherwise sad mess. So thanks man ! from an Airbus system engineer.

Truly appreciated. Thank you.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27508 times:

Very bulky but will the answer for the future be fuel cells? Create current on the fly? But what fuel would be safe for aviation?

User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 28052 times:

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 9):
I am going to get flamed for this but I am going to look at the FDA for just a minute. From the outside, a reasonably 'good' governing body but a closer look unfolds a ton of corruption.

Unless you've got something to back that up, you deserved to get flamed.

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 9):
Pressure from management to get an airplane out into service is kinda a big player on an engineers mind... The FDA approves drugs for use by the American public that have been not been properly tested, etc, for the sake of getting them out there and keeping drug companies happy (for obvious reasons).

Obviously you don't work in the pharma or biotech industy. Are you aware of the data standards, review processes, and approval rates? Or the multi-hundred million dollar illegal marketing fines they've been handing out. The FDA is slow, conservative, and a pain in the butt to work with, but corrupt they aren't.

Things can go wrong, in aviation and in pharma, but that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to subvert proper regulation.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27880 times:

http://www.hes.sg/products.html

Seems like there is some products available but not for airliners..Should be a safer path?!


User currently offlineZB052 From UK - England, joined Jan 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 28258 times:

Can I also second those who have commend posters like Stich, CM, Astuteman & Winged Migrator. You can tell that, from reading their posts, that they 'know their onions' to coin a phrase. For those of us in the industry, but not close to the '87 program, your posts provide a shining light amongst the conspiracy theories, drivel and you-know-what waving that pervades this place from time to time.


Oh, and *FIRST POST* (Have lurked here for close to a decade - finally decided to register!)

Yay!

Looking forward to contributing my knowledge to the forum! Especially from a 757/767 and A320 series standpoint

[Edited 2013-01-17 11:27:36]

User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 27939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ZB052 (Reply 27):
Looking forward to contributing my knowledge to the forum! Especially from a 757/767 and A320 series standpoint

Glad to see you joining the posting community!

For the person that advanced the idea of moving to fuel cell technology - this would require a certification process and likely changes to at least the software managing the power charging/distribution system. It would ground the 787 for well over a year.

The media has unfortunately published all sorts of "information," much of it contradictory and often wrong. We must do that which is most difficult for humans, be patient and let the stakeholders sort through the problem and come up with a solution that is safe and satisfies the FAA and the airlines. I'm sure we'd all love to see it happen overnight with the re-writing of a couple lines of code or the switching of a single part but that doesn't appear to be in the offing.


User currently offlinexaapb From Mexico, joined Jan 2005, 447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28136 times:

Is this accurate?

http://es.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B788

Looks like there are 787s flying out there, 2 of them United from DEN and ORD to IAH.

Greetings.



Jorge Meneses
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28197 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ZB052 (Reply 27):
Looking forward to contributing my knowledge to the forum! Especially from a 757/767 and A320 series standpoint

Looking forward to learning from your knowledge.  


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3868 posts, RR: 27
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28389 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 8):
"Probed" them for what? What have they done wrong? What is anyone alleging they've done wrong?

the entire chain needs to be audited ,, so what they would look for are manufacturing processes, testing data, and quality control, then looking at serial number records.. this all can be done simultaneously with investigations at Thales, Boeing and the airlines maintenance areas.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28372 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting xaapb (Reply 29):

Is this accurate?

http://es.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B788

Looks like there are 787s flying out there, 2 of them United from DEN and ORD to IAH.

Greetings.

Flightaware is slow to pick up a/c substitutions. Check flightradar24 instead or with the airline website.

UA 1510 from ORD to IAH has a 739 sub'd to fly the route.
UA 1180 from DEN to IAH has a 753 sub'd to fly the route.
UA 32 from LAX to NRT was cancelled as was UA 33 returning.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28397 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 28):
We must do that which is most difficult for humans, be patient and let the stakeholders sort through the problem and come up with a solution that is safe and satisfies the FAA and the airlines. I'm sure we'd all love to see it happen overnight with the re-writing of a couple lines of code or the switching of a single part but that doesn't appear to be in the offing.

First, excellent point of view.

Even if this can be solved by rewriting new software code, that code must be qualified. It takes days just for the minimum delta-qualification that allows it to fly on test aircraft (unless there is an in-flight emergency... I have seen code uploaded sans qual to enable an aircraft to land in a lose the airframe or update the code situation due to a stuck control surface... but that is a prototype and highly risky). If it is a new part, that qual test program could take months unless there is a 'qual by similarity' situation that has the part out quick.

Some engineers will not see their family for weeks and Boeing will be paying overtime and expediting fees to vendors as well as their own staff. But first, the problem must be identified. Is it too much current? Voltage fluctuations out of spec? A change in the manufacturing process that is inducing defects?

I would love to know how old each battery is.

Quoting sweair (Reply 26):

http://www.hes.sg/products.html

Seems like there is some products available but not for airliners..Should be a safer path?!

But that is only qualified for unmanned vehicles as you noted which have slightly less strict certification requirements. And... Fuel cells are not instant start as well as they require a fuel source (which is *not* JetA). Safer? Probably. But I doubt that the bay is designed for access post each flight to refuel the fuel cell (or maybe ever 5 or 10 flights). The fuel type will determine if an exhaust path is required. Links on that website were broken to follow on the details.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28270 times:

Quoting xaapb (Reply 29):

Looks like there are 787s flying out there, 2 of them United from DEN and ORD to IAH.

Both are 737's according to FlightRadar24.



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28302 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 226):
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.

I am not an engineer, I am a mere pilot, and before the last week I had (and still have) very little understanding of the nuiances between the various battery type options available to engineers when they are designing aircraft.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but my current understanding, which is mostly based on what I have read here on A. Net, is that the only advantage these batteries have to the current...proven technologies...is that they weigh less and have a smaller volume.

If this is indeed the case, I honestly cannot understand how an engineer could choose/how the FAA could allow/why an airline would buy, an airplane designed using these batteries on such a large scale.

Aviation is the safest form of travel without a doubt, and that is no accident. The reason airline travel is so safe is because of the culture up to this point perpetuated by the airlines, FAA, engineers, pilots, etc. One of the fundamnetal pilars of this philosophy, is that in airline flying, we do NOT change for cost sake unless it can be PROVEN that the change MAINTAINS AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY to the current technology.

Some of you on here are justifying the selection by saying "well the equivilant such and such battery would weight 300 more lbs or be so much bigger". Well, we are not talking about a Honda, 300lbs is not significant.

Some of you try to deflect and say...well there is an even hotter fire on the wings, or there is so much Jet-A, etc. That is irrelevant. There is no suitable alternative to Jet-A that would be more safe, in fact, Av Gas and some of the other possible fuels are even worse. There is no suitable alternative to having a fire out on the wings to make the jet go. When we figure out how to make an engine that uses Cold Hydrogen Fusion, then we can talk...but there are currently no other options then to have the Jet-A or the engines at 2,000 degrees.

This does not appear to be the case with these batteries. It appears to me that we have a couple of tried, tested, alternatives to these batteries that have been in avionics compartments of airliners for years if not decades. I know WHY these batteries were chosen, but it is the WRONG reason, and if the players involved were part of the right culture, it would NOT have happened.

Airline flying is safe because we let the experimentation take place in other parts of transportation. Let's let GM figure it out for awhile, when they do, let's start using them in corporate jets and GA aircraft. Once the technology is proven, then we can start using them when grandma and the kids are in the back.

HOW THE HECK is this even certified for ETOPS at all, never mind 330 min ETOPS. The plan is to let a battery burn uncontrolled, albiet in it's rack, for 6 HOURS. REALLY? What could possibly go wrong?

I am starting to think that this is yet another symptom that I am seeing in other parts of aviation. I think it's an "arrogance" that has developed because of the computing power at the disposal of the engineers. Back in the day, our old performance charts had thick lines where the width of your pencil was 1,000 lbs or more. I would calculate that I could takeoff with 150,000 lbs + a little. Now our performance engineers are so sure of the computer models that now the T/O weight I get back is 148,326. Yeah right! We know the weight of the jet to +/- 2,000 lbs MAYBE. I guess that's how we know that performance engineers have a sense of humor. I am wondering if a similar mechanism is being used to shave corners when making design decisions such as "which batteries to use".

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 260):
I would comment beyond the article that these batteries, or related ones, will continue to get better and more reliable. And with tens of thousands of cars that technology and operational reliability/safety will/is working its way back to airplanes.

And when they figure it all out...we can put it in airplaners.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against new technology in airplanes. If Harrison Ford wants to use one on his G-V, knock yourself out. With airliners though, there is a different standard.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 223):
., I know ways of evacuating aircraft and had to prove I could do so that 'normal' flight crews wouldn't likely know about.

Aside from the doors and the cockpit windows/hatches, what do you mean? Seriously.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 171):
I was wondering whether the AD will also prevent Boeing from conducting test, delivery and ferry flights? If so, how long can the AD remain in effect before it starts having consequences on Boeing's calendar?

There is no way an airline will take delivery of a non-airworthy airplane. My guess is you will start seeing a long line start forming in Everet.


User currently offlineZB052 From UK - England, joined Jan 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28182 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 31):
the entire chain needs to be audited ,, so what they would look for are manufacturing processes, testing data, and quality control, then looking at serial number records.. this all can be done simultaneously with investigations at Thales, Boeing and the airlines maintenance areas.

Indeed - hence why I believe that this may take a bit longer than a few days to get a handle on the 'catalyst' to the issue. Faulty manufacturing, duff wiring harnesses, etc - could all be a contributory factor. During Human Factors training at my old employer, it was explained to us that an 'incident' could be a series of contributory factors, that all line-up at a certain place and time to create the incident. Wonder if that's what we have here?

The more robust the audit, the longer it may take, but the chances of finding the issue are pretty good. One thing that some people seem to be wanting is an answer right this minute. That is not going to happen of course.................


User currently offlinexaapb From Mexico, joined Jan 2005, 447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28014 times:

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 34):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 32):

Thanks for the info guys.

Kind Regards



Jorge Meneses
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6947 posts, RR: 12
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 28046 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
I believe both the charging system and the battery itself have management functionality.
Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 20):
Per other posts and today's Seattle Times article on lithium batteries (I supplied a link to near the end of the original thread) really is not just a battery, at least in the sense that might have been true 50 years ago. The battery, its cooling system, wiring and equally important software and packaging comprises the basic unit.

Thanks, I will look into that.

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
Very bulky but will the answer for the future be fuel cells? Create current on the fly? But what fuel would be safe for aviation?

You could use a small cracking system and have the primary fuel as jetA, however I'm not sure the thing would be safer than a battery. And it may need a battery to start anyway. If such thing made more sense than a big battery then I would expect a small diesel generator would also make sense.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1712 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 27952 times:

The industry (meaning Thales/Boeing/Airlines/FAA) will come up with an interim solution to allow the airplanes to comply with the AD, like testing the batterries. Any battery that fails the test will be sent for additional testing (along with the two failed batteries). Once they have a root cause, they can pull certain serial number batteries from the fleet and/or mandate a change to the airplane charging/monitoring system or the battery itself.

Watch, the batteries will be tested in the next week or so and airplanes will return to service (hopefully). Would expect scheduled tests of the battery on a quite frequent basis until a final solution is implemented.


Cheers


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 27865 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
Very bulky but will the answer for the future be fuel cells? Create current on the fly? But what fuel would be safe for aviation?

A fuel cell APU was originally default plan, then an optional plan, then eliminated as a choice for this airplane, I believe.

NS


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3868 posts, RR: 27
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 27838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Bloomberg is reporting that both batteries came from the same production lot according to unnamed sources.. so take it with a large grain of salt.

Am still hoping Tdscanuck or CM will comment in whether or not atmospheric pressure changes might have a role.. (See post 1)


User currently offlineIBOAviator From Canada, joined Sep 2010, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 27547 times:

Quoting dfambro (Reply 25):
Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 9):
I am going to get flamed for this but I am going to look at the FDA for just a minute. From the outside, a reasonably 'good' governing body but a closer look unfolds a ton of corruption.

Unless you've got something to back that up, you deserved to get flamed.

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 9):
Pressure from management to get an airplane out into service is kinda a big player on an engineers mind... The FDA approves drugs for use by the American public that have been not been properly tested, etc, for the sake of getting them out there and keeping drug companies happy (for obvious reasons).

Obviously you don't work in the pharma or biotech industy. Are you aware of the data standards, review processes, and approval rates? Or the multi-hundred million dollar illegal marketing fines they've been handing out. The FDA is slow, conservative, and a pain in the butt to work with, but corrupt they aren't.

I do have evidence to back these claims... evidence that is publicly shared, not hidden to industry specific individuals... yes, I do not work in Pharma but perhaps maybe people's opinions of their own occupation (Pharma, Biotech) are not those of corruption, etc. Of course someone who works in Pharma would say there is no corruption. Little research will prove the FDA is corrupt. But this is not a discussion regarding the FDA... I merely used it as a comparrison to say that some companies take shortcuts, have corruption that the public is not really aware of. Will I stop flying Boeing aircraft, no absolutely not. Sae reason why I wont stop using Advil if I have a headache.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 16):
Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 13):

Read CM's description of the testing/certification processes on the first thread. OCA is all over them.

