Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Grounds 787, Part 8  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11844 posts, RR: 18
Posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 30744 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Link to previous thread FAA Grounds B787 Part 7 (by 777ER Jan 30 2013 in Civil Aviation)

210 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGEsubsea From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 183 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 30685 times:

I know this thread has been focusing alot on the battery situation. But, found an article over the weekend addressing concerns by the FAA on the 787's suitability concerning long hours over water related to emergency landing sites. It speaks specifically to a possible IAH-Auckland service by ANZ. Didn't these concerns come to light with the 777 during its beginning's as well and resolved with E-TOPS???

"The US's Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] has been monitoring the Dreamliner's long haul reliability even before a number of aircraft malfunctions hit the headlines this week, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

The tighter oversight and potential extension of FAA restrictions on how far 787s can fly from suitable emergency landing strips could affect flights into New Zealand and Air New Zealand's use of the 10 787 aircraft it has ordered from Boeing.

After several years of production delays Air New Zealand is supposed to take delivery of its first 787 in the second half of 2014, and the airline said it was too early for it to comment on any reliability issues with the craft.

The WSJ specifically mentioned the long-haul, trans-Pacific route from Houston to Auckland as one which could be in danger from tighter regulations."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...reamliner-NZ-US-flights-questioned


User currently offlinemarkalot From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 30501 times:

Forgive me if this was posted before.

First, an article describing how Boeing wants to get test flights back in the air for more battery testing, which was posted earlier. http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...8074_dreamlinertestflightsxml.html

I note the following:

However, the initial flights will simply gather data on how the battery is affected by changes in temperature during the flight cycle as well as the impact of vibrations during landing and takeoff.

According to an industry source, one theory Boeing is investigating is that moisture getting inside the battery may have contributed to the recent incidents.


Second is another article describing how many of the FAA safety checks were outsourced to Boeing.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html

The tests on the lithium-ion batteries at the center of Boeing’s unprecedented crisis were conducted by the company. And the people the FAA designated on its behalf to ensure that the batteries conformed to its safety regulations also were Boeing employees.

There may be sound reasons for outsourcing the checks, but the tests mentioned in the first quote above sound like something that should have already been done. I'm not qualified to make any actual judgements here, but I believe going forward we may see some changes to the "safety checks outsourcing" process.



M a r k
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10358 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 30489 times:

After 3 weeks grounding what are the best estimates, there must be one, how long will this affair last, when will we see the 787 in the air again?

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):

Air NZ should get themselves some decent Quads 


User currently offlinehkcanadaexpat From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2012, 498 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 30206 times:

"On Monday, Boeing asked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for permission to conduct Dreamliner test flights, suggesting it is making progress in finding a solution to the battery problems. Japan's Civil Aviation Bureau said it was told about the Boeing request by the FAA."

Source: http://www.4-traders.com/GS-YUASA-CO...r-profits-not-due-to-787-16009240/


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 29991 times:

JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6094 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 29926 times:

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):
Didn't these concerns come to light with the 777 during its beginning's as well and resolved with E-TOPS???

I think this is just the normal evaluation to grant ETOPS for a new airplane. The 787 entered commercial service with ETOPS 180 but if you need more the plane has to prove its reliability. And if it proves too unreliable (usually the engines being shut down too often) the 180 minutes ETOPS can be suspended.

Quoting markalot (Reply 2):
but the tests mentioned in the first quote above sound like something that should have already been done

They may have been conducted by the battery manufacturer for the certification of the battery, with another aircraft.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinekeegd76 From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Aug 2009, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 29838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Quoting markalot (Reply 2):
but the tests mentioned in the first quote above sound like something that should have already been done

They may have been conducted by the battery manufacturer for the certification of the battery, with another aircraft.

Even if correct I'd be amazed if Boeing didn't perform their own tests with the battery on the aircraft that it was actually going into. Its one thing for the manufacturer to say the battery works in a plane, but Boeing needs to prove it works in 'their' plane.

To do otherwise is just asking for trouble and quite possibly illegal.



Nothing comes down faster than a VTOL aircraft upside down.
User currently offlineZB052 From UK - England, joined Jan 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 29704 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

Source please?


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 29677 times:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaki...asp?id=31536&icid=4&d_str=20130205

User currently offlineZB052 From UK - England, joined Jan 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 29626 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 9):

Many thanks ServantLeader! Apologies for asking, but after so many of the posts in the previous 7 threads all containing conjecture with no concrete evidence/press story, i felt i had to ask!


User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 892 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 29353 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 9):
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaki...asp?id=31536&icid=4&d_str=20130205

I don't see how's this breaking news except that some jurnalists were asleep for 4 weeks.

We have 8 full threads discussing issues in detail and after reading them your post seems totally out of place and time.

[Edited 2013-02-05 08:23:19]


FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineZB052 From UK - England, joined Jan 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 29204 times:

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 11):
I don't see how's this breaking news except that some jurnalists were asleep for 4 weeks.

We have 8 full threads discussion issues in detail and after reading them your post seems totally out of place and time.

Erm, sorry for nit-picking, but isn't this updated information from the JTSB? Looking at the article linked, plus google searching reveals other news agencies (EG WSJ) reporting this? Appears there was a press briefing today (Tuesday)? Therefore your comments above seem a little scathing, not to mention a little rude?


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6094 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 28812 times:

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 7):
Even if correct I'd be amazed if Boeing didn't perform their own tests with the battery on the aircraft that it was actually going into. Its one thing for the manufacturer to say the battery works in a plane, but Boeing needs to prove it works in 'their' plane.

Well they're not going to test every screw and piece of equipment specifically. They did a testing/certification campaign and the battery had to have performed as expected during that campaign.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 28762 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

I'm afraid this is not really news. Even if they did determine it went into thermal runaway (and I'm not sure that is a new determination), designing for that event is a requirement for the containment system on the a/c. The system must be designed to manage a battery that goes into thermal runaway - because you cannot guarantee no battery ever will.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure. Unless a definitive root cause and clear fix can be determined post haste the current Li-ion battery system will not be certified airworthy -- and that spells disaster for Boeing.

It is important to note that this part of the post is editorial by the poster. It does not appear in the article cite.

What the JSTB said was:
"Japanese officials probing the emergency landing of a Boeing Dreamliner said Tuesday its lithium-ion battery was damaged by a build up of heat that resulted in uncontrollably high temperatures.
"The battery was destroyed in a process called thermal runaway, in which the heat builds up to the point where it becomes uncontrollable,'' said a Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) official.
"But it is still not known what caused the uncontrollable high temperature,'' he added, AFP reports."

Pretty much everybody here believed that there was a thermal runaway event in both batteries. We also know the 787 system was designed with that potentiality in mind.
The pertinent questions are:
1- What cause the thermal runaways and does it represent a problem that causes higher than expected occurances.
2- Did the containment system work sufficiently - or are modifications required.

My opinion ... OPINION.. is
1- we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.
2- I think the system did work - however, for PR and regulatory reasons Boeing will improve it.



rcair1
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5572 posts, RR: 32
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28413 times:

Now IATA is getting worried about lithium batteries:

"AIRLINES could face tough new curbs on the carriage of all lithium batteries — including those used in everyday gadgets"

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/.../Tech_and_Media/article1206566.ece


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2786 posts, RR: 27
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28408 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
My opinion ... OPINION.. is
1- we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.

Or BMS. The NTSB said early on that the circuit boards were too damaged to provide useful data. JTSB (with an NTSB representative) have been at Kanto (BMS supplier) for 10+ days now, with no news. If the BMS were "exonerated", one would have expected news by now (the BCU was "exonerated" within a few days).

The one thing we do know is that there was a short in one cell of the JL battery.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28266 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):
After several years of production delays Air New Zealand is supposed to take delivery of its first 787 in the second half of 2014

I would assume if ETOPS performance is so critical to Air New Zealand is part of the contract. Does this give them a way out if Boeing hasn't addressed any shortcoming to the FAA's satisfaction by some arbitrary deadline, like 6 months or a year before delivery?

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.

I thought manufacturing defect had been ruled out already.

Quoting markalot (Reply 2):
I'm not qualified to make any actual judgements here, but I believe going forward we may see some changes to the "safety checks outsourcing" process.

I suppose it depends on how much certification did the FAA "outsource"? A division of my employer is subject to regulatory overnight even though no one dies if they screw up ever. The regulators are not present when they generate data during testing, but they must submit the raw data along with their conclusions, and I am told it is clear the regulators do look at the data from time to time based on the follow-up questions they send.

If the FAA follows the same process, I don't see anything wrong. If on the other hand, Boeing is basically free to say "trust us it works" even for major components and the FAA accepts that and moves on, it is indeed more problematic



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28235 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 18):
Or BMS. The NTSB said early on that the circuit boards were too damaged to provide useful data. JTSB (with an NTSB representative) have been at Kanto (BMS supplier) for 10+ days now, with no news. If the BMS were "exonerated", one would have expected news by now (the BCU was "exonerated" within a few days).

Or contactors. Or contactors and humidity and vibration...


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28211 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
After 3 weeks grounding what are the best estimates, there must be one, how long will this affair last, when will we see the 787 in the air again?

The only time frame I read is if they decide now to replace the battery system by a conventinal one as used on the 777, the certification of the system and software would take about one year. Every else can be shorter or longer.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3207 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 27688 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

per http://avherald.com/h?article=45c377c5&opt=6144 here is the latest JTSB addition

On Feb 5th 2013 the JTSB released a second progress report in Japanese reporting that all 8 cells of the damaged battery, nominal voltage 29.6V, 75 Ah capacity at 28.5kg/63 lbs, showed thermal damage before the thermal runaway, particularly cells 3 and 6 are damaged. The positive electrode of cell 3 shows substantial damage and a hole, the internal wiring has melted down.

there is a picture of the specific damage.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2786 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 27387 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 22):
The positive electrode of cell 3 shows substantial damage and a hole

Interesting. In the JL battery it was cell 6, also positive electrode.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 19):
I thought manufacturing defect had been ruled out already.

No. All that the NTSB has said is that the main (undamaged) JL battery showed no signs of anomalies. The damaged APU battery showed evidence of a short. Today the JTSB announced it had found the same thing in the damaged NH battery. The only thing that appears to have been ruled out (at this stage) is the charger manufactured by Securaplane - the NTSB reported that the BCU from the JL aircraft had no significant anomalies.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinestarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1122 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 25871 times:

Shifting gears for a minute:

Are the airlines preparing their aircraft for long-term storage yet? I believe that there can be significant issues with planes if they sit for months without preparation. I would presume that having the planes sit for four or more months would be an issue.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlinehnl2bos From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 25941 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With these threads getting huge as they have it is hard to gather information on what has been said and has happened (from airlines and manufactures). I wish we could get an update only thread going.

All in all, Im guessing we're not going to see the 787s back in service in time for my BOS -> NRT flight at the end of April?

[Edited 2013-02-05 13:38:46]

User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25316 times:

Quoting hnl2bos (Reply 25):
All in all, Im guessing we're not going to see the 787s back in service in time for my BOS -> NRT flight at the end of April?

I'm almost certain that the 787 will not be back in service by the end of April. JL will probably switch that flight to a 777.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25901 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
My opinion ... OPINION.. is
1- we don't know - but it looks more like cell manf problems to me (opinion!) at this point.

Or, cells that size can't be manufactured to the degree of reliability required yet.


User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 25780 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 21):
there is a picture of the specific damage.

There's also a picture of a brown ooze mark on the fuselage - fluid venting in flight.


User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 26076 times:

what's interesting is that the JTSB claims that all cells overheated before the cell 3 + 6 runaway event. In the layout photo you can see that cell 3 + 6 are sandwiched between the other cells. So cells 3 + 6 are getting heat from both sides. The other cells get heat from only one side.