Thanks, I will go and read up on what CM has to say.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
However, IBOAviator put forward the theoretical possibility that Boeing may have known something on the 787 was unsafe and shipped it anyway with the hope that this unsafe condition would never occur in order to start booking revenue through deliveries. In such a theoretical scenario, Boeing and it's employees would be putting themselves at considerable personal risk.

Yes, absolutely they are exposing themselves to great personal risk both as a collective company and as individuals... But if it can't be proven those failed "extreme" test results were discovered or paid the attention they should have deserved, then Boeing is clean from that avenue.

My "alternate" thoughts to some of the speculation/reasoning going around.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 33):
But first, the problem must be identified. Is it too much current? Voltage fluctuations out of spec? A change in the manufacturing process that is inducing defects?

I would love to know how old each battery is.

Hmmm.. maybe a dumb question but if the aircraft is a brand new delivery, would't the battery (along with every other part of the aircraft) be fairly new as well?

Regards,
IBO

[edit] grammatical error

[Edited 2013-01-17 12:49:11]


Keep Calm and Go Around!
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 27613 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There was post in the last thread about making all APU starts from ground or engine power. Well... what about the case when engines stop due to flying through a volcanic ash cloud? Not a very likely case, but one Boeing must design for and thus there must be APU batteries. And as Stitch noted, customers also want the option on the ground.

Quoting ZB052 (Reply 36):
The more robust the audit, the longer it may take, but the chances of finding the issue are pretty good. One thing that some people seem to be wanting is an answer right this minute. That is not going to happen of course.................

Agreed. Now that the planes are grounded, expect them to stay down for a while.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
is that the only advantage these batteries have to the current...proven technologies...is that they weigh less and have a smaller volume.

So no technology development? No planes went down, the battery containment worked. The engineers job is to pick the best technology available. Lithium batteries work. I can think of several technical changes that would make the batteries safer, at the expense of more weight, but still be far lighter and take less volume than alternatives.

On reason Lithium batteries were chosen is to make the weight penalty low enough while providing the needed number of APU starts for ETOPS 330 as well as any other loads that I am unaware of.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
The plan is to let a battery burn uncontrolled, albiet in it's rack, for 6 HOURS. REALLY? What could possibly go wrong?

Easy enough to do. The paint on the containment didn't even char. Those engines on the wings have far more severe contained fires the ENTIRE FLIGHT!

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
I honestly cannot understand how an engineer could choose/how the FAA could allow/why an airline would buy, an airplane designed using these batteries on such a large scale.

The FAA mandated the batter containment. It did its job. The concept was sound. I'm not aware of any issues the first year of service, so the concept isn't that bad.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
unless it can be PROVEN that the change MAINTAINS AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY to the current technology.

   The requirement is a probability of loss of life less than 10^-7 per flight hour. Your statement is correct in intent, but not the law.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
Now our performance engineers are so sure of the computer models that now the T/O weight I get back is 148,326.

How much weight would you add? Every kg of weight added to an airframe increases the fuel burn about $1,000 per decade. I'm working four parts that are each 0.1 kg over-weight. But the airframer will not accept over-weight components as if they do not hold the line, it adds several thousand pounds to the takeoff weight. We all know the computed weight is off.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
Aside from the doors and the cockpit windows/hatches, what do you mean? Seriously.

Fair question. Of course all the doors/windows/hatches, plus ways to get into the cargo bay and out or via the electronics bays. Now, in a flight test aircraft there is usually no carpet, so those floor panels that are latched in and not screwed in were easy to pull up and jump down through into the cargo hold. For some aircraft, I now know where to rip up the carpet to get down below.   Every possible way for a human to get off that aircraft must be taught to flight test crew (at least on the teams I was on). Even options that seem insane (such as into the cargo hold by pulling up a floor plate and squeezing between floor ribs, into an electronics bay, and out a front wheel well hatch in one aircraft). Where the ropes are in the doors, how to use the drag breaks when going out the pilot hatch, etc. We even had a small number of windows that had aluminum plugs that could be removed (which I am not thin enough to get through, one unusually thin tech squeezed through a window on a dare, so he was the only one that could have used that method); note, I expect that is a more viable path on the 787 with its 19" high windows. Some military aircraft have paths into the wings and then out, but that could have been the 'old dogs' pulling my chain.

Lightsaber

ps
Late edit: We were also trained where to break floor panels with a fire axe if that was the only way to get to the cargo hold and out. But we had extra 'latched' floor panels for flight test.

[Edited 2013-01-17 12:42:56]


Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 27377 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Passedv1, you raise legitimate questions about the process to select Li On batteries as opposed to standard NiCad ones. Unfortunately, to revert to NiCad will take longer (likely) than fixing the current problems given the certification process.

I think we have to assume (always dangerous I know) that ETOPS was granted based upon a very low probability of a battery fire coupled with the containment box. Based on the studies provided and evaluating the system, cert was granted.

The success of this plane depends on ETOPS. The airlines know it and so does Boeing and the suppliers. The nature of the fault(s) will determine their course and how long this will take.

It is puzzling that things got to this point and maybe things have gotten a bit lax re quality control due to technology but this experience will force changes in validation and that will be a good thing.


User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1712 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 27130 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 43):
The requirement is a probability of loss of life less than 10^-7 per flight hour. Your statement is correct in intent, but not the law.

You can bet the numbers are being crunched and risk assesments are being put together for multiple "possible" solutions to the batteries overheating.

Quoting kanban (Reply 41):
Am still hoping Tdscanuck or CM will comment in whether or not atmospheric pressure changes might have a role.. (See post 1)

There is no doubt that the batteries would have been tested in a vacum chamber to at least two times the altitude that the batteries would ever reach (say -2000 to 100,000 feet). Cabin pressure pressure would be significantly less then the 40 some odd thousand feet that it could operate.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 27159 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 33):
Some engineers will not see their family for weeks and Boeing will be paying overtime and expediting fees to vendors as well as their own staff. But first, the problem must be identified. Is it too much current? Voltage fluctuations out of spec? A change in the manufacturing process that is inducing defects?

Even if the batteries are fixed and there is no battery event again, the FAA says the current venting system has to be redone. The liquid that was sprayed around the inside of the forward bay had the potential to disrupt other systems in the plane.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 27171 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
Correct me if i'm wrong, but my current understanding, which is mostly based on what I have read here on A. Net, is that the only advantage these batteries have to the current...proven technologies...is that they weigh less and have a smaller volume.

Those are two of the reasons. As I recall from the previous discussions, the power they supply is also more stable and they will hold a charge longer (as neither battery is required to provide constant power - the generators in the engines are the primary source of electrical power).



Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
HOW THE HECK is this even certified for ETOPS at all, never mind 330 min ETOPS. The plan is to let a battery burn uncontrolled, albiet in it's rack, for 6 HOURS. REALLY? What could possibly go wrong?

It is not possible for the battery to burn for six hours - there is insufficient consumables.



Quoting kanban (Reply 41):
Bloomberg is reporting that both batteries came from the same production lot according to unnamed sources.. so take it with a large grain of salt.

Even if the batteries are discovered to be defective, the special conditions appear to read that even if a defective battery was installed, it could not be allowed to fail in the way that the batteries aboard the JL and Nh did. And both failed in separate modes - the JL battery entered thermal runway and caught fire, while the NH battery ruptured and leaked electrolysis solution.

So I do not believe the discovery that both batteries were bad would be sufficient for the FAA to nullify the AD that has grounded the fleet.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 27059 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 46):
Even if the batteries are fixed and there is no battery event again, the FAA says the current venting system has to be redone. The liquid that was sprayed around the inside of the forward bay had the potential to disrupt other systems in the plane.

Interesting point. Could you expand upon that? It's not something I've seen discussed at all.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 26957 times:

to capri @ reply 5:

That's _IT_?!!? That's PUNY! If you made it twice as large, it _still_ would be small. (Man oh man. Someone went with this technology for the sake of that small an improvement? Hard to believe, from my totally uninformed, amateurish point of view.)

Was that case filled with fluid? If not, is that lump in the center the bundle of cells? And if you knew the thing was prone to thermal runaway, with all that space, why on earth wouldn't you have provided cooling? Now I'm well and truly puzzled by this whole affair.

Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks in advance. And sorry if my expressed surprise has stepped on any toes. Not meant to.


User currently onlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 26943 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17):
So what I would like to know is if this is done by the plane itself (some circuits near the battery in the bay), or if it is part of the battery itself.

If you look at the picture of the burnt battery, you can make out the main bus bars between cells. The aviation cells Yuasa advertises are 10ah and 65ah each. The 787 pack is 8 cells wired in series for ~28v. Based on the ruler in the burnt picture, it is difficult to say which size the box contains, it may be made special for Boeing. The smaller wires visible are (likely) for the battery monitor system (BMS) which appear to exit via the top plug. I expect there is a module containing the BMS somewhere nearby. We have been told that the APU batt does not have a cockpit warning light as the main battery which I read here is the same size.
The FAA mandated an extensive monitor system beyond what is normally used in other applications. Yuasa says they produce the BMS for their battery. I am involved in the electric vehicle world as well as use lage batteries for off-grid storage and bms problems are very often the source of battery problems. enough so that many are eschewing BMS in LiFePo4 battery systems, as it is a safer chemistry. The key is not to over-dischaarge and even worse, don't over-charge.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
If this is indeed the case, I honestly cannot understand how an engineer could choose/how the FAA could allow/why an airline would buy, an airplane designed using these batteries on such a large scale.

This is not a "large scale" application. these are moderately small packs in the battery world.


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 26951 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):

Let me attempt to recap and correct me if I am wrong:

The 787 is grounded worldwide indefinitely due to battery issues which brought ANA ship 804 in TAK and lit JL ship 829 on fire in BOS. Anyone know if the MOT has probed Yuasa yet? There was some word going around my circles about it.

I believe Yuasa sub contracts the 787 Battery for production in France. Forgot the name of the French Co that makes them.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineIBOAviator From Canada, joined Sep 2010, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 26912 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):
Even if the batteries are discovered to be defective, the special conditions appear to read that even if a defective battery was installed, it could not be allowed to fail in the way that the batteries aboard the JL and Nh did. And both failed in separate modes - the JL battery entered thermal runway and caught fire, while the NH battery ruptured and leaked electrolysis solution.

So I do not believe the discovery that both batteries were bad would be sufficient for the FAA to nullify the AD that has grounded the fleet.

   The FAA would have to see that the batteries can function at altitude and that the systems supporting the operation of these batteries are operational to the extent that they can operate safely.

Isn't the thermal runaway of a battery and the rupturing of a battery related to one another? It seems like both cases are related and connected to eachother. When a Lithuim battery discharges too rapidly, it will overheat very quickly and quite possibly rupture as a result. Although 2 different cases, seems like a related issue of rapid battery discharge.



Keep Calm and Go Around!
User currently offlinetexl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 26708 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 51):

I believe Yuasa sub contracts the 787 Battery for production in France. Forgot the name of the French Co that makes them.

Thales makes the auxiliary control circuit I have read, but I don't think Saft Groupe SA actually makes the battery in the 787.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/0...-faa-battery-idINDEE90G03B20130117

- Boeing's new 787 airliner uses two lithium-ion batteries made by the Japanese company GS Yuasa Corp (6674.T), with the associated control circuits made by Thales SA (TCFP.PA). They are part of an auxiliary power unit supplied by UTC Aerospace, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), that provides power while the airplane is on the ground.

- The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, built by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N), uses a similar lithium-ion battery but it is built by a different manufacturer, France's Saft Groupe SA (S1A.PA). Lockheed said it did not expect any impact on the Pentagon's largest weapons program from the Boeing grounding since the batteries were built by a different company.

- The Airbus A350 airliner built by Europe's EADS (EAD.PA) is also due to use a lithium-ion battery made by Saft. That plane is due for its first flight this year.


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 26781 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 1):

posted this just before cut off
Yuasa makes these batteries for many land surface operations, trains, trucks, etc. and seem to have no problems. Possibly could the problem be related to the pressure differentials when flying... ie water boils at a lower temperature at elevation, so could the organic fluid in these batteries "boil" at altitude and leave the anodes/cathodes bare and in contact?

It's unlikely.
Remember what the B787 is great for... it has barely any pressure differentials, since it maintains a very low cabin altitude of 5000ft at cruise.


For the reference, I will put it on the board again for all airliners.net users.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Li-ion batteries may be the cause if the manufacturer doesn't meet the Boeing specs. Japanese companies are known for their integrity and have nothing to gain from fooling around with li-ion batteries on an aircraft. They charge enormous amounts of money for these, so I don't see the point of getting greedy just to save a few more bucks on a battery of a few tons of dollars.

-Li-ion batteries don't "self-combust" in normal operations. They can get hot during use, but they are unlikely to see temperatures as high as their kindling point.
-Li-ion typically explode or catch fire if the overcharge protection fails but that's very different to "self combustion", given that the overcharge is created by the elements that charge it.