User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 25889 times:

The Seattle Times is now saying that FAA delegation is to blame for all of this. IMHO, the Seattle Times has been extremely critical of Boeing and the 787 issues. I find it premature to blame the certification process for these issues.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html



That's why we're here.
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 25366 times:

From the article LY4XELD quoted: "Dreikorn has been a paid expert in a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by Boeing employees in Wichita, Kan., claiming manufacturing defects in some 737-Next Generation planes. "

The phrase "paid expert" is a euphemism for "professional plaintiff". This tells you all you need to know about this entire article. What they're talking about is the DER system. If you want to get rid of that, you may as well just nationalize Boeing. We've already seen the results of Government Motors -- who wants to see Government Airplanes? Not me.

Also, while I'm here...

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):
JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure.

Last I checked, the aircraft is intact, and everyone who was on board is still alive. So by definition, it was not a catastrophic event.


User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 25186 times:

Just wondering... why don't they just change the batteries? I.e. put in a different type of battery, for example the same that they put in all of the other planes they've been building for decades. One that doesn't have a track record of going up in flames every 10 minutes or so. Just put in the 777 batteries and forget it, no?

User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 25122 times:

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 33):
Just wondering... why don't they just change the batteries?

It would have to be a lot bigger, and wouldn't fit in the space.


User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24840 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 34):
It would have to be a lot bigger, and wouldn't fit in the space.

I'd say so be it, one less container or whatever, but this is proven technology and that would make it safe enough to fly. But I understand if there is no space then maybe that's not possible, maybe they could find space for more batteries somewhere else as a temporary measure. Then they can work on designing better batteries and certifying them further down the line. I just read in one of these articles that lithium ion fires are almost impossible to extinguish until the electrolyte is consumed, they burn at a very high temperature and that the containment system proved to be insufficient to stop the fire from spreading to the electronics bay with all of the plane's control system which "could have disabled critical flight controls had the fire occurred in midair". Damn! That's pretty scary! And so passengers have actually been flying over the Atlantic in this thing, with this time bomb beneath their feet placed right next to the electronics bay and flight control systems. It's lucky that when these batteries did go off, the planes were either parked or able to land quickly - it could have been a lot worse, starting with a search for a wreckage and ending with the 787 programme cancelled.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24744 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):

I think this is just the normal evaluation to grant ETOPS for a new airplane. The 787 entered commercial service with ETOPS 180 but if you need more the plane has to prove its reliability. And if it proves too unreliable (usually the engines being shut down too often) the 180 minutes ETOPS can be suspended.

The CSeries, for example, is supposed to have ETOPS 120 by first flight and ETOPS 180 by EIS.



What the...?
User currently offlinehoMsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24591 times:

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 33):
Just wondering... why don't they just change the batteries? I.e. put in a different type of battery, for example the same that they put in all of the other planes they've been building for decades. One that doesn't have a track record of going up in flames every 10 minutes or so. Just put in the 777 batteries and forget it, no?

In commercial airplane design, there's no simple way to "just" do something.

It has been noted in this series of threads that to change the type of batteries used would take about a year to design and certify.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18674 posts, RR: 58
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 24314 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 32):
The phrase "paid expert" is a euphemism for "professional plaintiff".

No. It means that he's a paid expert witness. Believe it or not, lawyers and judges are not engineers (or physicians or scientists, etc.). So in cases where there is highly technical information that is relevant, expert witnesses are necessary to decipher this information for the judge, attorneys, and jury.

Quoting cornutt (Reply 32):
We've already seen the results of Government Motors -- who wants to see Government Airplanes?

What, they didn't go out of business and are now making a profit? Horrors!

HOWEVER... I don't understand the outrage that Boeing conducted their own tests. Do taxpayers want the FAA to pay for the certification process?

There's a lot else wrong with the article, including the assertion that the FAA somehow required the battery to never go into thermal runaway. We've established that that is an impossible requirement. The FAA required that such runaways be contained.

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 33):
Just wondering... why don't they just change the batteries? I.e. put in a different type of battery, for example the same that they put in all of the other planes they've been building for decades. One that doesn't have a track record of going up in flames every 10 minutes or so. Just put in the 777 batteries and forget it, no?

*It would be larger and heavier and require redesign of the space where it is located
*It would require extensive redesign of the entire electrical system
*There is no battery currently available off-the-shelf that would satisfy the requirements
*Doing this would mean either scrapping or extensively modifying all 50 frames in service, in addition to a re-design and re-certification process that could last over a year.


User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 24221 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
*It would be larger and heavier and require redesign of the space where it is located
*It would require extensive redesign of the entire electrical system
*There is no battery currently available off-the-shelf that would satisfy the requirements
*Doing this would mean either scrapping or extensively modifying all 50 frames in service, in addition to a re-design and re-certification process that could last over a year.

OK, I see this is a lot worse worse than I thought. Looks like whatever they do the 787 will be out of service for a long time, because the setup they have now definitely isn't safe. What a disaster! They should listen to this Tesla guy, he seems like someone that knows what he's talking about and perhaps his engineers could help design a solution.


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4967 posts, RR: 18
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 23131 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
No. It means that he's a paid expert witness. Believe it or not, lawyers and judges are not engineers (or physicians or scientists, etc.). So in cases where there is highly technical information that is relevant, expert witnesses are necessary to decipher this information for the judge, attorneys, and jury.

And they are not all whores. Engineers, in particular, are always the guys I want to talk to first in a lawsuit, if they are available, because their instinct is to tell management to shove it, and to tell me the truth. They, as a general rule, find it very difficult even to shade the truth. This is useful whether they work for my client (finding the holes in our own case) or the opponent (finding the holes in their case).

I had a case once involving a wrongful death claim arising from a police shooting -- cop shot and killed a drug dealer during a raid, drug dealer's family sued. There were competing experts, both well-regarded medical examiners, who had very different theories about what position the decedent was in, and accordingly what he was doing, when he was shot.

The deposition of the plaintiff's expert (my opponent) went something like this: "Have you read Dr. MyGuy's report?" "No." "Here it is. Kindly read through it and tell me what you disagree with." Expert proceeds to read through the report. "Let me see that X-Ray...Let me see that picture...Let me see that other X-Ray...............Yeah, Joey is right." [Pause while defense counsel tries to decide how stupid it is to ask the next question or whether we should all go home right now. Can't resist:] "So you concur with Dr. MyGuy's opinion as stated in his report." "Yes." [One more, then my side should leave good enough alone and RUN:] "So you are withdrawing your opinion as stated in your report." "Absolutely." [Sound of door opening quickly and slamming behind defense counsel who were smart enough to get out of there with their winning testimony.]

That exchange was so heartening, and demonstrated how men of science CAN put the truth above their own ego.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12404 posts, RR: 100
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 22976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Late edit: I hope topic eight has much better news.

Quoting GEsubsea (Reply 1):
The WSJ specifically mentioned the long-haul, trans-Pacific route from Houston to Auckland as one which could be in danger from tighter regulations."

Umm... ETOPS is definitely at risk of being reduced. This isn't news, is the statistics. That is something I brought up early with the 788 issues.

Quoting na (Reply 3):
After 3 weeks grounding what are the best estimates, there must be one, how long will this affair last, when will we see the 787 in the air again?

I started with a 3 month estimate. I was blasted for it... but this sort of issue takes time.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 15):
because you cannot guarantee no battery ever will.

   Its just the statistics of how often...

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 20):
The only time frame I read is if they decide now to replace the battery system by a conventinal one as used on the 777, the certification of the system and software would take about one year.

The 787 could fly less than a year. There are options that would require faster replacement and limit ETOPS, but it could be done faster.

Lightsaber

[Edited 2013-02-05 20:37:19]


I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18674 posts, RR: 58
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 22913 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42):
I started with a 3 month estimate.

You sticking to it? Or do you wanna push it higher?   

Here's my nightmare scenario. 787 gets cleared for flight after whatever fixes and then... another issue bad enough for another grounding. At that point, I think the 787 program would likely terminate and Boeing would have to reorganize, possibly through Ch. 11.

Let's just hope it remains a nightmare.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22894 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42):
Umm... ETOPS is definitely at risk of being reduced. This isn't news, is the statistics. That is something I brought up early with the 788 issues.

Ok Elephant in the room- this has been bugging me since the grounding.

Most ETOPS-180 routes are close to a great circle route around the shorelines of the north atlantic and north pacific, right?

And The current flights used indeed follow these routes.

What is the risk of etops being lowered on the 788 to down to 180? (unless it is already at 180, which means I just asked the stupidest question ever)

I need a little bit of laymans' words here.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22807 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
No. It means that he's a paid expert witness.

Yes - but he is also probably not unbiased. I've _been_ a paid expert witness, and I've hired them. While you cannot lie - you are certainly painting a picture...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
What, they didn't go out of business and are now making a profit? Horrors!

And the American Tax payers are out 10-12 Billion. Yes - GM buys back stock - at current market price which is far less than we bought it for.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 41):
And they are not all whores. Engineers, in particular, are always the guys I want to talk to first in a lawsuit, if they are available, because their instinct is to tell management to shove it

I hope I'm not a whore.... As I said, been there, done that (expert witness thing...)

[Edited 2013-02-06 13:48:12 by ManuCH]


rcair1
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4967 posts, RR: 18
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22669 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 46):
As I said, been there, done that (expert witness thing...)

Me, too. It was a gas. But it was easy because I truly believed, and could defend, the opinion that I was expressing.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22505 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 47):
But it was easy because I truly believed, and could defend, the opinion that I was expressing.

That is good - I did get asked once for one that I did not think was correct- I declined... You really have to.



rcair1
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22351 times:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...finds-thermal-runaway-in-battery-2


Thermal runaway. This is nuts.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 929 posts, RR: 10
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 21665 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 32):
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 5):JTSB has determined that the Li-ion battery that forced the ANA emergency landing went into thermal runaway -- this is an in-flight catastrophic system failure.

Last I checked, the aircraft is intact, and everyone who was on board is still alive. So by definition, it was not a catastrophic event.

Even if nobody dies and a car is still structurally intact when an engine runs out of oil and seizes, it is still a 'catastrophic system failure'.

I don't see the same description being too far off relating to 787 battery self-destruction.




✈ LD4 ✈



∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 575 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 21220 times:

The Seattle Times article is not good. If government agencies and the constructor start to push the blame around, it is usually a sign that they are facing a big and costly problem with no obvious easy solution around. Sometimes it is also a sign of failing trust between the involved parties. Which can be for various reasons, but is never a good sign for finding a commonly agreed solution to the technical problem.

User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1083 posts, RR: 13
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19107 times:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 50):
Even if nobody dies and a car is still structurally intact when an engine runs out of oil and seizes, it is still a 'catastrophic system failure'.

That is debatable, and in any case there isn't a good car analogy -- cars don't have multiply redundant systems. The item that failed was not critical to normal flight operations and the event was contained. There was no catastrophe here.

I see that after a few days of reasonably rational discussion, the sky is falling again.  



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8890 posts, RR: 76
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19115 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting PITingres (Reply 53):
I see that after a few days of reasonably rational discussion, the sky is falling again.  

Yes, we see that as well.

We want to ask everybody to be polite and discuss in a civilized and respectful way. Do not start in name calling or any other disrespecting posts.

Thanks for your understanding.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12404 posts, RR: 100
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19110 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
You sticking to it? Or do you wanna push it higher?   

I think we're trending towards 3 to 5 months of grounding.   I really want to be proven pessimistic. Once the 787 was grounded, I did not see a quick fix. I'm seeing identifying the issue taking longer than plan. Once the solution is found, there will be a 'quick fix' implimented. But as you know that takes months to certify even for short replacement intervals. Boeing and the vendor will then take a year (or more) stretching out the replacement intervals by design changes and DTP testing.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 40):
What is the risk of etops being lowered on the 788 to down to 180? (unless it is already at 180, which means I just asked the stupidest question ever)

In my opinion the risk is high. That is about the level I see the plane being cleared for post-fix.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19009 times:

The FAA already has charred soot on its face in certifying what appears to be a flawed / unreliable / unsafe Li-ion battery system design -- from a purely political / CYA standpoint I simply cannot imagine a scenario where they're going to give the all clear.

User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2786 posts, RR: 27
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18757 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 50):
already has charred soot on its face in certifying what appears to be

Wonderful example of an invalid syllogism   



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 18766 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 46):
The Seattle Times article is not good. If government agencies and the constructor start to push the blame around, it is usually a sign that they are facing a big and costly problem with no obvious easy solution around. Sometimes it is also a sign of failing trust between the involved parties. Which can be for various reasons, but is never a good sign for finding a commonly agreed solution to the technical problem.

I think it has less to do with pushing blame around and more to do with "exposing" a system that has been in place for years, on many programs, and suddenly putting the blame on it. Commenters on that article also mention the FDA and other federal agencies do the same thing, there's not enough people, and I assume not enough budget for these agencies to do all the certification/regulation work themselves.

In the context of the 787, it seems many are taking this as an opportunity to pick apart systems that have a good track record of past success. I assume the 777 program also had FAA certifcation delegation to Boeing as well. Does EASA have soemthing similar for Airbus?



That's why we're here.
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2325 posts, RR: 12
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 18650 times:

Quoting LY4XELD (Reply 52):
Does EASA have soemthing similar for Airbus

Can't speak for Airbus, but EASA definately delegates such authority to the industry. The maintenance company I worked for had an EASA Part 21 approval, meaning that we were an approved Design Organisation (DOA). I was one of the RDE's (Repair Design Engineer), who were authorized to sign off non-standard repairs by validating the proposed repair against the Certification Specifications. These repairs were signed-off in-house, without being checked directly by EASA.

EASA would audit the process from time to time. During such audits they would check some of the repair designs themselves for correct justification, they would check if the correct procedures were followed etc., they would check personnel files to validate the training of the engineers etc. If they would find anything worrtingly, they would suspend the delegated authority until corrected procedures were approved and demonstarted to function reliably. Also, all previous in-house approved documents would then each be checked by EASA. Off course this could be very time consuming, so you better made sure you had the correct procedures and personell in place!

Rgds,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 18635 times:

Someone said that certifying an alternative battery would take up to a year.
This is simply not true.

Boeing can STC a system, by showing that the STC'ed system modification has no implications to other elements, be it structures or systems.

A lead-acid solution could take 2-3 months to design and certify, 2 months to start-up the production process but it can be partially overlapped with certification once certain major milestones are passed. Plus the logistics and the installations, you add another 2 weeks. In my opinion, a lead-acid alternative would be less than 5 months away if they start it today. This would however be for a minimal modification, meaning that the lead-acid battery would take up the space of the current battery, eventually with a modified monitoring system. This would reduce capacity while increasing weight, and would make the aircraft less suitable for long ETOPS flights, if any.

Ni-cad brings more complexity to both design and certification, at barely more capacity and any weight savings over comparable new generation lead acids.
A Ni-cad would be about 8 months away for retrofit.

However, the major issue is that Ni-cad's are known for going thermal from time to time, but without too major consequences except for electrolyte leakage. On Lead-acids, thermal runaway is a remote event.
If I had to choose, I would go for Lead-acid and start immediately, even if it costs a few millions that could be just wasted money.

Even if this process would cost a few millions, it's the right thing to do unless Boeing want to bet everything on one horse. If the li-ion issue is not identified soon enough, ie by April, they will be looking at huge amounts of delay compensations for the aircraft yet to be delivered, on top of the compensations for the grounded aircraft.




Is the FAA planning to give Boeing the green light for test flights, albeit over water?
If not, I suspect that there might be more to this story than just the batteries.


User currently offlinemacc From Austria, joined Nov 2004, 1004 posts, RR: 3
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18539 times:

small note on orf.at:

NTSB director Deborah Hersman is quotet today saying that the investigation is still weeks from any results. She doesnt count on results anytime soon.

http://orf.at/#/stories/2165349/


when do you think Boing would be forced to shut down or at least reduce production?
Which implications does it have for airlines, pilots and storage of existing planes?



I exchanged political frustration with sexual boredom. better spoil a girl than the world
User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 390 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18473 times:

Quoting macc (Reply 55):

NTSB director Deborah Hersman is quotet today saying that the investigation is still weeks from any results. She doesnt count on results anytime soon.

Same quote in English:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...ntsb-says-20130206,0,4238775.story


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18490 times:

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 54):
Someone said that certifying an alternative battery would take up to a year.
This is simply not true.

Your estimates to certify a new battery system are just as valid as the one year estimate, but they are only estimates. There are too many variables at play to be definitive. However, if the 787s track record of missed targets is a valid data point, it would seem that the longer estimates are the more likely.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2786 posts, RR: 27
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18512 times:

I still wonder what they're going to do about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizFsY0yjss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC0UWIYswKI
No containment system. As of October, 2012, the FAA had logged 127 consumer electronic incidents in cabins, checked baggage and cargo. In at least 12 of them it was just dumb luck that the consequences weren't serious.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18084 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 45):
still a 'catastrophic system failure'.

In FAA Parlance, a catastrophic failure is

Catastrophic: Results in multiple fatalities and/or loss of the system.

Defined: Effect on aircraft occupants
FAR- Conditions which prevent continued safe flight and landing
JAR- Multiple deaths, usually with loss of aircraft

The events that have happened were not catastrophic, obviously.
The question is 'could a similar event be.' which is why the grounding.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 47):
I see that after a few days of reasonably rational discussion, the sky is falling again

Yes.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 50):

The FAA already has charred soot on its face in certifying what appears to be a flawed / unreliable / unsafe Li-ion battery system design -- from a purely political / CYA standpoint I simply cannot imagine a scenario where they're going to give the all clear.

I'm sorry- statements of opinion are far from convincing evidence that this is the result of either incompetence or collusion. There are many cases in aviation where people working very hard to establish the safety of a system have simply missed a factor. Read "Loud and Clear" for a few examples.

Please provide data or evidence of the FAA certifying a flawed/unreliable/unsafe system - first we don't even know the system is flawed/unreliable/unsafe from a system standpoint. We know we have had 2 failures, neither of which caused significant or important damage.

Don't downplay the seriousness of the issue, but at the same time, don't draw conclusions of intentional wrong doing, or even proof of major issue.

Quoting macc (Reply 55):
NTSB director Deborah Hersman is quotet today saying that the investigation is still weeks from any results. She doesnt count on results anytime soon.

The NTSB is well known for being ultra careful and conservative - it is their job. Don't get me wrong - the NTSB is an organization that is probably one of the most highly regarded agencies that exist - and rightly so. However, if the NTSB was running transportation - we'd likely be walking - and certainly not flying. You've all see the "NTSB approved horse..." of course.



rcair1
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12404 posts, RR: 100
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 59):
first we don't even know the system is flawed/unreliable/unsafe from a system standpoint. We know we have had 2 failures, neither of which caused significant or important damage.

That is important and worth repeating.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 54):
A lead-acid solution could take 2-3 months to design and certify

Maybe a little longer for acid containment.

Quoting macc (Reply 55):
NTSB director Deborah Hersman is quotet today saying that the investigation is still weeks from any results. She doesnt count on results anytime soon.

Ugh oh...

That is a week for week hit on my timeline. That is very bad news.  

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 59):
However, if the NTSB was running transportation - we'd likely be walking - and certainly not flying.

True. That is why the FAA is a 'buffer' to the NTSB.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 59):
You've all see the "NTSB approved horse..." of course.

   Those animals killed quite a few people.
Comparing fatalities associated with horse-related accidents in 1916 Chicago versus automobile accidents in 1997, he concludes that people were killed nearly seven times more often back in the good old days.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/29/the-horse-manure-problem/

To be blunt, horses panic. Today they are only ridden where it is safe usually by more capable riders. If everyone had to ride a horse, they would. That doesn't mean they would treat an animal correctly (including keeping it comfy with good medical and food).

Don't forget about the 15 to 30 pounds of manure a horse generates daily (more about that in the article). You need a few horses per person to sustain our standard of living...

And in the 'good old days' the NYC would have to clear 15,000 dead horses off the street per year...

More fun facts on the 'good old days'
http://books.google.com/books?id=o3o...UarmOtGl2AXR3oC4CA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw

Fact 590 has coaches the #1 cause of death in London.   

That link puts the rate of deaths on horses at 10X today's rate (fact 591).

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineWolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 476 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 17077 times:

Boeing proposes an interim fix to get the 787 flying again.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...iner-battery-idUSBRE9151CN20130206


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16898 times:

FAA has approved a ferry flight:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-for-boeing-s-grounded-787-1-.html


User currently offlinehoMsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16713 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 62):

Not that it matters, but, what plane is this that's in Texas for painting and is ferrying to Washington?



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16592 times:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 45):
Even if nobody dies and a car is still structurally intact when an engine runs out of oil and seizes, it is still a 'catastrophic system failure'.

By the FAA's official definition, as stated in AC 25.1309, it is not. Now, we can debate whether or not a catastrophic failure would be possible in the circumstances, and what the probability of such an event might be. Obviously, the FAA believes that that probability exceeds what is allowed for catastrophic events, and that's why they grounded the aircraft. However, by the FAA's clearly stated definition, neither of the 787 batteries to date has resulted in a catastrophic event. That much is inarguable.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16618 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 61):
Boeing proposes an interim fix to get the 787 flying again.
Leeham, piggybacking off the WSJ articles, notes Boeing is considering the following design changes:
● spacing the battery cells;
● adding some rigidity to prevent shifting from vibrations and interfering with electronics;
● eventually shifting to a new battery altogether;
● improved fire containment.

It appears the FAA has also approved Boeing's request to perform at least one test flight to gather information.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16504 times:

That's interesting that Boeing thinks they can find out something from a test flight. Presumably if the suspected cause was purely electrical, that could be duplicated on the ground (I'm sure Boeing has a hardware-in-the-loop lab somewhere in Seattle). So the fact that they're proposing a test flight suggests that they have found something that would be difficult to duplicate well on the ground. The most obvious candidate is vibration.

I've been wondering about that the last few days anyhow. The photos that the NTSB published of the CAT scans showed that the cell shorts occurred at the tops of the cells. I wonder if those big heavy bus bars that connect the cells together are transmitting vibration to the cell poles, and doing damage to the plate piles inside the cells.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cornutt (Reply 66):
The most obvious candidate is vibration.

I believe they're also checking to see if moisture is getting into the containment vessel / battery.


User currently offlineHmelawyer From United States of America, joined May 2011, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16494 times:

Quoting hoMsar (Reply 63):
Not that it matters, but, what plane is this that's in Texas for painting and is ferrying to Washington?

Based on the tables at All Things 787 ( http://nyc787.blogspot.com ) it must be LN43, destined for China Southern. It is the only 787 at Fort Worth at the time of the grounding.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6285 posts, RR: 54
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16370 times:

Quoting Hmelawyer (Reply 68):
Quoting cornutt (Reply 66):
That's interesting that Boeing thinks they can find out something from a test flight.

It's not a test flight. It's a ferry flight back to Everett.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16354 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 66):
I wonder if those big heavy bus bars that connect the cells together are transmitting vibration to the cell poles, and doing damage to the plate piles inside the cells.

That's probably what's happening.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16367 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 67):

I believe they're also checking to see if moisture is getting into the containment vessel / battery.