-A li-ion battery can be unstable if charged beyond its capacity and stored in that condition. A shock could then cause the battery to catch fire or explode.

-The liquid solution is flammable. Flammable means that if lit on fire, it will burn.
This is why one needs to be careful when transporting li-ion batteries on an aircraft. If a battery gets damaged and the liquid flows into an electrical assembly, it could be lit on fire.

However, the ion solution will not catch fire by itself. Like any fuel, it needs a source of ignition.

Also, it's unlikely for a battery's protections to fail. These are normally fail-safe protections, unless they put an override to prevent the battery from going to fail-safe in an emergency. However, I don't think that Boeing would put an override on that overrides the fail-safe in a charging mode.


So there could be 3 ways for this issue to happen.
-too high temperatures in the e-bays, not enough air circulation, causing the li-ion solution to reach the flash point or the unlikely kindling point. I don't deem this very likely but LRU computers have been prone to overheating in the past.

-interface problems with the rest of the electric architecture. For instance, remember that the B787 runs on wild frequency generators without a CSU. This requires conversions and stabilisations to provide a clean source of DC power. Lack of stability could send the li-ion haywire, which I believe is a very possible cause. Any irregularities could make li-ions cook. As such, this is the most probable, in my opinion.

-batteries are not meeting design, test specs or the design itself is flawed. Li-ions have been on board of aircraft for several years now and never caused this kind of damage.


The battery containment is the least important feature and is the protection of last resort.
Has it worked? Difficult to say.

If I look at the video's from the evacuation of the NH787, I see thick smoke coming from the front starboard side around the aircraft and black lines running from the side of the fuselage, from something that looks like drain ports. I'm not part of the engineers who has been trained on the 787, so I don't know if that's supposed to be there but it doesn't look right. It is said that the hot liquid poured its way on a 12 feet stretch.

However the fire didn't destroy the entire aircraft or maybe it didn't get chance. So it's impossible to say if the containment saved the day, but judging by the smoke, it didn't do that good a job.

Anyway, Airbus CEO says on the A350-XWB usage of li-ions:

“There are some architectural differences and the suppliers are different,” Bregier said. “As Boeing said, the battery is not the issue, it’s the way you integrate it to the power system.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...-11e2-bc4f-1f06fffb7acf_story.html

[Edited 2013-01-17 13:30:46]

User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 26428 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):Correct me if i'm wrong, but my current understanding, which is mostly based on what I have read here on A. Net, is that the only advantage these batteries have to the current...proven technologies...is that they weigh less and have a smaller volume.
Those are two of the reasons. As I recall from the previous discussions, the power they supply is also more stable and they will hold a charge longer (as neither battery is required to provide constant power - the generators in the engines are the primary source of electrical power).

Another major aspect of Lithium ion batteries is that they do no suffer from memory effect. The performance and charge remains constant, it doesn't degrade over time after repeated charges. This is important for an aircraft that needs a reliable electrical source. As Stich mentions, it doesn't loose charge either.

Of course an alternative type of battery could be 2x heavier (so you'd lose out on 2 or 3 passengers in terms of weight!), it would also be significantly bigger. If you consider a 777, the battery is fairly small and it already requires a bit of a workout if you need to change it... accessibility/maintainability is quite an important point.

Quoting glideslope (Reply 51):
I believe Yuasa sub contracts the 787 Battery for production in France. Forgot the name of the French Co that makes them.

Thales manufacture the control electronics that manage the battery. I believe that the 787 batteries come with 4x independant electronic controllers (i.e. if three fail, you still can't overcharge the battery), so in theory it's extremely well protected and shouldn't be spiked by the electrical system feeding into it.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 26066 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 51):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):

Let me attempt to recap and correct me if I am wrong:

The 787 is grounded worldwide indefinitely due to battery issues which brought ANA ship 804 in TAK and lit JL ship 829 on fire in BOS. Anyone know if the MOT has probed Yuasa yet? There was some word going around my circles about it.

I believe Yuasa sub contracts the 787 Battery for production in France. Forgot the name of the French Co that makes them.


One of my contacts has an email to Yuasa but he's not certified to use it, and clearly neither am I...anyone here have any sort of journalism clearance?



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2319 posts, RR: 26
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25284 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
Correct me if i'm wrong, but my current understanding, which is mostly based on what I have read here on A. Net, is that the only advantage these batteries have to the current...proven technologies...is that they weigh less and have a smaller volume.

Supposedly provide more power and at a stable level of power discharge.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
Some of you on here are justifying the selection by saying "well the equivilant such and such battery would weight 300 more lbs or be so much bigger". Well, we are not talking about a Honda, 300lbs is not significant.

X 2 batteries which saves almost 500 lbs in weight. that is substantial, especially in a airplane. It is a very significant amount. Also, there are other Li-Ion batteries on the 787.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
I know WHY these batteries were chosen, but it is the WRONG reason, and if the players involved were part of the right culture, it would NOT have happened.

They absolutely were chosen for all the right reasons. They will get to the bottom of this and come up with a good fix. The players are of the right culture, what are you suggesting ? That is out of line and smearing the folks who developed this aircraft.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 35):
Don't get me wrong, I am not against new technology in airplanes. If Harrison Ford wants to use one on his G-V, knock yourself out. With airliners though, there is a different standard.

Which is in place. Believe it.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 43):
On reason Lithium batteries were chosen is to make the weight penalty low enough while providing the needed number of APU starts for ETOPS 330 as well as any other loads that I am unaware of.

And on the 787, have enough battery left for braking.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 49):
Was that case filled with fluid? If not, is that lump in the center the bundle of cells? And if you knew the thing was prone to thermal runaway, with all that space, why on earth wouldn't you have provided cooling? Now I'm well and truly puzzled by this whole affair.
Quoting Wisdom (Reply 54):
-The liquid solution is flammable. Flammable means that if lit on fire, it will burn. This is why one needs to be careful when transporting li-ion batteries on an aircraft. If a battery gets damaged and the liquid flows into an electrical assembly, it could be lit on fire.

No chance. The electrolyte in the 787 batteries is a paste. At high temperatures, it turns into a very gooey paste. It is not a liquid like in lead-acid batteries. Have heard it has cobalt in it.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 902 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 25112 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 56):

You and your "contacts" .... I wish I had some.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 25139 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 57):
No chance. The electrolyte in the 787 batteries is a paste. At high temperatures, it turns into a very gooey paste. It is not a liquid like in lead-acid batteries. Have heard it has cobalt in it.

From the FAA press release

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.

So they are saying that at issue is the release of flammable electrolytes.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 25041 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks for the info Wisdom.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 59):
So they are saying that at issue is the release of flammable electrolytes.

The heated gooey paste mentioned by CALTECH is presumably the electrolytes mentioned in the FAA order. While flammable, it requires an ignition source to burn.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24992 times:

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 58):

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 56):

You and your "contacts" .... I wish I had some.


Go find some   I met all mine through being in japan for an extended period of time, being involved at ASU, and meeting friends of friends through Facebook and around japan/Arizona.

Seriously it's not that hard. This particular contact is a writer and journalist. His clearance doesn't allow him to contact companies as when journalism majors graduate they must first go into crime investigations.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24925 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 60):
The heated gooey paste mentioned by CALTECH is presumably the electrolytes mentioned in the FAA order. While flammable, it requires an ignition source to burn.

That's not the point. The point is, the FAA doesn't want it there, at all. Even if the fault is traced to a bad batch of batteries, they are telling Boeing they don't want the potential for the internal electrolyte to escape to exist.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24782 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 62):
The point is, the FAA doesn't want it there, at all. Even if the fault is traced to a bad batch of batteries, they are telling Boeing they don't want the potential for the internal electrolyte to escape to exist.

I agree that's what the FAA wants. We'd have to see the special conditions on the certification of the electrical system to see what the containment unit was supposed to do other than protect the a/c in the event of a battery fire/"thermal event."


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24669 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 63):
I agree that's what the FAA wants. We'd have to see the special conditions on the certification of the electrical system to see what the containment unit was supposed to do other than protect the a/c in the event of a battery fire/"thermal event."

At a guess, this was not covered adequately. Now that we have had the battery failures, the FAA is revising it's requirements.


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2319 posts, RR: 26
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24596 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 59):
From the FAA press release

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.

So they are saying that at issue is the release of flammable electrolytes.
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 59):
The heated gooey paste mentioned by CALTECH is presumably the electrolytes mentioned in the FAA order. While flammable, it requires an ignition source to burn.
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 62):
That's not the point. The point is, the FAA doesn't want it there, at all. Even if the fault is traced to a bad batch of batteries, they are telling Boeing they don't want the potential for the internal electrolyte to escape to exist.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 63):
I agree that's what the FAA wants. We'd have to see the special conditions on the certification of the electrical system to see what the containment unit was supposed to do other than protect the a/c in the event of a battery fire/"thermal event."

Meant 'no chance' because it is not a liquid. If it is thought that I do not know that the battery and it's electrolyte paste spewed over the compartment, and was heated to a much higher temp than when it turns into a gooey paste, well, I am sorry my post was misinterpeted or misread.That's the point I was referring to, the electrolyte is not a liquid.

These batteries do not like heat, and they generate a lot of heat when cycling, like in APU starts.

[Edited 2013-01-17 14:53:56]


UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6947 posts, RR: 12
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24424 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 65):
Meant 'no chance' because it is not a liquid.

Something that can flow is a liquid. Even glass is a liquid if you wait long enough, since it will flow.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1712 posts, RR: 2
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24312 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 62):
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 60):
The heated gooey paste mentioned by CALTECH is presumably the electrolytes mentioned in the FAA order. While flammable, it requires an ignition source to burn.

That's not the point. The point is, the FAA doesn't want it there, at all. Even if the fault is traced to a bad batch of batteries, they are telling Boeing they don't want the potential for the internal electrolyte to escape to exist.

Here is the actual text from the AD.....

AD Requirements
This AD requires modification of the battery system, or other actions, in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by recent incidents involving lithium ion battery failures that resulted
in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787-8 airplanes. The
cause of these failures is currently under investigation. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.
---------------------------------------------
The main issue is the battery failures.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24137 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 67):
This AD was prompted by recent incidents involving lithium ion battery failures that resulted
in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787-8 airplanes. The
cause of these failures is currently under investigation. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.
---------------------------------------------
The main issue is the battery failures.

I suppose it is ambiguous, but to me they are concerned abou tht fact that a battery failure resulted in the release of electrolytes. Planes have all the redundant systems and ETOPS based on the knowledge that something will fail, not that they can prevent it from ever failing again. They certainly want the cause for the battery failures fixed, which could well be a bad batch of batteries. They also want the release of electrolytes prevented from happening again if a battery every fails again as well.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20355 posts, RR: 59
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24015 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 1):

posted this just before cut off
Yuasa makes these batteries for many land surface operations, trains, trucks, etc. and seem to have no problems. Possibly could the problem be related to the pressure differentials when flying... ie water boils at a lower temperature at elevation, so could the organic fluid in these batteries "boil" at altitude and leave the anodes/cathodes bare and in contact?

IIRC, the maximum cabin altitude aboard the 787 is something like 6,000 feet, right? Now, DEN is at 5,400 feet. So if Yuasa actually designed a battery that would "boil" while on the ground at DEN and lead to an event like this, then someone there is guilty of criminal negligence. This company has a lot of experience producing Li-ion batteries, so I think it's unlikely that they were that blatantly incompetent.

I'm no engineer, but I do make a living out of diagnosing problems. It strikes me that the issue is more likely to be in the interaction between the battery and the aircraft's electrical system.

Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 9):
I am going to get flamed for this but I am going to look at the FDA for just a minute. From the outside, a reasonably 'good' governing body but a closer look unfolds a ton of corruption.

Only if you read websites that peddle "organic" and "alternative" foods and medicines. The FDA has had its problems and corruption, but these issues have been the exception and not the norm. In fact, the FDA is so strict that if aspirin were to go up for FDA review today, it would never pass.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23721 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
It strikes me that the issue is more likely to be in the interaction between the battery and the aircraft's electrical system.

It strikes me that this would be one of the more unlikely causes, for otherwise I would expect we would have seen it happen much more frequently considering the amount of hours the battery and the aircraft's electrical system have been interacting across testing, certification and revenue service. Plus the lab and bench testing prior to first flight.

If this interaction can cause two events in less than two weeks, considering the 787 has been flying daily in revenue service for a year prior, I would think statistically we should have seen many more of these events with NH and JL birds, at least.

That being said, even if the investigation does show that the batteries themselves were the root cause, Boeing will still need to address the fact that bad batteries can fail in a way that appears to contravene one or more of the special conditions that allowed their use.

[Edited 2013-01-17 15:45:08]

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23642 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
IIRC, the maximum cabin altitude aboard the 787 is something like 6,000 feet, right? Now, DEN is at 5,400 feet. So if Yuasa actually designed a battery that would "boil" while on the ground at DEN and lead to an event like this, then someone there is guilty of criminal negligence. This company has a lot of experience producing Li-ion batteries, so I think it's unlikely that they were that blatantly incompetent.