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that. Which leads to another conjecture: moisture accumulates on top of a cell and lets current flow between the terminal. Carbon tracking starts on the cell top and eventually shorts the cell.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16367 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 66):
I've been wondering about that the last few days anyhow. The photos that the NTSB published of the CAT scans showed that the cell shorts occurred at the tops of the cells. I wonder if those big heavy bus bars that connect the cells together are transmitting vibration to the cell poles, and doing damage to the plate piles inside the cells.

Good point, cornutt. This story suggests that the battery design has come under increased 'suspicion' in the last few days:-

"Boeing Co. is proposing a series of battery design changes that it believes would minimize the risks of fire on its 787 Dreamliners and allow the grounded jets to fly again while it continues searching for a longer-term fix, say government and industry officials briefed on the matter.

"The company is looking at increasing the separation between cells in the lithium-ion batteries to reduce the potential hazards from heat or fire spreading within the batteries and adding enhanced heat-sensors, these officials said. Boeing also is considering ways to keep cells more rigid, preventing them from shifting under certain conditions and interfering with electronics."


Further down, the story says that Boeing are also working on improved 'containment' - and also addressing the possibility that, as mentioned above, moisture may also have played a part in the battery malfunctions:-

"The proposed changes would retain Boeing and GS Yuasa's underlying lithium-ion battery technology, say several industry officials. Possible changes include an enhanced covering—dubbed by some as "a containment box"—with the goal of keeping flames or chemicals inside the battery in case of overheating or other problems. In addition, Boeing has told some airline officials it is looking at ways to better protect the power packs from moisture, according to industry officials."



PS - link won't post - story from the Wall Street Journal.

[Edited 2013-02-06 18:06:46]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16288 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 69):

It's not a test flight. It's a ferry flight back to Everett.

I think we're talking about different things. The ferry is to return a 787 that's in Texas back to Everett. The test flight hasn't been approved yet, and Boeing has not identified which aircraft they might use for that.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12404 posts, RR: 100
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16288 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 62):
FAA has approved a ferry flight:

At least one will fly... even without passengers.   

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 73):
This story suggests that the battery design has come under increased 'suspicion' in the last few days:-

Boeing had better have hired a shaker table in a vacuum/moisture/thermal chamber. First they need to find a fault and then figure out how to stop it.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 73):
"The company is looking at increasing the separation between cells in the lithium-ion batteries to reduce the potential hazards from heat or fire spreading within the batteries and adding enhanced heat-sensors, these officials said. Boeing also is considering ways to keep cells more rigid, preventing them from shifting under certain conditions and interfering with electronics."

The first step is obvious. If something has trouble with over-heating, give it room to cool and measure the temperature.

IMHO, it will be cell flexing (damage creating a short), bus bars (vibration,impact, or something... I'm guessing I admit), or something with a single cell that wasn't recorded properly. I'm not a battery expert (but I am a fluid and cooling expert), so these details are outside my my forte'. So understand I'm just doing 'engineering test failed diagnosis 101.'

Quoting cornutt (Reply 71):
Which leads to another conjecture: moisture accumulates on top of a cell and lets current flow between the terminal. Carbon tracking starts on the cell top and eventually shorts the cell.

How does one prevent that from mattering? Better isolation from the terminals? A condensation drain path (I've put that in parts before...).

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1299 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16269 times:

"The test flight hasn't been approved yet, and Boeing has not identified which aircraft they might use for that."

ZA005 which is in the flight test inventory would probably be the most likely candidate. It would be the easiest to instrument (if necessay), already has an experimental ticket and could be used to certify any "fixes" when the time came. They showed it on the news yesterday with a lot of activity taking place into and out of the fwd and aft cargo bays and identified it as the one Boeing would use although I'm not so sure that they got that info from Boeing.

[Edited 2013-02-06 18:35:36]

User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 15814 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 74):
IMHO, it will be cell flexing (damage creating a short), bus bars (vibration,impact, or something... I'm guessing I admit),

I'm really beginning to wonder about those big ol' bus bars. Being aluminum, they probably aren't as heavy as they look, but I'll bet they are a lot stiffer than the plastic cell containers. I'm far from an expert on structures, but I've seen that sort of thing before... things that are very rigid have to be allowed to move a bit, or they will destroy whatever they're fastened to at the point of connection. (I remember being shocked when I first found out that the Space Shuttle's system for mounting large payloads in the payload bay allowed the payloads to slide around a bit, until a mechanical engineer explained it to me.) It could be that the aircraft, in some flight regime, excites a mode that was not anticipated when they did the shake tests on the battery.

As far as the moisture thing... well, they fixed that on car batteries by moving the terminals to the side, but that's probably not practical for these cells. One trick that I've seen is to glue a set of fins, like cooling fins but made of an insulating material, on to the cell top between the posts. It greatly increases the distance between the terminals and makes it a lot harder for a significant current to flow.


User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 390 posts, RR: 2
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 15713 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 38):
I started with a 3 month estimate. I was blasted for it... but this sort of issue takes time.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 49):
I think we're trending towards 3 to 5 months of grounding. I really want to be proven pessimistic. Once the 787 was grounded, I did not see a quick fix. I'm seeing identifying the issue taking longer than plan. Once the solution is found, there will be a 'quick fix' implimented. But as you know that takes months to certify even for short replacement intervals. Boeing and the vendor will then take a year (or more) stretching out the replacement intervals by design changes and DTP testing.

You might have a chance to be proven pessimistic:

Quoting Wolbo (Reply 61):
Boeing proposes an interim fix to get the 787 flying again.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...30206

From the article: "One source added that under a best-case scenario, passenger flights could resume next month."


User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1457 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 15166 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 72):
"Boeing Co. is proposing a series of battery design changes that it believes would minimize the risks of fire on its 787 Dreamliners and allow the grounded jets to fly again while it continues searching for a longer-term fix, say government and industry officials briefed on the matter.

"The company is looking at increasing the separation between cells in the lithium-ion batteries to reduce the potential hazards from heat or fire spreading within the batteries and adding enhanced heat-sensors, these officials said. Boeing also is considering ways to keep cells more rigid, preventing them from shifting under certain conditions and interfering with electronics."

A few threads ago there was discussion about who could disclose information about an ongoing investigation and the consensus was that only the NTSB could do this but dosen't this statement speak to information gained in the investigation?

NTSB are to issue an update today (7th Feb) at 11:00 a.m. EST



BV
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 15015 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 78):
NTSB are to issue an update today (7th Feb) at 11:00 a.m. EST

Looks like we can already read most of what the NTSB is going to say:-

"The National Transportation Safety Board will publicly question at a news conference planned for Thursday morning in Washington whether the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing adequately tested the lithium batteries that have caught fire on Dreamliners in the U.S. and Japan, ABC News has learned exclusively from a government source.

This morning, the chairwoman of the NTSB, Deborah Hersman, told reporters at a breakfast briefing that the initial investigation into the batteries found "multiple cells where we saw uncontrolled chemical chain reaction," including short circuiting and thermal runaway, "and those features are not what we would have expected to see in a brand new battery, in a brand new airplane.

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

"We're evaluating assessments that were made, whether or not those assessments were accurate, whether they were complied with and whether more needs to be done," Hersman said. "We want to make sure the design is robust, that the oversight, the manufacturing process, that those are all adequate -- and so that will be a part of our continuing investigation to determine the failure modes, what may have caused it and what can mitigate against that in the future."


http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/source-...ly-tested-boeing/story?id=18422464

Just 'instinct' on my part, really - though I've participated in the odd official investigation in my time - but I think we've arrived at a 'decision point.' The key issue, the 'new news,' appears to be the fact that the battery cells are arguably too close together - and, worse, that they are not firmly anchored, they can actually 'shift under certain conditions.' That appears to be a 'recipe' for the sort of short-circuits that have been occurring?

I expect that the NTSB will shortly allow Boeing to carry out test flights with modified batteries - and that that process will (within a few weeks) allow the 787 to return to service, subject to more permanent solutions (like completely re-designed batteries) being put in place as soon as possible. I further expect that the NTSB's press conference will be the first step in the inevitable 'blame game' - determining how much blame attaches to Boeing, the battery manufacturer, the FAA, and all other involved organisations.........

Anyway - the 'good news' is that the problem appears now to have been diagnosed; and that, further, the signs are that it looks like being 'treatable'........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 575 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 14795 times:

Few weeks is very optimistic, as the modified batteries will most likely require another containment box, which probably won´t fit the old position in rack, which would require changes to the rack,...

User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1457 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 14628 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 79):
The key issue, the 'new news,' appears to be the fact that the battery cells are arguably too close together - and, worse, that they are not firmly anchored, they can actually 'shift under certain conditions.' That appears to be a 'recipe' for the sort of short-circuits that have been occurring?

This seems to be the information being leaked out of Boeing which seems to preempt the NTSB announcement, I question the legality of these leaks.

Even if this were to be the cause of the meltdowns and this is certainly not proven at this point, it would still mean that Boeing had failed to adequately identify all possible failure modes and hence the fault tree was invalid. This should cause the FAA and NTSB to further investigate the certification process.

But as you say its a decision point for the NTSB and FAA, are they going to insist on the thorough working of all the problems and issues with the electrical / battery system or fudge it and allow a remediation of this 'identified' issue to lead to resumed flights.



BV
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1367 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 14568 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 79):
battery cells are arguably too close together

I thought in any large battery pack cells are separated by a thin film.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 14526 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 82):
I thought in any large battery pack cells are separated by a thin film.

Don't often quote myself, DTW2HYD - but please refer to Post 72 above  :-

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 72):
"Boeing Co. is proposing a series of battery design changes that it believes would minimize the risks of fire on its 787 Dreamliners and allow the grounded jets to fly again while it continues searching for a longer-term fix, say government and industry officials briefed on the matter.

"The company is looking at increasing the separation between cells in the lithium-ion batteries to reduce the potential hazards from heat or fire spreading within the batteries and adding enhanced heat-sensors, these officials said. Boeing also is considering ways to keep cells more rigid, preventing them from shifting under certain conditions and interfering with electronics."



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2786 posts, RR: 27
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 14461 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 78):
A few threads ago there was discussion about who could disclose information about an ongoing investigation and the consensus was that only the NTSB could do this but dosen't this statement speak to information gained in the investigation?
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 81):
This seems to be the information being leaked out of Boeing which seems to preempt the NTSB announcement, I question the legality of these leaks.

You should re-read more carefully.

1. There are two processes going on - NTSB investigation of two battery incidents, and FAA review of the certification process.

2. Release of information about the NTSB investigation must be approved by the NTSB - it doesn't have to be the NTSB that releases it.

3. WSJ story says the information was provided by "government and industry officials".



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1457 posts, RR: 2
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 14456 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 84):

Maybe you should re-read the article, the leaks about the fixes are coming from Boeing. They are clearly talknig about informaton gained in the investigations.

CM and Tom and others insiders argued many threads back that all information had to come from the NTSB and even posted the regulation.



BV
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 14474 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 81):
This seems to be the information being leaked out of Boeing which seems to preempt the NTSB announcement, I question the legality of these leaks.

Yep, no one ever accused the government and its minions of keeping secrets, let's see if anyone at the NTSB is going to be charged for blabbing about the investigation, somehow I doubt it.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2786 posts, RR: 27
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 14352 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 85):
Maybe you should re-read the article

I did.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 85):
the leaks about the fixes are coming from Boeing

Where does it say that?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 85):
CM and Tom and others insiders argued many threads back that all information had to come from the NTSB

No they didn't.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 85):
even posted the regulation.