This.

Yuasa needs to provide proof that there is no negligence or other issues which I personally believe they can do. However, this probe is going to most likely come up with things such as 1) why didn't Yuasa take into account factors such as overcharge, containment, and overheat, 2) why Yuasa-made batteries are just now failing a year and some change into service (even with the supposed battery replacement in 804) and both Yuasa and Boeing need to go back to their testing logs to see at which points anomalies like this would have happened.

  

On other terms seems like this is developing into a scandal in japan, but just like us, people don't quite know who is blaming who here.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1712 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23450 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 71):
This.

Yuasa needs to provide proof that there is no negligence or other issues which I personally believe they can do. However, this probe is going to most likely come up with things such as 1) why didn't Yuasa take into account factors such as overcharge, containment, and overheat, 2) why Yuasa-made batteries are just now failing a year and some change into service (even with the supposed battery replacement in 804) and both Yuasa and Boeing need to go back to their testing logs to see at which points anomalies like this would have happened.

The batteries would have been tested to meet both certification and Boeing requirements. For the FAA requirements, one of their representatives would have been there to ensure the batteries met drawing/specification requirements during test, then signed on the dotted line, otherwise it wouldn't be on the airplane.

There is a reason why everything to do with airplanes is expensive, and most of it has to do with the upfront costs, including the testing required for certification.

Cheers


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20355 posts, RR: 59
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23458 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
It strikes me that this would be one of the more unlikely causes, for otherwise I would expect we would have seen it happen much more frequently considering the amount of hours the battery and the aircraft's electrical system have been interacting across testing, certification and revenue service. Plus the lab and bench testing prior to first flight.

You could say that of any potential cause, I suppose. Why did this not happen until five days ago...and then twice in three days? The aircraft were delivered a year apart and even if the batteries were from the same batch (or however they make it), they've seen different use, so why did they both fail at the same time?

Obviously, the problem is somewhere. Assuming that the same thing occurred on both airframes (and I'd consider it far more ominous if the failures were unrelated), where do you suppose the problem is most likely to be?


User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23530 times:

Anybody need a funny coincidence? Some years ago I sat near a bunch of Boeing reps on a flight and talked with one of them about their new plane. They'd come from a conference with the Japanese, and out of a list of possible names for the plane, the Japanese had picked "787", this fellow said. He said that they, the reps, understood that to the Japanese, "7-8-7" was particularly lucky and propitious, so, why not, Boeing was going to go along with the choice. I remarked that "7-8-7" was the "young bright/young dark/young bright" trigram in the I Ching whose name was "Li" and which symbolized "fire"; was that what the Japanese liked about it, the relationship between fire and a jet engine? No idea, said the rep, but that's what they want.

So now, we have the "787" with "Li" batteries which are causing if not the "f"-word, then considerable heat and fury.

Hopefully that was good for a chuckle.

Can anybody tell me whether the temp of the battery is monitored and whether there's a cooling system? I still haven't figured that out from the information here.

Thanks.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23260 times:

Bellancacf,

All of the questions you continue to ask were answered in post #22.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 76):
Can anybody tell me whether the temp of the battery is monitored and whether there's a cooling system? I still haven't figured that out from the information here.
Quoting CM (Reply 22):
Yes, the Main and APU batteries both have active temperature monitoring.



Quoting bellancacf (Reply 49):
Was that case filled with fluid?
Quoting CM (Reply 22):
There is no cooling provision in the 787 battery architecture.



Quoting bellancacf (Reply 49):
And if you knew the thing was prone to thermal runaway, with all that space, why on earth wouldn't you have provided cooling?
Quoting CM (Reply 22):
Actively cooling the batteries would certainly be possible and active air-cooling is common in Ni-Cd batteries on some other aircraft (777 batteries have an integral fan), but this would not have helped in the case of the two battery incidents on the 787. Thermal runaway in a Li-ion battery is not typically brought on by high operating temperatures (although it could be). There are much more common causes of thermal runaway such as internal defects and problems with managing the state of charge. Once the battery begins a thermal runaway, no amount of cooling will help; the process is exothermic and is self sustained until the energy source (lithium) is depleted.


[Edited 2013-01-17 16:12:55]

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23139 times:

Hi CM.

Apart from working out why the batteries failed, which could well be a bad batch, does the FAA require a change in the containment/venting/release of electrolyte management?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23128 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
Assuming that the same thing occurred on both airframes (and I'd consider it far more ominous if the failures were unrelated), where do you suppose the problem is most likely to be?

Assuming the same issue occurred on both airframes, I would look to the batteries themselves. We can assume the JL bird had a recent battery since it was the most recently-completed line number to be delivered. And there have been reports that NH replaced the battery on their bird, so if true, that would imply two "young" batteries. There have also been reports that both batteries came from the same production batch.

If bad batteries are the root cause, then yes, that would be due to the interaction between the (bad) battery and the aircraft's electrical system. But the interaction between a good battery and the aircraft's electrical system may cause no issues.



Quoting bellancacf (Reply 76):
Can anybody tell me whether the temp of the battery is monitored and whether there's a cooling system? I still haven't figured that out from the information here.

Yes, battery temperature is monitored. The NH flight crew I believe were receiving notifications that the battery temperature was rising.

There is no active cooling of the battery beyond the air flow in the EE bay. That being said, once a cell in a Li-Ion battery enters thermal runaway, the reaction is exothermic and therefore even an active cooling system would not be effective in preventing the battery temperature from increasing after that reaction begins.

[Edited 2013-01-17 16:47:35]

User currently offlinebellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22881 times:

to CM @ 77 and 22 -- Ack! Sorry! Went out on an errand and whizzed right by that when I came back. So the Li goes exothermic and you can't stop it from doing it or stop it once started. Great. My belated thanks for your reply!

User currently offlineiahmark From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22866 times:

Well, here’s an idea…. maybe the batteries are underrated for the current drain/usage/needs of the plane; in other words we know Li ion produces good energy for their size but reading all that has been said it looks like this plane uses/drains massive amounts of energy from its batteries causing to them to generate a lot heat, much more so than they were designed /rated for; all these charge/ discharge cycles would take a toll on the longevity of the battery.

This this analogous to the alternator/battery combo on a lot cars, a lot of them that get used/sold in colder weather regions get an option of a heavy duty alternator/battery for the same reason.

I believe Boeing may have underestimated the electrical needs of this plane, the fault may not be the battery itself but the interaction between the battery and the electrical needs of the plane, maybe it needs bigger or higher rated battery;
a higher rated battery may weight more but it could power all these ancillary systems without deep discharges/drains.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22786 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting iahmark (Reply 81):
I believe Boeing may have underestimated the electrical needs of this plane...

I would hope Boeing knows the draw the electrical system on the 787 requires and scaled battery capacity as necessary.

In fact, I would think they would be required to exactly know how much the system requires since the battery would need to be able to provide sufficient power in the event both engines failed, taking their respective four generators with them, and the APU failed to engage.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22789 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
Quoting iahmark (Reply 81):
I believe Boeing may have underestimated the electrical needs of this plane...

I would hope Boeing knows the draw the electrical system on the 787 requires and scaled battery capacity as necessary.

In fact, I would think they would be required to exactly know how much the system requires since the battery would need to be able to provide sufficient power in the event both engines failed, taking their respective four generators with them, and the APU failed to engage.

Electrical load requirements are part of the design and certification process; Boeing knows exactly how much electricity is required to run the systems in normal and emergency situations. All of that information is part of the package which was signed off by the FAA following testing. I cannot imagine this will come down to an "undersized" battery.

I think its better to focus on the battery itself and the charging system given the symptoms which were made public. Heavy draws etc causing issues with the battery would be addressed as part of the battery analysis I believe given the loads were a known quantity to all stake holders.


User currently onlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6542 posts, RR: 54
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22736 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
IIRC, the maximum cabin altitude aboard the 787 is something like 6,000 feet, right? Now, DEN is at 5,400 feet. So if Yuasa actually designed a battery that would "boil" while on the ground at DEN and lead to an event like this, then someone there is guilty of criminal negligence.

These batteries are sure made to tolerate a cabin decompression at FL450. We can just forget about any altitude related thing having caused this mess.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20355 posts, RR: 59
Reply 79, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22546 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79):
And there have been reports that NH replaced the battery on their bird, so if true, that would imply two "young" batteries. There have also been reports that both batteries came from the same production batch.

I very much hope that is the issue. If it's down to a defective batch of batteries, that will be very easy to fix and the aircraft might be in the air again within days. If the issue is in the electrical system, then it could be months.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22638 times:

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 80):
to CM @ 77 and 22 -- Ack! Sorry! Went out on an errand and whizzed right by that when I came back. So the Li goes exothermic and you can't stop it from doing it or stop it once started. Great. My belated thanks for your reply!

No worries, when a thread moves this fast, it gets impossible to keep up with it.



Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 78):
Hi CM.

Apart from working out why the batteries failed, which could well be a bad batch, does the FAA require a change in the containment/venting/release of electrolyte management?

The active NTSB investigation and FAA inquiry really limit what I can say about this. However, the text of the FAA AD is informative about what aspects of a battery failure they are concerned about and will be taking a closer look at in determining whether a design change is needed:

"This AD was prompted by recent incidents involving lithium ion battery failures that resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787-8 airplanes. The cause of these failures is currently under investigation. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment."



Quoting iahmark (Reply 81):
I believe Boeing may have underestimated the electrical needs of this plane

This particular battery was chosen (in part) based on the electrical needs of the airplane. The 787 battery does everything it is supposed to do in terms of electrical power. Understanding if the battery is maintaining an acceptable state of charge during normal, operations is fundamental to the qualification of the battery. Beyond that, abuse and endurance testing has looked at how the battery behaves when used considerably outside of what would be considered "normal operations" - it must remain within a safe state of charge during these types of operation as well. The battery being undersized for its role is a very low probability place to find the root cause of the battery failures.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 83):
Electrical load requirements are part of the design and certification process; Boeing knows exactly how much electricity is required to run the systems in normal and emergency situations. All of that information is part of the package which was signed off by the FAA following testing. I cannot imagine this will come down to an "undersized" battery.

        



Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 84):
These batteries are sure made to tolerate a cabin decompression at FL450. We can just forget about any altitude related thing having caused this mess.

        


User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1712 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22537 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
I would hope Boeing knows the draw the electrical system on the 787 requires and scaled battery capacity as necessary.

In fact, I would think they would be required to exactly know how much the system requires since the battery would need to be able to provide sufficient power in the event both engines failed, taking their respective four generators with them, and the APU failed to engage.

Every airplane delivered comes with an electrical load analysis, witch provides the loads on each and every buss. Airlines need this information, as they like to add to the loads, like inflight entertainment, new seats/classes, wifi, gallies, and such.

In addition, different airplane configurations (customers) have different loads (probably not on the battery busses).

Cheers


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 82, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22255 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 7):
And I welcome his enlightening insights in this otherwise sad mess. So thanks man ! from an Airbus system engineer.

Well said.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 19):
A simple heightened inspection program won't cut it in this case.

It may very well "cut it" if the problem is determined to be related to something that can be inspected. However, I would expect that it would more likely be a short term inspection program while a longer term fix was developed.

Quoting ZB052 (Reply 27):
Oh, and *FIRST POST* (Have lurked here for close to a decade - finally decided to register!)

Yay!

Yay! Welcome. And since you have been lurking - you probably already have the thick skin required.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 46):
the FAA says the current venting system has to be redone.

The FAA has said nothing of the sort. They have said they are investigating.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 71):
Yuasa needs to provide proof that there is no negligence or other issues which I personally believe they can do. However, this probe is going to most likely come up with things such as 1) why didn't Yuasa take into account factors such as overcharge, containment, and overheat, 2) why Yuasa-made batteries are just now failing a year and some change into service (even with the supposed battery replacement in 804) and both Yuasa and Boeing need to go back to their testing logs to see at which points anomalies like this would have happened.

I haven's seen a cart that far ahead of a horse in a long time.



rcair1
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1712 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 22254 times:

NTSB Investigation UPDates - Quantity - 2

NTSB provides investigative update on Boeing 787 fire incident in Boston
January 08

WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board today released an update on its formal investigation of Monday's fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston. There were no passengers or crew on board at the time. One firefighter received minor injuries.

In addition to an investigator already on scene who visually inspected the airplane last night, the NTSB has sent two additional investigators to Boston and formed investigative groups to look at airworthiness and fire and airport emergency response. Senior Air Safety Investigator David Helson has been designated as the investigator-in-charge.

Parties to the investigation are the Federal Aviation Administration and The Boeing Company. In addition, the Japan Transport Safety Board has appointed an accredited representative and Japan Airlines will assist the JTSB as technical advisors.