Which says that the public release of information must be approved by the NTSB, not necessarily released by the NTSB.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineswallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 14390 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 72):
"The company is looking at increasing the separation between cells in the lithium-ion batteries to reduce the potential hazards from heat or fire spreading within the batteries

It appears Elon Musk had a point re the domino effect of fire spreading within the battery, "Large cells without enough space between them to isolate against the cell-to-cell thermal domino effect means it is simply a matter of time before there are more incidents of this nature,"

He and Donald Sadoway of MIT thought Boeing should redesign the pack architecture of the battery to reduce risk of thermal runaway.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ttery-fundamentally-unsafe-381627/

Regarding moisture in the power packs, is this similar to the condensation issue aka "rain in the cabin" or totally unrelated?



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8698 posts, RR: 29
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 14403 times:

B-2727 is being prepared for its ferry flight.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...2/history/20130207/1430Z/KFTW/KPAE



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2786 posts, RR: 27
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 14072 times:

Form your own quote: "SAY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND INDUSTRY OFFICIALS BRIEFED ON THE MATTER". How on earth anyone could construe that to mean

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 85):
the leaks about the fixes are coming from Boeing

is beyond me.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 13958 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 86):
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 81):
This seems to be the information being leaked out of Boeing which seems to preempt the NTSB announcement, I question the legality of these leaks.

Yep, no one ever accused the government and its minions of keeping secrets, let's see if anyone at the NTSB is going to be charged for blabbing about the investigation, somehow I doubt it.

How is Boeing leaking information the fault of the government?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 13953 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 81):
Even if this were to be the cause of the meltdowns and this is certainly not proven at this point, it would still mean that Boeing had failed to adequately identify all possible failure modes and hence the fault tree was invalid.

That would require omniscience at Boeing and the various regulators.

Since that is not possible, we have Airworthiness Directives to update the fault tree.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 13815 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 93):
How is Boeing leaking information the fault of the government?

The usual "unamed sources" or "sources who choose to stay un-named because they are not authorized to speak" are government officials.
If there is a a problem with legality of leaks that is a government and not a Boeing problem, the mouth piece is usually not the source of the leaks.
If the leaks were directly from private individuals the government would be on them like "white on rice", only government sources are allowed to leak with impunity - usually -.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 13738 times:

NTSB update live feed:
http://www.wltx.com/news/article/220...Gives-Update-on-Dreamliner-Safety-


User currently offlineflyingbird From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 13637 times:

The

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 89):
B-2727 is being prepared for its ferry flight.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B.../KPAE

The Dreamliner will fly over Denver in a couple of minutes
http://fr24.com/BOE382


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 13040 times:

NTSB disputes Boeing's "single cell theory" and questions the assumptions made to certify the Li-ion batteries -- "interim report" is due out in 30 days. This all but puts to rest any hope of the current design being re-certified, even with the tweaking currently being floated by Boeing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-of-boeing-dreamliner-battery.html


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 12934 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 97):
This all but puts to rest any hope of the current design being re-certified, even with the tweaking currently being floated by Boeing.

The NTSB has no authority over certification.


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 12773 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 98):
The NTSB has no authority over certification.

Quite true, that authority rests with the FAA. However, the notion the FAA would ignore NTSB's statements and concerns isn't realistic. Boeing may have to beef up separation of the cells further and possibly add some shielding between the cells to help protect against a thermal cascade between the cells. NTSB's remarks were based on the JL incident.

Further separation of the cells, shielding between cells and stepped up monitoring could be enough if the cause of the initial short is pinned down, identified and corrected.


User currently offlinevegas005 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 12637 times:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/07...ed-top-accident-investigator-says/

This woman seems unqualified to speak. Political science major with no engineering background...


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 12588 times:

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 100):
This woman seems unqualified to speak. Political science major with no engineering background...

Completely irrelevant -- and besides, it's actually desirable to have a non-technical person weigh in as they can bring different different skill sets and perspectives to the table to keep the engineers honest.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 12679 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 99):
Quite true, that authority rests with the FAA. However, the notion the FAA would ignore NTSB's statements and concerns isn't realistic.

I agree that the FAA would not outright ignore the NTSB. However, the NTSB's mandate favors safety above other considerations. A nice mandate in theory, but not so much in practice.

If Boeing can prove they have a containment system robust enough to allow the battery to consume itself without burning through or to allow the entire volume of electrolyte to escape the cells, but not the container, then the FAA might be satisfied to allow the battery to be used on revenue flights and lift the grounding of the 787 while further changes are investigated (and perhaps mandated at a later date).

[Edited 2013-02-07 12:18:21]

User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2325 posts, RR: 12
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 12680 times:

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 100):
This woman seems unqualified to speak. Political science major with no engineering background

????
If at all, she just gave a vital piece of information why the plane was grounded. We have been looking for this information for 8 threads now!

Quote:
National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said the board's investigation of last month's battery fire in a Japan Airlines 787 "Dreamliner" while it was parked in Boston shows the fire started with multiple short-circuits in one of the battery's eight cells. That created an uncontrolled chemical reaction known as "thermal runaway" and spread to the rest of the cells, she said.

That's at odds with what Boeing told the Federal Aviation Administration when the agency was working to certify the innovative aircraft for flight, Hersman said. The manufacturer asserted its testing showed that any short circuiting could be contained within a single cell, preventing thermal runaway and fire, she said
Quote:
Boeing's testing also showed the batteries were likely to cause smoke in only 1 in 10 million flight hours, she said. But the Boston fire was followed nine days later by a smoking battery in an All Nippon Airways plane that made an emergency landing in Japan.

The 787, Boeing's newest and most technologically advanced plane, has recorded less than 100,000 flight hours, Hersman noted

There you have it. Vital assumptions (are rather "facts") in the safety calculations proved to be incorrect, for what ever reason, still TBD.

I hate to say it, but with this information FAA had no other choice than to ground, and reconsider it against certification standards - UNFORTUNTALY.

Rgds,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12026 posts, RR: 47
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 12662 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 70):
That's probably what's happening.

If it was that simple, why didn't it show up in thousands of test flights flown by Boeing?



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlinevegas005 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 12571 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 101):
Quoting vegas005 (Reply 100):
This woman seems unqualified to speak. Political science major with no engineering background...

Completely irrelevant -- and besides, it's actually desirable to have a non-technical person weigh in as they can bring different different skill sets and perspectives to the table to keep the engineers honest.

Irrelevant? We have enough talking heads in Washington, her resume is sparse to say the least. An obvious political appointment. Maybe she is just spewing what she is told, but I'll leave the facts to the smart guys with the pocket protectors.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2786 posts, RR: 27
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 12503 times:

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 105):
An obvious political appointment

Yeah - first appointed by Bush, then reappointed by Obama - obviously a partisan appointment. BTW, all agency heads are "political" appointments.

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 105):
her resume is sparse to say the least

Right - 5+ years as senior advisor to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 105):
Maybe she is just spewing what she is told,

I didn't notice her spewing in the press conference.

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 105):
I'll leave the facts to the smart guys with the pocket protectors.

I imagine she does, too. Agency heads manage and lead. Don't forget that the NTSB covers road, rail, marine and aviation.

[Edited 2013-02-07 12:57:39]


Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 12453 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 97):
This all but puts to rest any hope of the current design being re-certified, even with the tweaking currently being floated by Boeing.
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 97):
NTSB disputes Boeing's "single cell theory" and questions the assumptions made to certify the Li-ion batteries --

The a/c was obviously certified without the blessing of the NTSB, I will do some research to see if the NTSB was involved when they had the panel short circuit issue, based on the dogma of the NTSB, one wonders how they did not investigate the entire electrical system - battery included - at that time, if they were involved.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 99):
However, the notion the FAA would ignore NTSB's statements and concerns isn't realistic.

The FAA ignores the NTSB when their safety requirements are not economical or detrimental to the industry, both organizations were designed to serve different purposes.
Let's leave it at that, as that can be the topic of an entire thread.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 12344 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 107):
I will do some research to see if the NTSB was involved when they had the panel short circuit issue...

At the time of the incident, they were being advised of the issue, but had not sent any personnel because jurisdiction was "a gray area" due to the plane being in development and operating under an experimental certificate.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...flash-787-test-fleet-grounded.html

[Edited 2013-02-07 12:35:07]

User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1299 posts, RR: 8
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 12231 times:

Yes, she is a political appointee and her next political appointment could be that of Sec of Transportation which if this issue is still ongoing would make things interesting as the FAA would then be under her control.

Actually I thought she did a good job on the presentation today, especially handling the questions. She sounded like she was well prepared.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 12230 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 108):
At the time of the incident, they were being advised of the issue, but had not sent any personnel because jurisdiction was "a gray area" due to the plane being in development and operating under an experimental certificate.

Thanks my friend.
At the end of the process it will be interesting to see if they request a mandate to be more actively involved when "incidents" occur during testing of new products that fall under their investigative umbrella.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 12244 times:

That quote sums it up.

Quote:
National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said the board's investigation of last month's battery fire in a Japan Airlines 787 "Dreamliner" while it was parked in Boston shows the fire started with multiple short-circuits in one of the battery's eight cells. That created an uncontrolled chemical reaction known as "thermal runaway" and spread to the rest of the cells, she said.

That's at odds with what Boeing told the Federal Aviation Administration when the agency was working to certify the innovative aircraft for flight, Hersman said. The manufacturer asserted its testing showed that any short circuiting could be contained within a single cell, preventing thermal runaway and fire, she said
Quote:
Boeing's testing also showed the batteries were likely to cause smoke in only 1 in 10 million flight hours, she said. But the Boston fire was followed nine days later by a smoking battery in an All Nippon Airways plane that made an emergency landing in Japan.

The 787, Boeing's newest and most technologically advanced plane, has recorded less than 100,000 flight hours, Hersman noted.


The design of the battery does not meet the manufacturer's claims. If it had, it would still be flying.
The failure of one cell can bring down the rest of the battery. If that is the case, then this current design could not meet those specifications. It will need a major redesign. Each cell will need it's own containment system. Which will need testing and recertification. Which will be a lengthy process, since we are talking about a specification for a total battery failure of one in ten million hours.

The 'flying for 100,000 hours' claim doesn't count for much with the NTSB. They were told 10,000,000 hours, that's what they want.

The idea that this is 'just a bad batch' seems to be irrelevant to them. The fact that one cell can bring down the rest of the battery is what concerns them. That is a design issue, not a matter of one cell having a manufacturing fault.

Once again, Airbus will be going over all this very closely, to see how their battery design stacks up.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 12175 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 111):
The failure of one cell can bring down the rest of the battery. If that is the case, then this current design could not meet those specifications. It will need a major redesign. Each cell will need it's own containment system. Which will need testing and recertification. Which will be a lengthy process, since we are talking about a specification for a total battery failure of one in ten million hours.

The FAA could modify the special conditions to allow the current battery, flawed as it is, to continue to be used provided Boeing proves they have a containment system that can handle the entire battery burning or leaking. That would allow the 787 to return to service while a new battery architecture is designed that would then be mandated for use (installed on new-builds and retrofitted via AD on existing frames).


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 11978 times:

The video of today's NTSB press conference is now online at youtube, for those interested:

NTSB February 7, 2013 press conference video



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 11699 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
If Boeing can prove they have a containment system robust enough to allow the battery to consume itself without burning through or to allow the entire volume of electrolyte to escape the cells, but not the container, then the FAA might be satisfied to allow the battery to be used on revenue flights and lift the grounding of the 787 while further changes are investigated (and perhaps mandated at a later date).

With one battery failure every 50,000 flight hours ??


User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 11624 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 104):
If it was that simple, why didn't it show up in thousands of test flights flown by Boeing?

probably because of

Quoting cornutt (Reply 76):
It could be that the aircraft, in some flight regime, excites a mode that was not anticipated when they did the shake tests on the battery.


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 11534 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 112):
The FAA could modify the special conditions to allow the current battery, flawed as it is, to continue to be used provided Boeing proves they have a containment system that can handle the entire battery burning or leaking. That would allow the 787 to return to service while a new battery architecture is designed that would then be mandated for use (installed on new-builds and retrofitted via AD on existing frames).

Agree...but how would this play with airlines and passengers? Passenger confidence would be dented, and airlines want not just safety but reliability. The airlines will not want to fly with a known issue, that could cause a diversion, even if safety is not in question. Or, are we assuming that a contained battery failure would no longer require a diversion, and that the flight would be allowed to continue to its destination?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 11550 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 114):
With one battery failure every 50,000 flight hours?

Hasn't contributed to the loss of an airframe with the sub-standard containment system they have now, so one that actually works as advertised would be even better.

And again, the current battery would only be used until a more robust and stable one could be developed.



Quoting flyingcello (Reply 116):
Agree...but how would this play with airlines and passengers?

I think it could play very well. Passengers would know that if the battery bursts into flames or spills it's guts, there would be no risk of damage to anything else.

NiCad, NiMH and Lead Acid are susceptible to their own issues. Replacing the Li-Ion battery pack with them will not ensure 100% safety. In a way, we'd be back where we were before December - assuming everything is okay.

[Edited 2013-02-07 14:55:48]

User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11435 times:

According to various news outlets the FAA has approved test flights - with restrictions:
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013...7/faa-authorizes-787-test-flights/

Looks like testing will be performed by ZA005.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11389 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 117):
NiCad, NiMH and Lead Acid are susceptible to their own issues. Replacing the Li-Ion battery pack with them will not ensure 100% safety. In a way, we'd be back where we were before December - assuming everything is okay.

They are, but Lead Acid and NiCad are known to be reasonably safe for aircraft, from extensive experience. I have no argument with improving technology, but the Li-Ion is proving to be more complex than was originally expected. This does happen with advancing and improving technology. Maybe Boeing tried to do too much with one aircraft. The other advances would already be difficult enough to manage, but Boeing seems to have them under control after the delays to EIS.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8089 posts, RR: 24
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11256 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 117):
Hasn't contributed to the loss of an airframe with the sub-standard containment system they have now, so one that actually works as advertised would be even better.

Who the HELL is going to fly on an airplane that catches fire?! "Oh, don't worry, it wont actually burn through anything!"



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5245 posts, RR: 8
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11213 times:

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 114):
With one battery failure every 50,000 flight hours ??

Statistically this can still be within the 1 in 10,000,000hrs allowance. So it doesn't mean that it will happen again in 50,000hrs.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8089 posts, RR: 24
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11206 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 121):
Statistically this can still be within the 1 in 10,000,000hrs allowance. So it doesn't mean that it will happen again in 50,000hrs.

Considering it's happened several times already, I'd say it's safe to lowball it.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11245 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N766UA (Reply 120):
Who the HELL is going to fly on an airplane that catches fire?!

Airplanes catch fire every day for various and sundry reasons.

During it's first year of service, a number of 777s experienced on-board fires.

And the day the NH 787 diverted to TAK because the flight crew smelled smoke, an A330 landed at NRT because the flight crew actually saw it.

And show a group of protective passengers a lithium-ion battery fire in a thick steel container and show them one in a plastic overhead bin and then ask which one they felt more comfortable with in flight.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5245 posts, RR: 8
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11203 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 122):
Considering it's happened several times already, I'd say it's safe to lowball it.

Twice (that I know of). Statistically they could very well be outliers and certainly do not prove the actual failure rate. We still just do not know what the actual rate is.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1083 posts, RR: 13
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 11044 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 107):
The a/c was obviously certified without the blessing of the NTSB...
The FAA ignores the NTSB when their safety requirements are not economical or detrimental to the industry, both organizations were designed to serve different purposes.

Since there seems to be ongoing confusion about who does what, perhaps a brief summary might be useful:

- The FAA is the certifying authority in the US. The NTSB has nothing to do with certification - zero, nil, nada, zilch.

- The NTSB's mandate is to review accidents and incidents that fall under their purview (1); discover and analyze the facts to arrive at a probable cause for the event; and make recommendations for improving safety in the future. The NTSB is explicitly not required to consider anything other than safety in their recommendations and reports.

- The NTSB has no power of enforcement. They write reports and make recommendations. They cannot write regulations, nor issue AD's.

- The FAA as the certifying authority has the enforcement power; they are the ones who issue Airworthiness Directives which much be adhered to.

- The FAA is explicitly allowed to ignore, partially implement, or wholly implement any given NTSB recommendation. If you read the NTSB Aircraft Accident Reports (many of which are fascinating reading, by the way), you'll find numerous examples of all three situations.

So, bottom line, it's the FAA who will say when the grounding is lifted, not the NTSB. The agencies obviously work together, and the FAA is not going to just blindly ignore what the NTSB has to say. On the other hand the FAA doesn't need to wait for the NTSB report, nor follow its recommendations if any, if there is compelling reason (in the FAA's judgment) to do otherwise.

(1) I'm not entirely sure what the NTSB's purview covers. I know that they don't look at every little incident, but I don't know what the rules are. The curious can find out more at the NTSB website.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8089 posts, RR: 24
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 10923 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 124):
We still just do not know what the actual rate is.

And to find out are you willing to risk hundreds of lives? These incidents may ultimately prove to be statistical outliers, but right now that battery in that airplane is a potential hazard 100% of the time.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21413 posts, RR: 60
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10929 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 117):
I think it could play very well. Passengers would know that if the battery bursts into flames or spills it's guts, there would be no risk of damage to anything else.

Which is how it was designed in the first place, right? It is a known failure mode that the battery could catch fire or spill it's guts, and it was placed in a location where it wouldn't cause damage. Now, the thought is that the containment wasn't as robust as it should be because the battery could burn longer than expected (though no sign it actually caused damage in flight), so it will need a more robust containment system going forward and/or a battery with better thermal isolation.

I also could see the FAA putting out an AD that says to remove the APU battery until containment can be tested and/or a new battery certified, and to test the main battery daily, replace on a shorter interval, and add a "sneeze guard" to prevent the blurping of innards that the NH flight experienced.

Then again, I've been saying this for weeks, because the actual events were not as dire as everyone has been saying, and there was a very obvious short term resolution unless it was shown that the electrical system was at fault (and that seemed unlikely with the failure of two completely different system batteries).

Quoting N766UA (Reply 120):
Who the HELL is going to fly on an airplane that catches fire?! "Oh, don't worry, it wont actually burn through anything!"
ALL aircraft built have caught fire in some way. Be it an engine condition, a coffee maker, some wiring, whatever.

Yet each of those types continued to fly (many without even a full grounding) while the issue was sorted out.

Boeing is being held to a different standard here, and whether or not one agrees that it's about safety, it's still an unprecedented grounding considering only ONE flight was interrupted (and that flight did NOT have a fire), and nobody was killed.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 122):
Considering it's happened several times already, I'd say it's safe to lowball it.
Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 114):
With one battery failure every 50,000 flight hours ??

Good thing you guys aren't statisticians.

Two major earthquakes hit populated areas of California within a 5 year span (Loma Prieta and Northridge). That means that one will hit every 5 years? Funny, it's been 19+ since the last one...

edit: 19+ years.

Anyway, here is a wiki page about some major aircraft fires, but there have been MANY more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ncidents_caused_by_in-flight_fires

[Edited 2013-02-07 17:23:09]


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10822 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 123):
Airplanes catch fire every day for various and sundry reasons.

During it's first year of service, a number of 777s experienced on-board fires.

Are you really saying that fire on board an aircraft is ok? I believe that the FAA is not going to be happy with that, and same goes for the public. The battery containment system is there as last defense

Apparently we have three issues with the 787 battery system:

1. The containment system does not do its job (possibly it was only designed to contain single cell fire but not the whole battery)

2. Failure in single cell spreads out to the rest of the battery.

3. Battery fire are proven to be too frequent.

I would think that Boeing has to fix those three issues before the FAA clears the 787


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10818 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting N766UA (Reply 126):
These incidents may ultimately prove to be statistical outliers, but right now that battery in that airplane is a potential hazard 100% of the time.

Where in the world did you get that - oh - "potential".

Well every pilot and passenger that boards an aircraft is a "potential" hazard 100% of the time. It means every person has the potential to be hazardous.

BTW - Failures in "people" have brought down far more aircraft than batteries.

Every laptop computer is a "potential hazard" 100% of the time. Every laptop has the potential to be hazardous.

Every carry-on had the potential to be hazardous - it might fall on you when being hefted up there - wait - that is the person that is the potential hazard.....

Even if you say every battery can fail - it has "potential" - that doesn't mean the failure will have a bad outcome.

Where am I? Oh - civ....



rcair1
User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1083 posts, RR: 13
Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10699 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 128):
Are you really saying that fire on board an aircraft is ok?

Well, it depends on the fire, doesn't it? Are we really back to any fire means we're all gonna die? It's basic physics that if you have X amount of lithium, you can only get Y joules out of it even if you burn it in pure fluorine. As long as that thermal impulse is contained, and so far it's been contained both times successfully, the fire burns itself out and life goes on. Maybe the containment wasn't containing as well as the designers had planned, but it did work.

No, fire is not "ok", it's not supposed to happen, it should be prevented if possible and contained if not. However let's realize that hardly any onboard fires cause an accident, and a battery fire is less likely to cause one than most -- specifically because it WAS allowed for.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10590 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 130):
No, fire is not "ok", it's not supposed to happen, it should be prevented if possible and contained if not. However let's realize that hardly any onboard fires cause an accident, and a battery fire is less likely to cause one than most -- specifically because it WAS allowed for.

It WAS allowed for, (but only every 10 million flight hours) but it failed. The big news is that the containment FAILED.
The BFD spent over an hour fighting the fire on board the aircraft, and possibly the FAA is really concerned what would have happened if the fire had really burned out at FL400 over the Pacific.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10497 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 129):
Where in the world did you get that - oh - "potential". Well every pilot and passenger that boards an aircraft is a "potential" hazard 100% of the time. It means every person has the potential to be hazardous. BTW - Failures in "people" have brought down far more aircraft than batteries.Every laptop computer is a "potential hazard" 100% of the time. Every laptop has the potential to be hazardous.Every carry-on had the potential to be hazardous - it might fall on you when being hefted up there - wait - that is the person that is the potential hazard.....Even if you say every battery can fail - it has "potential" - that doesn't mean the failure will have a bad outcome.Where am I? Oh - civ....

You don't have to take the word of anyone on A.net in civ, the NTSB and FAA both agree the plane should be grounded. This is not done lightly, it's because they see there is a significant risk present. Hazards and risk have different levels, this one is seen to be significant enough to ground a commercial airplane for an as yet undetermined period of time, possibly for months.


User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1706 posts, RR: 2
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10489 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 131):
It WAS allowed for, (but only every 10 million flight hours) but it failed. The big news is that the containment FAILED.
The BFD spent over an hour fighting the fire on board the aircraft, and possibly the FAA is really concerned what would have happened if the fire had really burned out at FL400 over the Pacific.

Not to split hairs, but if we are talking flight hours, then there was only one event that created smoke during flight (with no fire). One data point???

I believe the fire department removed the battery from the JAL airplane (ground event) and extinguished on the ground (as the fire was within the battery casing). No raging airplane inferno.


Cheers


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10479 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 131):
The BFD spent over an hour fighting the fire on board the aircraft,

Interesting that we have not seen much on this aspect of the incident, exactly how does one fight a Lithium bat fire, everything we read is that it must be smothered, so it took these guys over an hour to smother something which was already contained in a box?