Initial investigative findings include:

The NTSB investigator on scene found that the auxiliary power unit battery had severe fire damage. Thermal damage to the surrounding structure and components is confined to the area immediately near the APU battery rack (within about 20 inches) in the aft electronics bay.
Preliminary reports from Japan Airlines representatives indicate that airplane maintenance and cleaning personnel were on the airplane with the APU in operation just prior to the detection of smoke in the cabin and that Boston Logan Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting were contacted.
Rescue and fire personnel and equipment responded to the airplane and detected a fire in the electronics and equipment bay near the APU battery box. Initial reports indicate that the fire was extinguished about 40 minutes after arrival of the first rescue and fire personnel. One firefighter received minor injuries.
--------------------------------------

NTSB Provides Second Investigative Update on Boeing 787 Battery Fire in Boston

WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board today released a second update on its investigation into the Jan. 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston.

The lithium-ion battery that powered the auxiliary power unit on the airplane was removed and transported back to the NTSB Materials Laboratory in Washington on Jan. 10. The battery is currently being examined by NTSB investigators, who plan to disassemble it this week.

In advance of that work, under the direction of the NTSB, radiographic examinations of the incident battery and an exemplar battery were conducted this past weekend at an independent test facility. The digital radiographs and computed tomography scans generated from this examination allowed the team to document the internal condition of the battery prior to disassembling it.

In addition, investigators took possession of burned wire bundles, the APU battery charger, and several memory modules. The maintenance and APU controller memory modules will be downloaded to obtain any available data. Investigators also documented the entire aft electronics bay including the APU battery and the nearby affected structure where components and wire bundles were located. The airplane was released back to Japan Airlines on Jan. 10.

The airplane's two combined flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder units were transported to NTSB headquarters and have been successfully downloaded. The information is currently being analyzed by the investigative team.

The airport emergency response group documented the airport rescue and firefighting efforts to extinguish the fire, which included interviews with first responders. Fire and rescue personnel were able to contain the fire using a clean agent (Halotron), however, they reported experiencing difficulty accessing the battery for removal during extinguishing efforts. All fire and rescue personnel responding to the incident had previously received aircraft familiarization training on the Boeing 787. In accordance with international investigative treaties, the Japan Transport Safety Board and French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la sécurité de l'aviation civile have appointed accredited representatives to the investigation. The NTSB-led investigative team is comprised of subject matter groups in the areas of airplane systems, fire, airport emergency response, and data recorders and includes experts from the Federal Aviation Administration, The Boeing Company, US Naval Surface Warfare Center's Carderock Division, Japan Airlines (aircraft operator), GS Yuasa (battery manufacturer), and Thales Avionics Electrical Systems (APU battery/charger system).

Sorry if this was already posted....


User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3174 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 22099 times:

Unfortunately I have little knowledge when it comes to the "TechOps" sector of flying, so please excuse me if this has been discussed before, or if it is a stupid question, but why are these problems all coming out now? ANA has been flying the plane for over a year, and I don't remember problems like this when they first starting flying.

As many has said before, I feel deeply sorry for the events that have happened, and I feel almost embarrassed(?) as an American that Boeing, the last great American aircraft manufacturer is having these issues. I worry that people, airlines, and other countries will lose faith in the 787, and possibly Boeing.

I saw these two ad's on youtube a couple of days ago, and I thought I would share them. From the time these commercials were shot (2005?) we had great hopes for the 787, and I know the hopes will come true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqrBOBM-AXA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXx4CGNAFQ4



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 85, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 22069 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 90):
but why are these problems all coming out now? ANA has been flying the plane for over a year, and I don't remember problems like this when they first starting flying.

That is not a stupid question - it is one of the key questions. You may not have seen it, but the 2 a/c are of significantly different ages - the ANA 787 has been in service ~ a year, the JAL one just entered service. However there are UNCONFIRMED reports that the battery in the ANA a/c was recently replaced, so the batteries MAY be of similar vintage.



rcair1
User currently offlineaerodog From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 22007 times:

Quoting dfambro (Reply 25):


Things can go wrong, in aviation and in pharma, but that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to subvert proper regulation.

In terms of the FAA, I used to believe that...not anymore. A pip-squeak CEO from Albuquerque, Vern Raburn convinced the FAA brass in Washington that the local MIDO inspectors were impeding certification of his Eclipse Very Light Jet. The orders came down and the inspectors were not allowed to inspect below the floor panels. John Hickey had his finger prints all over that episode. Hickey is now deeply involved in the 787 certification program.

There is plenty of information regarding this online including YouTube video of a Congressional Hearing headed by Rep. James Oberstar:

http://www.youtube.com/user/PASSMIDO

The two FAA members appearing at the hearing were Hickey and Nick Sabatini. Sabatini retired shortly after the hearing.

There was a grievance filed as well:

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/grievance-EclipseTC-AIR402.pdf

And other media reports:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?d...0f5cb3-46c1-41eb-9a84-3c469b2247d9

http://www.redorbit.com/news/busines...roval_of_jet_design_officials_say/

So if Raburn had that much sway over the FAA, I can only imagine the influence Boeing might have.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 21870 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 88):
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 46):the FAA says the current venting system has to be redone.The FAA has said nothing of the sort. They have said they are investigating.

I don't know of any other way of preventing the electrolyte escaping form a failing battery than doing something about the containment system, which didn't work.


User currently offlinesphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 21846 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 91):

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 90):
but why are these problems all coming out now? ANA has been flying the plane for over a year, and I don't remember problems like this when they first starting flying.


That is not a stupid question - it is one of the key questions. You may not have seen it, but the 2 a/c are of significantly different ages - the ANA 787 has been in service ~ a year, the JAL one just entered service. However there are UNCONFIRMED reports that the battery in the ANA a/c was recently replaced, so the batteries MAY be of similar vintage.

What would the lay-up procedure have been for the initial test units (ZA001, ZA002, etc)? Would the batteries have been removed before the planes went into storage? If so, where would they have gone? Seems that those might be useful sources of information about degradation due to clock time and/or operations.

sPh


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 89, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 21737 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 72):
There is a reason why everything to do with airplanes is expensive, and most of it has to do with the upfront costs, including the testing required for certification.

Just a heads up you posted this 3 times  

Either way, that is a good and valid point....but The one point I wanna make is why weren't these seen previously during testing? is it impossible to predict stuff like this during initial testing?

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 88):
I haven's seen a cart that far ahead of a horse in a long time.

It's just an assumption based off what I read. Just some re-hashing and some thinking.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 89):
The NTSB investigator on scene found that the auxiliary power unit battery had severe fire damage. Thermal damage to the surrounding structure and components is confined to the area immediately near the APU battery rack (within about 20 inches) in the aft electronics bay.

So hm..... even if the battery was replaced, could the aircraft be safe enough to ferry back to Japan or is it not safe enough?



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1712 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 21651 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 93):
I don't know of any other way of preventing the electrolyte escaping form a failing battery than doing something about the containment system, which didn't work.

Requiring some type of shield wouldn't be unheard of. A United 777 caught fire in load center/panel and the damage was considerable. The FAA released an AD to add extra containment to catch the dripping material that caused the fire to be much worse.

Here is a link...

http://www.thetechherald.com/article...777-escapes-Heathrow-fire-disaster


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2319 posts, RR: 26
Reply 91, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 21343 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 66):
Something that can flow is a liquid. Even glass is a liquid if you wait long enough, since it will flow.

Again, the electrolyte is not a liquid. If it was heated enough, it might become a liquid, but we are told it is a paste. Closely guarded paste. And in these incidents, the heat and thermal runaway would look like a arc welder. I do not know if the paste stays as a paste or turns into a liquid. Certainly a paste could spew from a containment vessel if the heat and pressure rose high enough.

According to the statement in post #66, so aluminum and steel, among other substances, must be liquids because they will 'flow' if you heat them up enough too.

Glass is unique, it seems to be a solid but still flows. In old churches it is known that the stained glass becomes very thin at the top of a pane and thicker near the bottom as the glass flows down over the centuries.

These batteries get very hot, even under normal cycling.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 92, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 21327 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 57):

No chance. The electrolyte in the 787 batteries is a paste. At high temperatures, it turns into a very gooey paste. It is not a liquid like in lead-acid batteries. Have heard it has cobalt in it.

Are you sure? Most li-ion batteries have liquid electrolytes.

If true, that's new information for me. What kind of paste is it?
Most li-ion batteries have liquid electrolytes for the obvious reasons of facilitating transfer of ions.

I don't see any merits of using a solid electrolyte for li-ion applications, although I have heard that some experimenting is going on.


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2319 posts, RR: 26
Reply 93, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 20888 times:

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 92):
Are you sure? Most li-ion batteries have liquid electrolytes.

As sure as I haven't looked inside one yet, but that is what is being said. It is a paste. The electrolyte is a non-aqueous electrolyte paste composed mainly of Li-Ion solution, cobalt, and a proprietary powder. No sources, sorry.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 20647 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 90):
Requiring some type of shield wouldn't be unheard of. A United 777 caught fire in load center/panel and the damage was considerable. The FAA released an AD to add extra containment to catch the dripping material that caused the fire to be much worse.

It already has a container, which seemed to stop the fire spreading in the original incident. In the second incident, it didn't stop the electrolyte from splashing around the electronics bay. We don't know yet if it contained the flames completely, since the fire service removed it, possibly interfering with the container.


User currently offlinenm2582 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19774 times:

I think that a lot of the questioning of the 787's overall electrical systems and design is misguided. It seems highly unlikely that the whole thing would just be trash. In fact, all airborne electrical issues thus far, the system has tolerated the issue and continued to provide power to the aircraft so that a safe landing was possible, and reportedly (ZA002) even recovered systems after the failure as the system reconfigured. If anything, that should tell us that the aircraft is actually pretty fault tolerant; there just needs to be less faults!

With specific regards to the batteries - it's clear they have an issue to solve, but an issue with battery management (whether it be charging, discharging, wiring, whatever) does not implicate the whole electrical system.

Lithium cells don't just spontaneously go into thermal runaway or vent for no good reason, it's a chain of events that can be triggered in many ways - over-charge, over-discharge, manufacturing defect, physical damage to the cell, etc.; or anything which causes these to occur.

I believe that a relatively straightforward problem (cell defect, software defect, wiring defect) will be discovered (even if it is challenging at first to discover), and when discovered, it will be resolved and this will be the end of the issue.

The A380 has already proven that lithium cells can fly safely.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19634 times:

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 95):
I believe that a relatively straightforward problem (cell defect, software defect, wiring defect) will be discovered (even if it is challenging at first to discover), and when discovered, it will be resolved and this will be the end of the issue.

Except that the current containment of any failure has not worked to the satisfaction of the FAA. That is, even if they remedy the root cause of the failure, they still have to come up with a resolution to the problem of not coping adequately with the failure.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 97, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 41):
You can bet the numbers are being crunched and risk assesments are being put together for multiple "possible" solutions to the batteries overheating.

Agreed. But I'm certain dozens of engineers are working quite a bit of overtime to figure out the details.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 42):
Even if the batteries are fixed and there is no battery event again, the FAA says the current venting system has to be redone. The liquid that was sprayed around the inside of the forward bay had the potential to disrupt other systems in the plane.

Interesting. Do you have a link?

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 53):
And on the 787, have enough battery left for braking.

Tschhh... That's obviously optional. As long as the engines work, everyone love the plane.  
Quoting nm2582 (Reply 95):
I believe that a relatively straightforward problem (cell defect, software defect, wiring defect) will be discovered (even if it is challenging at first to discover), and when discovered, it will be resolved and this will be the end of the issue.

I hope it is the case. One that can be proven in the lab and proven to be corrected within the required safety margins.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19642 times:

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 95):
The A380 has already proven that lithium cells can fly safely.

The A380 uses Li-ion batteries for its emergency lighting system. That seems like orders of magnitude less power than the 787 system which starts the APU and supplies main aircraft power...


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19379 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 97):
Interesting. Do you have a link?

I have provided a few already. Here is one.

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...ogy/2020148677_787groundedxml.html

Boeing Senior Vice President Mike Sinnett, who is responsible for the plane’s electrical systems, said in an interview last week after the Logan fire that those controls — two inside the battery and two external — would prevent any serious battery incident.

He added that Boeing tests showed that any smoke from less serious battery overheating caused by some internal flaw would exit through the outflow valves overboard, ensuring none entered the passenger cabin or the cockpit in flight.

But the FAA, announcing its decision Wednesday to ground the 787 fleet, indicated that it was not satisfied these systems worked as designed.

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

Both battery incidents resulted in the “release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke,” it said.


Boeing were of the opinion that the process of removing any smoke through outflow valves was adequate. The FAA disagrees, as there were also flammable electrolytes released, and smoke. They want this dealt with as well.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 100, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19242 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 37):
Am still hoping Tdscanuck or CM will comment in whether or not atmospheric pressure changes might have a role..

Temperature range is much more limiting than pressure (which just leads to some differences how the batterycase is mecanically loaden). Low temperatures let age the battery much quicker or reduce the available capacity significantly.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 50):
For the reference, I will put it on the board again for all airliners.net users.
-Li-ion batteries don't "self-combust" in normal operations. They can get hot during use, but they are unlikely to see temperatures as high as their kindling point.