Anyway, we are beyond the fire and looking at what the FAA and NTSB will allow to get the a/c back in the air, as for the specifics of what actually caused it, I'm thinking that is much further down the road.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10507 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 128):
Are you really saying that fire on board an aircraft is ok?

I'm saying that fire aboard an aircraft is a reality. And when it does happen, better it happens in an environment that was at least designed to deal with it then in an environment with no precautions taken whatsoever.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 128):
I believe that the FAA is not going to be happy with that, and same goes for the public. The battery containment system is there as last defense.

The FAA was happy with it because the special conditions were written to deal with such an event and at least with the Ship's and APU batteries, there was a line of defense, period.

There is no line of defense for a large number of flammable items brought aboard by passengers and loaded aboard by the airlines.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10534 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 131):
It WAS allowed for, (but only every 10 million flight hours) but it failed.

If I'm allowed some humour, packsonflight, the 787 has only had one fire 'in flight'; the Boston one occurred when the aeroplane was parked at the gate, and was dealt with by the airport firemen. So the aeroplane is still 'on target' for one per 10m. hours of 'flighttime'....... ?  

Seriously, though, the aeroplane is still grounded. Boeing has been working on possible solutions, and will shortly start exhaustively testing them in flight; and you can bet your boots that the authorities will not lift the service grounding until the modified batteries can be proved to be performing perfectly.

If you were in charge, what would you do instead? Cancel the whole 787 project out of hand?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10485 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 136):
If you were in charge, what would you do instead? Cancel the whole 787 project out of hand?

If we want to be 100% safe on a 787 that's the way to go, if Boeing looses any money it serves them right for designing a crap plane, out-sourcing jobs, trying new unproven and unsafe technology like plastic and ....... 

Meanwhile in the real world, we wait for the interim fix and the final identification of the cause of the problem.
We also need the a/c back in service so that the real problem with the 787 - CRFP and all its issues - will come to fruition, that jury is waiting for a case to try.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 137):
If we want to be 100% safe on a 787 that's the way to go, if Boeing looses any money it serves them right for designing a crap plane, out-sourcing jobs, trying new unproven and unsafe technology like plastic and .......  

Of course, we'd have to tell Airbus to stop production on the A350XWB immediately and close up the FAL since it also uses unproven and unsafe technologies (like plastic) and has outsourced jobs to many of the same suppliers Boeing uses.  

(And yes, I know you are jesting. As am I.)


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10417 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 133):
I believe the fire department removed the battery from the JAL airplane (ground event) and extinguished on the ground (as the fire was within the battery casing). No raging airplane inferno.

According to this logic: a failed hijack is not an actual hijack.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 133):
Not to split hairs, but if we are talking flight hours, then there was only one event that created smoke during flight (with no fire). One data point???

This is splitting hairs...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 135):
The FAA was happy with it because the special conditions were written to deal with such an event and at least with the Ship's and APU batteries, there was a line of defense, period.

That line of defense failed, period.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 136):
If you were in charge, what would you do instead? Cancel the whole 787 project out of hand?

Ofcourse not, and in fact it is quite simple: The 787 has to comply with the special condition set for the battery system and that includes:

Failiure in one cell is not allowed to spread to the next

Battery fire are to be contained.

Battery fire much to frequent.

I belive that the FAA can not let the 787 in to the air before thease condition are met, and can not see any interim solution that discounts safety of the aircraft.

On top of that every certifying document that Boeing sends to the FAA regarding this battery issue will be subject to great scrutiny.


User currently onlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2128 posts, RR: 56
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week ago) and read 10334 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 133):
One data point???

No, a hundred thousand data points... actually 1.3 million, which is the number of hours on these batteries. Every hour without a failure is another clue about the underlying failure rate, in the sense that it bounds the failure rate with increasing confidence. One failure bumps up the estimated failure rate by quite a bit. Two failures... now you're quite confident you've got a problem.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1802 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week ago) and read 10315 times:

It will be fine once fixed and life will go on for all of us who don't hate the 787 and Boeing, the rest will keep bringing this up forever in their bitterness.

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week ago) and read 10328 times:

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 133):
Not to split hairs, but if we are talking flight hours, then there was only one event that created smoke during flight (with no fire). One data point???

One data point was all it took to ground the RR A380.


User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10270 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 127):
Two major earthquakes hit populated areas of California within a 5 year span (Loma Prieta and Northridge). That means that one will hit every 5 years? Funny, it's been 19+ since the last one...

Well, there's been earthquakes since the Northridge Earthquake. Twentynine Palms. There's earthquakes every day. Your example is stupid and out of place. The San Andreas Fault goes through sparsely populated areas. What is a major earthquake. A 6.9 in the middle of the city shakes the same way as a 8.5 on the San Andreas Fault. Besides the point here is planes. When a mechanic comes on here and tells us he replaces a battery every 3 years on the fleet he maintains and the 787 replaces them almost monthly then tell us what's the statistic on that ?


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 575 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10040 times:

Bad situation for Boeing. It is harldy worth the effort to redesign the containment for the current batteries, when you know you have to redesing the batteries as well. But that redesign will take time as it comes with a large batch of follow up design changes, from the containment to the rack in which the battery is installed. The NTSB statements do not point to an obvious short-cut to get the 787 in the air again.

User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9724 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 132):
You don't have to take the word of anyone on A.net in civ, the NTSB and FAA both agree the plane should be grounded.

Rubbish. Imagine the faces of the people at FAA-HQ when airlines announced they refused to fly with the plane before issues were resolved. It's not like the FAA has been very pro-active in this matter. I dare to say that when ANA and JAL did not ground their entire fleet, the 787 would be flying revenue flights at this very moment.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 139):

Battery fire are to be contained.

They were. That is, fire did not spread to the rest of the aircraft, nor did it do any harm. And to put in perspective, engine failures have to be contained as well. But we all know they aren't from time to time.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 139):

Battery fire much to frequent.

By which standard? And with which deviation used? Do you have any clue about statistics?

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 142):

One data point was all it took to ground the RR A380.

For inspections, yes. Modifications only followed afterwards. Which is what should happen as well with 787.



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1083 posts, RR: 13
Reply 146, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9288 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 131):
The big news is that the containment FAILED.

Incorrect. It worked -- the damage to the surrounding EE bay was minimal, the fire burned itself out (and clearly would have done so even without any firefighting efforts), and no critical systems were put out of action.

I would not dispute that it should have worked even better, but the containment WORKED, by any rational definition of success vs failure.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2197 posts, RR: 5
Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9256 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 123):

You and some others are again in this downplaying mode. It is irrelevant for aircraft systems not intended to burn, how much other fires on an aircraft can happen. Simply irrelevant.

The same applies to the opinion, that the aircraft needs to be airborne for incidents to be counted. Really silly. As silly as asking the structure withholding 150% of the maximum load. But only inflight.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 125):
- The FAA is explicitly allowed to ignore, partially implement, or wholly implement any given NTSB recommendation. If you read the NTSB Aircraft Accident Reports (many of which are fascinating reading, by the way), you'll find numerous examples of all three situations.

This is all correct, but in this case the public focus and the FAA's own failure to detect not passed certification requirements will prevent that the FAA will take any shortcut.

So they could ignore the NTSB recommendation. But it would kill them. At the latest at the next incident. So they won't. Because the current setup will continue to produce, what it has produces in reality by now: fires. If the root cause is not eliminated.

And they could also implement the recommendations only partially. But they won't. Because of the same reasons.

They know exactly, that this time their approval must be 100% bulletproof. They won't survive another burning battery in their current organization and responsibility form. Even not in 5 years. The stakes are high.

Everybody should understand that by now. All the NTSB, the FAA, Boeing, the public and even Airbus should be in an agreement, when the next battery fire would be acceptable: never again.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 136):
Cancel the whole 787 project out of hand?

No, fix that dilletant technology that starts burning far too frequent. There is a bug. It can be found out. It can clearly be shown to be responsible for the failure. And it can be fixed.


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9112 times:

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 145):
fire did not spread to the rest of the aircraft, nor did it do any harm

Courtesy of the BFD

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 145):
Do you have any clue about statistics?

Statistics can be tweaked any way you like. I could just as well say that we have battery fire every 9 days in a fleet of 50 aircrafts, and according to that we can project battery fire once in every 21 hour in a fleet of 500 aircrafts.
The fact is I dont have to know nothing about statistics, I just apply common sense, and this is too frequent to pass the common sense test.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 146):
I would not dispute that it should have worked even better, but the containment WORKED, by any rational definition of success vs failure.

this is from the NTSB press release on the 24.

"The investigation will include an evaluation of how a fault that resulted in a battery fire could have defeated the safeguards in place to guard against that,"

This is from the FAA press release from the 16.

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

Looks like that the containment did NOT WORK


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12877 posts, RR: 12
Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9000 times:

One has to wonder that at times technical and engineering developments exceed our ability to regulate and do testing of them. We have seen numerous times where the technologies have been used, as with the 787, that in real life conditions do not match the results of even extensive testing. Any kind of electrical failure causing a thermal, smoke or 'fire' event is unacceptable on an aircraft. It may be that certain technologies are too risky to use on an aircraft until the testing can replicate real life circumstances which may take several more years.

It may be necessary to step back to previous generation battery technologies on the 787, even with the weight and technical penalties, to get this a/c back up in the air ASAP before further pride and economic damage occurs.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8089 posts, RR: 24
Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8894 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 129):
Where in the world did you get that - oh - "potential".

Need I remind you that this potential is so great that it caused the airplane to be grounded worldwide? Such a thing hasn't happened since the introduction of the DC-10, you cannot pretend it's just paranoia somehow disproved by statistics.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8699 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 149):
It may be that certain technologies are too risky to use on an aircraft until the testing can replicate real life circumstances which may take several more years.

Fair enough, ltbewr. But this battery type is already being used on smaller aeroplanes, and indeed Boeing's battery-maker has already supplied batteries of the same basic type which are in use on the Space Station (and don't appear to be giving any trouble  ).

My own 'gut feeling' (only a hunch, I've dealt with design faults in other fields but I'm no expert on batteries) is that the present battery design needs 're-visiting' but is not fundamentally flawed. Boeing are saying that they've found that the cells are too close together and are also liable to 'shift' - that is, get closer than planned to their 'neighbour' cells. The Space Station doesn't fly through turbulence or have to endure the odd 'heavy landing,' or cope with moisture for that matter - maybe a somewhat stronger structure, plus heating to keep the whole thing moisture-free, is required in equipment that does?

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 149):
It may be necessary to step back to previous generation battery technologies on the 787, even with the weight and technical penalties, to get this a/c back up in the air ASAP before further pride and economic damage occurs.

Trouble is, as I understand it, that substituting a completely-new battery design would require a complete new 'design, test, and certify' programme that would occupy the best part of a year. Any such approach would also, in practical terms, virtually 'sink' the 787 in commercial terms - and the effects would also prejudice the development, testing, and production of the A350, which is also going to use the same lithium-ion battery type.

Boeing are currently proposing a short-term 'fix' which involves 'stabilising' the existing battery design by increasing the clearance between the battery cells, making sure that the cells cannot 'shift' and inadvertently get closer together (which, in their view, is the basic cause of the short-circuits), and also improving containment. Following up with a comprehensive re-design over the next year or so.

The FAA has done well in authorising test flights so quickly. One has to hope that, over the next few weeks, Boeing can prove that its temporary fixes have 'stabilised' the existing system and that no more glitches are occurring; allowing the 787 to re-enter passenger service while they move on to develop the permanent fix. Anything less will cause enormous disruption to the industry as a whole - including virtually all other manufacturers, including Airbus.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8746 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 149):
One has to wonder that at times technical and engineering developments exceed our ability to regulate and do testing of them. We have seen numerous times where the technologies have been used, as with the 787, that in real life conditions do not match the results of even extensive testing. Any kind of electrical failure causing a thermal, smoke or 'fire' event is unacceptable on an aircraft. It may be that certain technologies are too risky to use on an aircraft until the testing can replicate real life circumstances which may take several more years.