-Li-ion typically explode or catch fire if the overcharge protection fails but that's very different to "self combustion", given that the overcharge is created by the elements that charge it.

-A li-ion battery can be unstable if charged beyond its capacity and stored in that condition. A shock could then cause the battery to catch fire or explode.

-The liquid solution is flammable. Flammable means that if lit on fire, it will burn.
This is why one needs to be careful when transporting li-ion batteries on an aircraft. If a battery gets damaged and the liquid flows into an electrical assembly, it could be lit on fire.

Some points to add:
- The moment before overcharge happens must be detected by sophisticated sensorics. Each and every cell (and there are many) needs to be measured independently. A balancer guarantees that each cell always has the same voltage. Without it (or without it functioning properly) a single cell that has aged a bit more, looses voltage much quicker during discharging than the others or during charging a single cell could go into overcharged mode (= heating up to the point where it burns) while the rest (and the total voltage) would be just fine.

- If one cell burns, the rest is no longer safe as well.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 50):
So there could be 3 ways for this issue to happen.
-too high temperatures in the e-bays, not enough air circulation, causing the li-ion solution to reach the flash point or the unlikely kindling point. I don't deem this very likely but LRU computers have been prone to overheating in the past.

-interface problems with the rest of the electric architecture. For instance, remember that the B787 runs on wild frequency generators without a CSU. This requires conversions and stabilisations to provide a clean source of DC power. Lack of stability could send the li-ion haywire, which I believe is a very possible cause. Any irregularities could make li-ions cook. As such, this is the most probable, in my opinion.

-batteries are not meeting design, test specs or the design itself is flawed. Li-ions have been on board of aircraft for several years now and never caused this kind of damage.

- Or a problem with the cell balancer. Wiring or electronics (there are countless very precise measurements of voltages and currents).

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 91):
Again, the electrolyte is not a liquid. If it was heated enough, it might become a liquid, but we are told it is a paste. Closely guarded paste. And in these incidents, the heat and thermal runaway would look like a arc welder. I do not know if the paste stays as a paste or turns into a liquid. Certainly a paste could spew from a containment vessel if the heat and pressure rose high enough.

I wonder how well these batteries would have worked in a case like the BA 777 emergency landing in London. A combination between these things seem risky IMO:
- Breaking the housing in the fuselage due to cracked fuselage
- Mechanical impact
- No longer contained fire


User currently offlinenm2582 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19227 times:

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 98):
The A380 uses Li-ion batteries for its emergency lighting system. That seems like orders of magnitude less power than the 787 system which starts the APU and supplies main aircraft power...

Sure it's less power, but it proves that the technology is not inherently incompatible with aircraft. Lithium cells large and small fail - the power density just determines how much energy is given off in the failure. If lithium cells were not compatible with flight, you'd see A380's popping them off from time to time and having mini-failures of these batteries just like the 787. Since that's not the case, it's logical to conclude that the technology can fly safely, there is just something peculiar to the 787 implementation which needs correcting.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19350 times:

According to this

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=A380

The high power A380 battery is still NiCad.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20355 posts, RR: 59
Reply 103, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18595 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 89):
Just a heads up you posted this 3 times  

Off the topic of this thread, but that does happen from time to time due to a few different possible glitches. When you see something like that, the best thing to do is to hit the "suggest deletion" button on the duplicate posts and a friendly mod will come along and clean it up.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 55):
The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes.

Now this is interesting. I thought that only the NK aircraft actually had confirmed electrolyte release but that the JL incident was fully contained except for thermal damage.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 99):
Boeing were of the opinion that the process of removing any smoke through outflow valves was adequate. The FAA disagrees, as there were also flammable electrolytes released, and smoke. They want this dealt with as well.

Given the fact that the NK flight crew reported smelling smoke in the cockpit, it's clear that the system did not work as intended. That is also concerning, because isolation of the smoke should be independent of whether the battery is bad or not.


User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 18291 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 39):
So no technology development? No planes went down, the battery containment worked. The engineers job is to pick the best technology available.

Did the containment work or not? That seems to be at best be disputed.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 39):
Easy enough to do. The paint on the containment didn't even char. Those engines on the wings have far more severe contained fires the ENTIRE FLIGHT!

Again, like I said in my original post, there is no viable alternative to having fire in the engines. We all realize that there is an inherent risk in flying, I am questioning the "smart-ness" of going with a less-understood technology with some pretty catastrophic "failure-modes", when there seems to be a perfectly viable alternative available.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 39):
The requirement is a probability of loss of life less than 10^-7 per flight hour. Your statement is correct in intent, but not the law.

You are speaking of a "regulatory" requirement, I am speaking of a "cultural attitude". Back in the day, alternate airports were not required, but it was done anyway...it was just a good idea.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 39):
How much weight would you add? Every kg of weight added to an airframe increases the fuel burn about $1,000 per decade. I'm working four parts that are each 0.1 kg over-weight. But the airframer will not accept over-weight components as if they do not hold the line, it adds several thousand pounds to the takeoff weight. We all know the computed weight is off.

I don't doubt that it cost 1k/decade for every gram or whatever. What I do doubt is that it is knowable what the actual weight of a 200,000 lbs jet is down to the nearest pound. Yes, it is an actual number...but no we do not have the capability to know it during line operations (without putting it up on jacks in a hanger), but yet we calculate our performance as though we do.

There is a certain finite number of stars in the visible universe, but we still do not KNOW how many there are down to +/- 1 star.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 40):
I think we have to assume (always dangerous I know) that ETOPS was granted based upon a very low probability of a battery fire coupled with the containment box. Based on the studies provided and evaluating the system, cert was granted.

Exactly, and I am sure Boeing had the number down to .0000001 +/- .0000001 percent chance or whatever the rule is. So what were the odds of it happening twice in a week with only 50 airplanes flying? So now, if the engineers go back and re-run the model with the two latest mis-haps statistically accounted for, wouldn't that give a much higher probability? Doesn't that invalidate the original model.

When ETOPS was new, airlines/airplanes were made to go through baby-steps before they were certified for different levels of ETOPS. It seems like it may have been rushed a little too much for the 787. For example, Allegiant had to gain some operational experience with the 757 non-ETOPS before they got to be certified for 180 minute ETOPS. Why is this airplane certified 330 minutes right out of the box?

What was the probability that a DC-10 could have a triple hydraulic failure before United at Sioux City? What was the probability the day after if you were to re-run the model with the new data.

I do not mean offense to anyone. I am by nature, a skeptic. As a pilot I am taught to fear the "unknown unknowns" which is what all this computer modeling is very bad at predicting. I am all for computer modeling and statistical analysis so long as it doesnt give us an excuse to turn off the "judgement and experience" part of our brains.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 18045 times:

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 50):
So there could be 3 ways for this issue to happen.
...
-interface problems with the rest of the electric architecture. For instance, remember that the B787 runs on wild frequency generators without a CSU. This requires conversions and stabilisations to provide a clean source of DC power. Lack of stability could send the li-ion haywire, which I believe is a very possible cause. Any irregularities could make li-ions cook. As such, this is the most probable, in my opinion.

Yes. This would also seem to be one of the most difficult issues to fix. Finding the cause of irregularities - in a system which must already have been design to regulate itself properly - could be hard, and fixing them as well.


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15982 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 91):
Glass is unique, it seems to be a solid but still flows. In old churches it is known that the stained glass becomes very thin at the top of a pane and thicker near the bottom as the glass flows down over the centuries.

That is an urban legend.

Glass is an amorphous solid. It does not flow at all as a finished product.


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 887 posts, RR: 9
Reply 107, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15987 times:

I've finally caught up on these threads. Not much to add which hasn't already been discussed, apart from:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 66):
That being said, even if the investigation does show that the batteries themselves were the root cause, Boeing will still need to address the fact that bad batteries can fail in a way that appears to contravene one or more of the special conditions that allowed their use.

The special conditions are a rewrite of that section of the FARs to suit the use of Li-ion batteries. It should also be noted that these special conditions are similar to those applied to Li-ion batteries for the A380.

For whatever reason, only a subset of the conditions was quoted in a couple of the other threads on the matter. It's difficult to go back and find them, but I recall only 4 conditions quoted, whereas there seem to be 9. My source for this is this document which lays out the background and the conditions themselves. Note that this document is only of proposed special conditions. I can't find the final conditions nor do I know if they differ from this proposal. I'm a little confused since it refers to replacing 14 CFR 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4), though it looks like it should really be 14 CFR 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4).

I was in two minds about quoting this chunk of text, but it seems like a lot of people expect all of the information to be in the threads rather than following provided links, Anyway, from that document, and without further comment, the conditions are:

Quote:

In lieu of the requirements of 14 CFR 25.1353(c)(1) through
(c)(4), the following special conditions apply. Lithium ion
batteries on the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane must be designed and
installed as follows:
(1) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained
during any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during
any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown
to be extremely remote. The lithium ion battery installation must
preclude explosion in the event of those failures.
(2) Design of the lithium ion batteries must preclude the
occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature
or pressure.
(3) No explosive or toxic gases emitted by any lithium ion
battery in normal operation, or as the result of any failure of the
battery charging system, monitoring system, or battery installation
not shown to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous
quantities within the airplane.
(4) Installations of lithium ion batteries must meet the
requirements of 14 CFR 25.863(a) through (d).
(5) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any
lithium ion battery may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent
systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane in such a
way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in
accordance with 14 CFR 25.1309(b) and applicable regulatory
guidance.
(6) Each lithium ion battery installation must have provisions
to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems
caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during
a short circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.
(7) Lithium ion battery installations must have a system to
control the charging rate of the battery automatically, so as to
prevent battery overheating or overcharging, and,
(i) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning
system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from
its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition,
or,
(ii) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means
for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source
in the event of battery failure.
(8) Any lithium ion battery installation whose function is
required for safe operation of the airplane must incorporate a
monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to
the appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state-of-charge of
the batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable for
dispatch of the airplane.
(9) The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by 14
CFR 25.1529 must contain maintenance requirements for measurements
of battery capacity at appropriate intervals to ensure that
batteries whose function is required for safe operation of the
airplane will perform their intended function as long as the battery
is installed in the airplane. The Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness must also contain procedures for the maintenance of
lithium ion batteries in spares storage to prevent the replacement
of batteries whose function is required for safe operation of the
airplane with batteries that have experienced degraded charge
retention ability or other damage due to prolonged storage at a low
state of charge.
Quoting IBOAviator (Reply 9):
What's not to say that Boeing engineers did the testing but didn't deal with any problems they found... fear of preventing the aircraft from entering service and prolonging it's delivery EVEN more when it was already hugely delayed will definately plays on engineers' minds...

Big call. As a Boeing engineer, that's not the culture I know. Note also that certification tests are witnessed by the FAA or their delegates.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 31):
300lbs is not significant.

That is a very significant amount of weight, and certainly a justification for using Li-ion batteries.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 70):
out of a list of possible names for the plane, the Japanese had picked "787", this fellow said.

Or it was just the next number in the series  


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 108, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15610 times:

why not lift the battery solution from the 777 for now, put in any voltage conditioners to correct the environment and go?

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 55):
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 87):
I don't know of any other way of preventing the electrolyte escaping form a failing battery than doing something about the containment system, which didn't work.
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 94):
It already has a container, which seemed to stop the fire spreading in the original incident. In the second incident, it didn't stop the electrolyte from splashing around the electronics bay. We don't know yet if it contained the flames completely, since the fire service removed it, possibly interfering with the container.

This seems reasonable practice to me, a secondary containment vessel seems like lessons learned, this is how aircraft get safer over time. Oil tankers are double hull now, so should aircraft high density batteries. A second "hull" with a vent pipe and fans a la 777 to an exit point would have negated all problems seen here. Make it standard, mitigate serial manufacturing defects for high density batteries.

This does look like a serial defect to me BTW. First runaway, then no runaway, but case leakage.


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 109, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15257 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 104):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 39):
The requirement is a probability of loss of life less than 10^-7 per flight hour. Your statement is correct in intent, but not the law.

This is probably one that just needs to be included. Airlines are losing a lot more that, say, $10,000 bucks over an airframes life for a secondary container vessel right now.

As a strategy, besides the fuel and batteries, what other combustible mixture is on a airliner? If it's just fuel and batteries, I think this is a no brainer for more redundancy on the containment for batteries, just do it.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15046 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 107):
(5) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any
lithium ion battery may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent
systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane in such a
way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in
accordance with 14 CFR 25.1309(b) and applicable regulatory
guidance.

That one specifically was breached in the second incident, according to statements by the FAA.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14995 times:

Appropriator Asks NASA to Help Boeing Fix Dreamliner Problems

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA), the lead Democratic Appropriator for NASA, today called on the space agency to provide scientists, engineers and expertise to the Federal Aviation Authority and Boeing to resolve mechanical problems that led the FAA to ground the Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet.

Read full article on http://www.spacedaily.com

If this is battery issue they should also involve Toyota and General Motors. Granted Yuasa may already have sufficient R&D resources but time is of the essence.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3071 posts, RR: 37
Reply 112, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14857 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 104):
Why is this airplane certified 330 minutes right out of the box?

It isn't. It's currently 180 out of the box.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 104):
When ETOPS was new, airlines/airplanes were made to go through baby-steps before they were certified for different levels of ETOPS. It seems like it may have been rushed a little too much for the 787. For example, Allegiant had to gain some operational experience with the 757 non-ETOPS before they got to be certified for 180 minute ETOPS.

You're mixing up aircraft certification and operator certification. Most regulatory authorities require an operator to have a certain amount of satisfactory experience with the aircraft, and then with each successive level of ETOPS before being approved for the next level.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3071 posts, RR: 37
Reply 113, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14715 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 110):
That one specifically was breached in the second incident, according to statements by the FAA.

Not necessarily.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 110):
may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent
systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane in such a
way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition

The NTSB/FAA haven't yet determined if there was a major failure condition in adjacent systems, equipment or wiring.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14664 times:

No, they didn't say there was. They said that the breach of the special condition I quoted made it possible. If this had been on a transpacific flight, without the ability to land very quickly, there was the potential for serious damage to nearby wiring and systems.

User currently offlinejreuschl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14652 times:

I don't know what the source is, but the story about the 787 issues that ran on a local news station stated that the batteries may have been running at a higher than intended voltage.

User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3071 posts, RR: 37
Reply 116, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14638 times:

Photo of the damaged NH battery with a good battery beside it.

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.c...ES/w220/web-dreamliner-battery.JPG



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23304 posts, RR: 20
Reply 117, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14465 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 114):
If this had been on a transpacific flight, without the ability to land very quickly, there was the potential for serious damage to nearby wiring and systems.

What evidence is there that the containment structure failed in such a way to cause a "potential for serious damage to nearby wiring and systems" in either incident?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2319 posts, RR: 26
Reply 118, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14443 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 97):
Tschhh... That's obviously optional. As long as the engines work, everyone love the plane.

Not optional. It had to perform this function to pass certification.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 106):
That is an urban legend.

Glass is an amorphous solid. It does not flow at all as a finished product.

Urban legend, correct. Learn something everyday. But it does flow, just a lot slower than believed.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e.cfm?id=fact-fiction-glass-liquid

"The closer the glass is to its glass-transition temperature, the more it shifts; the further away from that changeover point, the slower its molecules move and the more solid it seems.

A mathematical model shows it would take longer than the universe has existed for room temperature cathedral glass to rearrange itself to appear melted.

Why old European glass is thicker at one end probably depends on how the glass was made. At that time, glassblowers created glass cylinders that were then flattened to make panes of glass. The resulting pieces may never have been uniformly flat and workers installing the windows preferred, for one reason or another, to put the thicker sides of the pane at the bottom. This gives them a melted look, but does not mean glass is a true liquid."


.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14324 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 117):
What evidence is there that the containment structure failed in such a way to cause a "potential for serious damage to nearby wiring and systems" in either incident?

From my link earlier.

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

Both battery incidents resulted in the “release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke,” it said.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23304 posts, RR: 20
Reply 120, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14266 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 119):
From my link earlier.

The actual results - electrolyte release, heat damage and smoke - are not necessarily serious. Were they in fact serious in either incident? It seems to me like the containment structure did its job both times.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14155 times:

From the seattletimes.

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


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14101 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 118):

At that rate, everything flows.  


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23304 posts, RR: 20
Reply 123, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14013 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 121):
From the seattletimes.

I don't think that really answers the question. Did the release cause any safety of flight issue?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 124, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13942 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 120):
Were they in fact serious in either incident? It seems to me like the containment structure did its job both times.

Ditto. What looks bad to a layman is often well within certified limits.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 73):
We can assume the JL bird had a recent battery since it was the most recently-completed line number to be delivered. And there have been reports that NH replaced the battery on their bird, so if true, that would imply two "young" batteries. There have also been reports that both batteries came from the same production batch.

That is interesting... if they are from the same batch, there will be lesson learnt.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 104):
Did the containment work or not? That seems to be at best be disputed.

To my eye, whom has followed more than a few fire tests of components or subsystems, that was a contained unit.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 104):
You are speaking of a "regulatory" requirement, I am speaking of a "cultural attitude".

They do try to get better and better, but there must be a limit or else putting on a layer of safety actually makes the whole system less safe. I came out of system center testing (after flight testing) and there is a limit. Taking weight out of a plane makes it safer. It is a pound here and a pound there but it ends up adding up to tons. We're working hard to take a pound and a half out of a design.

There is a point to being conservative and a point where one is not competitive. New technology will constantly find its way into aircraft. There will be some bugs. No one other than the BOS firefighter has been hurt that I am aware of. While the FAA was within rights to ground the plane, the base technology is heavily used in other aircraft!

I came out of the world of prototypes. Lithium batteries are now standard. That technology has moved on. So is CFRP, only 3X redundant computer systems (the 777 is 9X redundant), electric actuators, and electric breaks. There is actually resistance to doing many things the old ways as the advantages, including safety advantages, of the new ways are now so well understood.

One didn't find me panicing over A330 pitot tubes and I'm not going to over 787 Lithium batteries. A new failure mode will be found and the industry will be safer for it.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 118):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 97):
Tschhh... That's obviously optional. As long as the engines work, everyone love the plane.

Not optional. It had to perform this function to pass certification.

Caltech, the   was to signify that was humor and not to be taken seriously. I came out of flight test. I know more about proving a plane is safe than you give me credit for. The   means take a comment as humorous.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13918 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 123):
I don't think that really answers the question. Did the release cause any safety of flight issue?

It caused an emergency landing, evacuation, and grounding of the 787. I would see the safety of flight issue being two things.

1) The hightened level of risk. The battery container was breached, it's temperature rose enough to set off warmings in the cockpit. When you see the blackened mess that is left.
2) Breaching specific conditions for the batteries.

The FAA does not ground a plane lightly.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 126, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13742 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting sphealey (Reply 88):
Seems that those might be useful sources of information about degradation due to clock time and/or operations.

Except there are reports that these were new batteries, not old.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 89):
It's just an assumption based off what I read. Just some re-hashing and some thinking.

Fair enough.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 103):
Given the fact that the NK flight crew reported smelling smoke in the cockpit, it's clear that the system did not work as intended. That is also concerning, because isolation of the smoke should be independent of whether the battery is bad or not.

I seem to recall a post that talks about the venting system re configuring when smoke is detected, or by pilot command if smoke is not detected. On the JAL aircraft - there was clearly smoke, but the a/c was not in flight mode so the venting system was not operating. On the ANA aircraft - there were reports of smell, not smoke. ANA said they "could not confirm smoke." This is one of those cases where semantics matter - smoke and smell can be different, separate or coincident.
Now - smoke detectors do not detect smells, they detect smoke particles. So it may have required the manual reconfiguration of the system - which we don't know if they did.

BTW - there are reports of "smoke" from the front wheel area after landing - but if you view the videos carefully - it is not clear that this 'smoke' is not vapor from some liquid that appears on the runway below the aircraft. The temperatures where such that if something warm came out of a drain on the a/c (or something else), it would have done this (you can see passenger's/crew's breath).
I've asked the question if there is such a source of fluid that can come from the 787 in normal operation - I've not hear an answer.

For those knee-jerk "he is making excuses" people - that is not the case. I do not know what happened. I do think it needs to be understood. I'm just asking questions to force more rigor on the analysis.

I've been on too many fire where we thought the cause was obvious at first - only to find it was very different some hours/days later.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 110):
That one specifically was breached in the second incident, according to statements by the FAA.

No - not quite. the FAA statements have not concluded that - they have stated that there that conditions could exist that could cause critical failure - but it is not clear which conditions or what failure. That is why they are investigating. They may conclude that one or more aspects of the directive are breached, or that the directive is not breached, but it is not sufficient. What they have said is there is enough concern to warrant investigation.

Regarding the directive item 5.
The directive says:
"5) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any
lithium ion battery may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent
systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane in such a
way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in
accordance with 14 CFR 25.1309(b) and applicable regulatory
guidance."

The FAA statement says:
The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes,
---
Corrosive and flammable are different. It may be the directive should have said flammable as well - and that may mean be an outcome. However, the statement does not say corrosive fluids or gas were released.

In fact, it directive does not say
"no corrosive fluids or gasses may escape from any lithium ion battery."
It says
"no corrosive fluids or gasses that may escape may escape from any lithium ion battery may damage surrounding...."
The directive actually acknowledges that corrosive fluids or gasses may escape. What they say is those corrosive fluids and gasses may not cause damage to any surrounding...

It goes on to say "in a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition."

So - if you read the directive carefully it says.
It does not say
"No corrosive fluids or gasses may escape."

It says.
- corrosive fluids or gasses may escape.
- If they do - then any damage they do to surrounding equipment must not lead to either a major or more severe failure condition.



rcair1
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23304 posts, RR: 20
Reply 127, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13903 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 125):
It caused an emergency landing, evacuation, and grounding of the 787.

Smoke in the cabin is the easy way to disprove that. Smoke is often - maybe even most of the time - NOT a safety of flight issue. But it always results (and should result) in an emergency landing.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 125):
The FAA does not ground a plane lightly.

Of course not, but not understanding a problem doesn't mean that there is a safety of flight issue. There could be, but at this point it's premature to assume that there is.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 125):
The battery container was breached, it's temperature rose enough to set off warmings in the cockpit. When you see the blackened mess that is left.

So every cockpit warning is a safety of flight issue?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13899 times:

You can nit pick, but they grounded it.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 129, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13831 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 103):
Given the fact that the NK flight crew reported smelling smoke in the cockpit, it's clear that the system did not work as intended.

They smelled it, but I don't believe there has been confirmation that they saw it. And while some may consider that "splitting hairs", the outflow valve in the EE bays are designed to dump visible smoke out of the bay and keep it from entering the flight deck and cockpit. And yet people keep putting forward the impression that the flight deck and cabin filled with visible smoke shortly after takeoff and continued to fill all the way until the doors were open and slides deployed.

However,people with direct knowledge (if not even direct observation) of the flight testing of those outflow valves have stated that when Boeing filled the bays with visible smoke, the outflow valves did indeed vent all that smoke out of the bay and prevented it from entering the flight deck and cabin. So while this venting system may very well not prevent people from smelling smoke, it would have prevented them from seeing it - especially in high concentrations.



Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 121):
From the seattletimes.

Hot chemicals sprayed out of the battery on the 787 Dreamliner in this week’s emergency landing in Japan, leaving a gooey dark residue...

Which matches what CALTECH noted how the internal solution should react when exposed to high temperatures.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23304 posts, RR: 20
Reply 130, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13631 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 128):
You can nit pick, but they grounded it.

I don't disagree, but I don't know what that tells us beyond that FAA wants to figure out what is going on.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 321 posts, RR: 52
Reply 131, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12983 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 128):
You can nit pick

There is a difference in interpretation of the requirement, that's all.
I agree with reading it as :

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 126):
- corrosive fluids or gasses may escape.
- If they do - then any damage they do to surrounding equipment must not lead to either a major or more severe failure condition.

But your interpretation of it as "No corrosive fluids or gasses may escape" is perfectly acceptable, as it is simply more conservative (if nothing gets out of the containement, then nothing can damage surrounding equipment, so we're good)


Just goes to show how the same words can have different meanings for different people.
It's a huge problem in system engineering, because engineers can interpret textual requirements in varying ways, and consequently introduce errors in the design. It's also a huge problem with mass media these days, as a first report gets processed by various intermediate reporters and newspaper staffers, and ultimatly interpreted by the end-reader. So what you understand from a news article may be widely different from what actually happened. (case in point : the debate about whether or not there was smoke or only smell in the cabin of the ANA jet)

And this is why insisting on precise definitions of words, and making sure that everyone agrees on the meaning of the words, is actually a necessity, and not "nit-picking" or "hair-splitting"  



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3075 posts, RR: 36
Reply 132, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12604 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

From some of the rumors I've been seeing I wonder if Boeing has been hit with a bad batch of Li-Ion cells causing overheating or overcharging of the battery. I wonder how much of a performance hit it would be to redo the 787 with other batteries then Li-Ion, like NiMH... something less "touchy" but heavier.

Also, electrical arcing smoke, aka Magic Blue Smoke (MBS), is much stronger smelling than most other types but much less dense and rarely triggers alarm systems due to usually smaller particle size, and I know from experience even a tiny electrical arc/short/overheated component/burn out can cause enough to pick up on from across a small room, so even the smallest amount entering the cabin or flight deck would of smelled like smoke very quickly. So even if the outflow valves worked perfectly I would bet enough would get "up" to be picked up on by most people. Its the ozone and other gases that cause the "smoke" smell in MBS, not the smoke particles themselves... Can't believe i remember that from Electrical safety training...

Li-Ion controllers i've seen failed often enough in laptop batteries, and trust me, MBS smell is STRONG from them, I doubt an aircraft battery pack would be any different.

[Edited 2013-01-18 08:26:42]


Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineCO953 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12455 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 127):
Smoke in the cabin is the easy way to disprove that. Smoke is often - maybe even most of the time - NOT a safety of flight issue. But it always results (and should result) in an emergency landing.

As a layman, I have a question I haven't seen addressed:

How toxic could "smells" from the burning electrolytes be if they get into/circulate in the cabin? I would think that if people smelled something in the cabin, there would maybe have to be some evaluation as to what concentration could possibly be harmful to passengers and crew, should there be an incident and the plane be some distance from an airfield. Small point, I know, but all across America we buy products that have a California Proposition 65 warning that "this product may be harmful to health." It's on dang near everything - lead ammunition, Russian grinding wheels bought from Harbor Freight Tools, coffee cups made in China, etc.

The way California indulges in regulatory overkill, it just makes me wonder if this issue has been/will be addressed.

[Edited 2013-01-18 08:34:17]

[Edited 2013-01-18 08:34:34]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 134, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12283 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CO953 (Reply 133):
How toxic could "smells" from the burning electrolytes be if they get into/circulate in the cabin?

It depends on the volume. The vast majority of it should be vented via the out-flow valve.

As NorthStarDC4M noted in Reply 132, the type of smoke generated in electrical arcing events has a strong odor, but not a strong opacity. This would explain why the electrical arcing on ZA002 resulted in a strong smell of "burning" in the cabin, but the cabin didn't look like this:



The same seems to me to also be likely true for the cabin inside the JL plane at BOS and the NH plane at TAK.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 135, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12174 times:

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 131):
It's a huge problem in system engineering, because engineers can interpret textual requirements in varying ways, and consequently introduce errors in the design.

        

Systems engineering efforts in the past decade or so have dramatically increased their focus on defining verification and validation criteria. This helps eliminate the issues caused by varying interpretations of the requirement. All current aircraft development programs (787, A350, CSeries, Superjet, C919, etc) are all broad-based projects with partners around the globe. Misinterpretation of requirements is a very real problem, making very carefully defined success criteria almost more important than the requirements themselves.


User currently offlineCO953 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11806 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 134):
The same seems to me to also be likely true for the cabin inside the JL plane at BOS and the NH plane at TAK.

When I work on my old cars, the carburetor cleaner has a low opacity, but I'm not supposed to breathe it. I sure do smell it. Makes me happy all day   Just wondering if the 787 battery area was supposed to allow no gases at all into the cabin in case of a battery overheat, or whether a certain amount was deemed acceptable.


User currently onlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 137, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11712 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 121):
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.

Without more details and knowing the physical size of the battery and the box around it, this doesn't make a lot of sense. The battery cells themselves are approx 1 cubic foot. How much electrolyte (a thick gel) could it contain to flow all that distance and down a tube and out the plane? Even if hot enough to flow freely, it will cool quickly as it flows. And how did all that electrolyte breach the metal box? It would have required a severe explosion to break a weld along the bottom.
I am not an explosives expert but it seems the weak spot on the box is the top which is fastened with 4 screws, but that precludes all this free flow of electrolyte.


User currently offlinemcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, RR: 17
Reply 138, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11408 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 123):
I don't think that really answers the question. Did the release cause any safety of flight issue?

Are you really willing to be the guinea pig to sit at 180W in the middle of the pacific and debate whether that burning smell, smoke and smoke alarm are "safety of flight" issue?

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 127):
Smoke in the cabin is the easy way to disprove that. Smoke is often - maybe even most of the time - NOT a safety of flight issue. But it always results (and should result) in an emergency landing.

Not sure if you have ever been in a cabin mockup filled with smoke. Smoke is definitely a safety of flight issue. To say otherwise is cavalier. The AirCanada DC-9 was almost lost due to smoke. The fire wasn't in the cockpit but the smoke sure was. Not being able to see the controls, not being able to tune a radio or make an entry in the FMC is about as dangerous are you could get. Contrary to popular belief and a TV commercial there is no "LAND" button on the flight deck. The airplane even on the autopilot needs to be flown land. Someone has to program the box, manipulate the speed and altitude and make the proper button pushes to get the plane on the ground. Heck you even need someone to extend the flaps and gear. So while you may consider smoke a non-event, enough smoke in the flight deck can result in a hull loss.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 127):
So every cockpit warning is a safety of flight issue?

No but the ones that indicate smoke/fire/thermal runaway of a battery are definitely items of critical response.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 130):
I don't disagree, but I don't know what that tells us beyond that FAA wants to figure out what is going on.

What it tells us is that Boeing has now introduced an airplane that has required a grounding. Not since the DC-10 has this happened and Boeing should be very concerned about this grounding and the impact it will have on the company. I certainly hope they are taking it more seriously that many of the posters on this forum.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 139, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11411 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CO953 (Reply 136):
Just wondering if the 787 battery area was supposed to allow no gases at all into the cabin in case of a battery overheat, or whether a certain amount was deemed acceptable.

I can't see there being a hermetic seal between the two, so I would have to assume there is an acceptable limit somewhere in the FARs.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23304 posts, RR: 20
Reply 140, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11286 times:

Quoting mcdu (Reply 138):
Are you really willing to be the guinea pig to sit at 180W in the middle of the pacific and debate whether that burning smell, smoke and smoke alarm are "safety of flight" issue?

Nope, which is why I agree completely with the grounding. But there's not yet enough information to know what danger is or isn't there.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 138):
So while you may consider smoke a non-event, enough smoke in the flight deck can result in a hull loss.

As usual, you are grossly manipulating my words. What I said was that smoke is often not a safety flight of issue. What I did not say is that smoke is never a safety of flight issue. The former is true. The latter is not.

The source of smoke can be difficult or impossible to find in flight, and it can be very difficult to determine how much smoke will ultimately wind up in the cabin and on the flight deck. That's why landing is important. That does not mean, however, that there is an actual threat whenever smoke is present.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineCO953 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11279 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 139):
I can't see there being a hermetic seal between the two, so I would have to assume there is an acceptable limit somewhere in the FARs.

Then maybe there a should be a hermetic seal isolating the battery compartment as a backup? I assume that these won't be the last Li-Ion batteries ever to have a problem, so maybe bulletproof the battery-compartment airspace now?

[Edited 2013-01-18 09:34:26]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 142, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11155 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mcdu (Reply 138):
Smoke is definitely a safety of flight issue.

Smoke at high-opacity levels is definitely a safety-of-flight issue. And AC797 is an example of where smoke was present at high-opacity levels. So was SR111, SA295 and 5X006, as well.

However, I have yet to see a definitive conclusion that the smoke inside the cabin of ZA002, ZA102 or ZA183 was of such opacity that it rose to a direct safety-of-flight issue. I also don't believe that in the case of ZA102 that it would have risen to such a level due to the out-flow mechanism on the 787.

And that belief does not mean I do not understand the severity of the situation nor is it an attempt to underplay it.



Quoting CO953 (Reply 141):
Then maybe there a should be a hermetic seal isolating the battery compartment as a backup?

That would probably risk an explosion in the event of a battery failure (and that risk would be irregardless of the battery material).

[Edited 2013-01-18 09:47:40]

User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3075 posts, RR: 36
Reply 143, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11013 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting CO953 (Reply 133):
How toxic could "smells" from the burning electrolytes be if they get into/circulate in the cabin?

Burning Li-Ion can be mildly toxic... it can release a low level of Sulphur dioxide along with carbon monoxide and ozone gas, but nothing horribly nasty and the concentrations would be rather low. Now if the other stuff associated with the cells starts to go, you can have any combination of stuff like any other fire.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlinejspitfire From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 308 posts, RR: 2
Reply 144, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10890 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 100):
Temperature range is much more limiting than pressure (which just leads to some differences how the batterycase is mecanically loaden). Low temperatures let age the battery much quicker or reduce the available capacity significantly.

This is the key info I was looking for, and it would appear that you've hit the nail on the head. Explains perfectly why we're expecting a 787 in, of all places, Yellowknife, NWT tomorrow.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2975 posts, RR: 2
Reply 145, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10858 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 140):
The source of smoke can be difficult or impossible to find in flight, and it can be very difficult to determine how much smoke will ultimately wind up in the cabin and on the flight deck. That's why landing is important.

Landing is important... and impossible if in the middle of the Pacific on an ETOPS 180 (or 330!) flight. Hence the relevance of minimizing to negligible levels the chances of smoke in the cabin.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 980 posts, RR: 18
Reply 146, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10831 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 96):
Except that the current containment of any failure has not worked to the satisfaction of the FAA. That is, even if they remedy the root cause of the failure, they still have to come up with a resolution to the problem of not coping adequately with the failure.
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 114):
They said that the breach of the special condition I quoted made it possible. If this had been on a transpacific flight, without the ability to land very quickly, there was the potential for serious damage to nearby wiring and systems.

These are just the last two posts (of more than 20) where you keep repeating that containment in your view failed. We got it, no need to repeat. Otherwise, it sounds like you are on board a burning 787 that's about to plunge into the Pacific Ocean.

People whose job is to figure this out are working pretty hard I bet. In the meantime, here are some good sources on the Li-ion batteries.

http://www.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/CHE/p0301.pdf
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...lets/purl/898281-udouRR/898281.pdf
http://www.electrochem.org/dl/interface/sum/sum12/sum12_p045_049.pdf



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 147, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10878 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 100):
Temperature range is much more limiting than pressure (which just leads to some differences how the batterycase is mecanically loaden). Low temperatures let age the battery much quicker or reduce the available capacity significantly.
Quoting jspitfire (Reply 144):
This is the key info I was looking for, and it would appear that you've hit the nail on the head. Explains perfectly why we're expecting a 787 in, of all places, Yellowknife, NWT tomorrow.


Has the 787 completed the cold weather testing required by Transport Canada to certify the 787 for use by Air Canada?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23304 posts, RR: 20
Reply 148, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10774 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 145):
Landing is important... and impossible if in the middle of the Pacific on an ETOPS 180 (or 330!) flight. Hence the relevance of minimizing to negligible levels the chances of smoke in the cabin.

I don't know that I agree that every source of smoke has to be of "negligible risk." If the source of the smoke can be easily identified and mitigated (a galley oven might be a good example), that's very different from inaccessible wiring.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinebrianw999 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 312 posts, RR: 5
Reply 149, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10828 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 6):
The 787 "worldwide grounding for safety issues" was the 2nd story on the BBC's main 6pm news.

Must make very unpleasant viewing, not only for Boeing, but British Airways and Thomson also, especially when a BALPA spokesman, by default a spokesman for aircrew, warned these battery issues could cause, his exact words, "a crash."

Rgds

Precisely the reason why I chose not to fly Thomson to Orlando later this year. Now flying out on United and back on Air Canada. £400 plus saving for two of us as well.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10552 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 147):
Has the 787 completed the cold weather testing required by Transport Canada to certify the 787 for use by Air Canada?
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...-closer-look-cold-soaking-787.html

Cold weather testing is part of the process for every new airliner. They also did testing at St. John's, Newfoundland (YYT) in 2011.

[Edited 2013-01-18 10:39:57]

From the video, the temperature extremes used in the testing was -45.7F up to 115F


[Edited 2013-01-18 10:46:46]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20355 posts, RR: 59
Reply 151, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10371 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 118):
The resulting pieces may never have been uniformly flat and workers installing the windows preferred, for one reason or another, to put the thicker sides of the pane at the bottom

Kept water from accumulating in the window frame.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 126):
On the ANA aircraft - there were reports of smell, not smoke. ANA said they "could not confirm smoke." This is one of those cases where semantics matter - smoke and smell can be different, separate or coincident.

One will smell smoke at a concentration 10-100 times lower than that required to see it. So smoke did enter the cockpit.

Now, whether the FAA will require that no smoke whatsoever enter the cabin or simply that no visible smoke enter the cabin is a different issue.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3868 posts, RR: 27
Reply 152, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10428 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 139):
I can't see there being a hermetic seal between the two,

I seem to recall that the airflow pattern is clean air into the passenger cabin then exits through the grills at the base of the sidewall panel into the holds and from there is vented outside. That being the case, there is little likelihood that minor smoke would penetrate the cabin as it would have a minutely higher pressure than the hold.. (or the smell of unwashed vacation socks). There ares serious perception problems in identifying odors in the passenger cabin and the persistent questioning of reporters. A rational approach would be to have some odor samples an say did it smell like this?.. Other aspects of odor identification is how many of the passengers saying yes flew frequently enough on a 787 to identify an out of normal smell.

Doc.. I wouldn't jump to say the odor the smelled in the cockpit was smoke... not all odors are smoke.. and many hot items outgas odors.

So beating this horse will not further the understanding. Best to wait.

Somewhere on this thread or the other the A350 was mentioned.. I believe early on ferpe mentioned they use 4 smaller batteries.. so one resolution might be to look at that as a solution.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2975 posts, RR: 2
Reply 153, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10195 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 148):
If the source of the smoke can be easily identified and mitigated (a galley oven might be a good example), that's very different from inaccessible wiring.

Indeed. It's the chances of smoke coming from invisible/inaccessible places that need to be minimized.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380