I think they are quite manageable. Perhaps Boeing stretched a little too far with the batteries, along with everything else. The plane has many leading edge technologies that help it achieve it's targets, the battery could have been left conventional.

As for testing, I don't believe there are any conspiracies and fraud involved. One of the basic tenets of quality control is independent verification. By doing it's own testing, that basic principle has been broken, however, and this is the result. People will see what they want to see, not because they are criminal, or unprofessional, but human.

Lithium and other advanced batteries will be used on planes, but it's a matter of getting it right. That may take a little longer.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 153, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8498 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 152):
By doing it's own testing, that basic principle has been broken, however, and this is the result.

I think you mean by other people not doing their testing, Boeing designed their products and are obligated to test it, if the regulators choose to be lazy and not conduct their independent testing for their certification purposes the onus is on them, they certainely sit in on all other flight testing before the a/c goes into service and ensure that all their requirements are met, so why is battery testing any different? Indeed it should be simplier since all they had to do is utilize the resources they are using now, send them to the NTSB lab for testing.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 154, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8526 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 147):
You and some others are again in this downplaying mode. It is irrelevant for aircraft systems not intended to burn, how much other fires on an aircraft can happen. Simply irrelevant.

And you and some others are again in overplaying mode.


User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1450 posts, RR: 44
Reply 155, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8458 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 149):
One has to wonder that at times technical and engineering developments exceed our ability to regulate and do testing of them.

No wonder is required. Technical and engineering developments have *always* exceeded testing and regulation. It is understandable if this is a source of discomfort, but this is not new; it has always been so.

In commercial aviation, airworthiness directives represent somebody's recently-gained understanding of a not-yet-realized behavior. That they are produced throughout an airliner's life shows that this learning is open-ended. It is unrealistic to think that regulation and testing will ever "catch up" to how technology behaves once in service.

Before you step onto a "proven" airplane like an A320, just think to yourself, "There are issues with this model and even this specific airframe, at this very moment, that are undetected and unremediated."



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8456 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 146):
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 131):The big news is that the containment FAILED. Incorrect. It worked -- the damage to the surrounding EE bay was minimal, the fire burned itself out (and clearly would have done so even without any firefighting efforts), and no critical systems were put out of action.

The containment did not work -- the ANA flight was forced into an emergency landing due to the smell of fire in the cockpit, from the article: "But soon after a “burning like smell” began to waft through the cabin and cockpit, said ANA during a hastily arranged press conference in Tokyo on Wednesday. It came from the front. It smelled like burning plastic,” said Mr. Kawamura, a 36-year-old aide to a Japanese politician."

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2...-ana-dreamliner-emergency-landing/


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 157, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8384 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 128):
Battery fire are proven to be too frequent.

No - it has happened 2 times and that is more than expected - so one questions the probability function.
But it is not proof it would happen again in 10 years. 10 year flood do NOT happen every 10 years....

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 131):
The BFD spent over an hour fighting the fire on board the aircraft,

That is incorrect. I think I recall fire was out 40 minutes after the alarm - or it could have been 40 minutes after arrival. In either case - much of that 40 minutes was spend checking the a/c for people (employees) and locating the source of the smoke (I can guarantee you that in a smoke call - it takes a file to 'find' the fire - if there is one and that evac is the first step). In addition - the containment system includes reconfiguration, by the aircraft, of airflow patterns designed to prevent smoke from entering the cabin. That part of the system is non-operable when the aircraft is parked on the ground. In the ANA case - I've still not seen any confirmation that smoke was seen in the cabin. Odor was smelled - but odor will not trigger the smoke detectors that cause the re-configuration of the airflow. The fact that there was smoke coming out the vent and NOT in the cabin indicates that the smoke containment WAS working.



rcair1
User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8335 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 157):
Odor was smelled - but odor will not trigger the smoke detectors that cause the re-configuration of the airflow. The fact that there was smoke coming out the vent and NOT in the cabin indicates that the smoke containment WAS working.

We're not talking about burnt toast here, but toxic fumes that could sicken pilots, crew, and passengers -- the 787 will not fly again until Boeing can either guarantee no more Li-ion thermal runaways or go to a new battery system that doesn't have this problem.


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 575 posts, RR: 0
Reply 159, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8316 times:

I think the main concern of the NTSB must be a combination of both events in one event. Meaning a battery that spills the electrolytes and then catches fire. How likely this is, is something i can not asses.

User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1299 posts, RR: 8
Reply 160, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8250 times:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewa...oblems-get-worse/?partner=yahootix

Boeing tells customers to expect delays (duh) and AB consider switching back to Ni-Cad.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 161, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8020 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 132):
You don't have to take the word of anyone on A.net in civ, the NTSB and FAA both agree the plane should be grounded.

I was referring to the absurdness of some of the statements made here - not the FAA actions to ground the aircraft.

Quoting par13del (Reply 134):
Interesting that we have not seen much on this aspect of the incident,

It was discussed at length in early threads. I would refer you back there. Note - this is a Li-ion battery fire, not a Lithium battery fire. They are different. Rechargeable Li-Ion batteries have little metallic Li in them and can be attached with conventional class A extinguishers. Li batteries (non-rechargeable) are class D fires. Some of my early posts were incorrect in that regard - so you will have to read carefully.

Quoting par13del (Reply 137):
If we want to be 100% safe on a 787 that's the way to go,

And we should ground every aircraft. None of them are 100% safe. Park the cars too.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 139):
According to this logic: a failed hijack is not an actual hijack

Not to be pedantic - but a filed hijack is NOT a hijack. It is an attempted hijack. A failed murder is not a murder - it is an attempted murder - that is what is charged and prosecuted. And so on....

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 139):
That line of defense failed, period.

No it did not - period. In neither case did the fire escape the containment. In the ANA case - there was no fire fighting action taken. In the JAL case - the battery was removed and opened - then the fire put out.

Again - the issue here is not that the battery containment failed to contain the fire. It is that it happened more often than predicted/expected and that electrolyte did escape in the ANA case.

In fact, if you read the special condition - it does not require that smoke and electrolyte cannot escape. It says that any smoke or electrolyte that DOES escape CANNOT cause further critical damage that would lead to a degradation in flight safety from the current condition.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 139):
Failure in one cell is not allowed to spread to the next

That is not in the special condition. That is a statement made in the context of this investigation that it was not expected to happen and did. It is a causal factor in the investigation and grounding, but it is not part of the special condition.
BTW - to those determined to assign a nonferrous "downplaying" motive to me - I agree with the grounding,

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 139):
Battery fire are to be contained.

It was. The electrolyte was not. But AGAIN - the special condition did not require it. It is likely the special condition will be modified, but it DID NOT REQUIRE electrolyte to be contained.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 139):
Battery fire much to frequent.

That is not part of the special condition. It is true - the fire happened more often that we expect and that is worth investigation.

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 145):
I dare to say that when ANA and JAL did not ground their entire fleet, the 787 would be flying revenue flights at this very moment.

I disagree - but we will never prove it either way. So who gives a rip.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 147):
You and some others are again in this downplaying mode.

No - some people are being factual, non-emotional and open.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 148):
Courtesy of the BFD

There is no evidence that the fire would not have remained contained and self extinguished. The BFD did remove the battery, open it and extinguish it - but that does not mean it would not have performed as designed. We don't know. BFD put the fire out because fire departments do that - I'm a fireman - I know. BTW - in Japan, they did not.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 148):
Statistics can be tweaked any way you like.

No - that is not true. We love to say lies, damn lies and statistics - but that is really a biased statement. Statistics applied with rigor are valid. People just don't understand them. They think that if a 100 year flood just happened, they have 100 yrs to the next one. They do not understand statistics.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 148):
I could just as well say that we have battery fire every 9 days in a fleet of 50 aircrafts, and according to that we can project battery fire once in every 21 hour in a fleet of 500 aircrafts.

Wrong. First - we did not have a battery fire 'every 9 days in a fleet of 50 aircraft'. We had 2 battery fires within 9 days in a fleet that had been flying (and growing) for a year.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 148):
The fact is I dont have to know nothing about statistics, I just apply common sense,

Common sense is a poor method on this kind of factor. It is often wrong - which is why engineers don't rely on it. Much like "conventional wisdom".

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 148):
this is from the NTSB press release on the 24.

NTSB has nothing to do with the special condition. That is an FAA condition and I doubt they consulted the NTSB when they issued it.

But - read the quote

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 148):
"The investigation will include an evaluation of how a fault that resulted in a battery fire could have defeated the safeguards in place to guard against that,"

The NTSB says they will investigate how the fault "could have defeated" - not "did defeat" - not "defeated" - but could have been defeated.

That is the whole issue here - there is concern that in a future event, the containment may not work. The danger in that case is such that we need to investigate and fix it.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 148):
could result in damage

The key word here is COULD. No did - could.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 148):
Looks like that the containment did NOT WORK

Wrong. Show me evidence where the FIRE escaped before the BFD intervened in BOS. In Japan, the fire dept did not take action. The fire did not escape - it was contained. You can argue that if the BFD had not intervened - the fire might have - but show me the evidence that even suggests that.
Regarding smoke - the requirement is smoke must not enter the cabin in flight. In BOS - it did - but only because the a/c was sitting on the ground with the systems that eject smoke turned off. In the ANA case - smoke did not enter the cabin. Smell did - but not smoke. It is not a requirement that we are protected from smells. In fact, evidence is that the smoke evacuation did work - there are 'streaks' on the outside of the a/c that indicate smoke (and electrolyte) were being vented as designed. So the system was demonstrably working - smoke was present in the front EE bay - that smoke did not get into the cabin.
Regarding electrolyte. The requirement is not that electrolyte is contained, but that ejected electrolyte does not cause further damage that degrades safety further. In fact, the ejected electrolyte DID NOT cause damage that degrades safety.
The concern is that it COULD HAVE caused damage - so we are investigation.

The point is that this investigation is about potential damage - not actual damage. FAA/NTSB (and to be fair - Boeing) is concerned that the it could cause damage.

Hence the grounding and investigation, and likely changes.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 149):
One has to wonder that at times technical and engineering developments exceed our ability to regulate and do testing of them.

Nope - I don't wonder. As an engineer who spend many years in QA - I know. We can NEVER test in reliability. We design in reliability and try to verify that design. In cases where that design fails, we may to go a 100% test screen temporarily till we can change the design.
Any company that relies on testing as the basis for quality is foolish.

Quoting N766UA (Reply 150):
Need I remind you that this potential is so great that it caused the airplane to be grounded worldwide?

No- I think I know that. And I don't disagree with it.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 152):
I think they are quite manageable. Perhaps Boeing stretched a little too far with the batteries, along with everything else. The plane has many leading edge technologies that help it achieve it's targets, the battery could have been left conventional.

I agree with the manageable and 'leading edge' comment. I'm not sure I agree with the stretched too far comments. It is very easy to be arm-chair quarterbacks and sit back and say "those guys, they shuuda known..." BTW - I'm not directing that statement at you RnR - I mostly agree with you in this post.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 152):
As for testing, I don't believe there are any conspiracies and fraud involved. One of the basic tenets of quality control is independent verification. By doing it's own testing, that basic principle has been broken, however, and this is the result. People will see what they want to see, not because they are criminal, or unprofessional, but human.

Independent verification does not necessarily mean "outside the company." There are lots of companies where the QA engineers and the design engineers go at it very hard. Independent verification really means honest, complete and factual testing - without an assumption about quality.
In some cases - we do enforce complete "indpendence" - as in - the 2 redundant computers have code to do that same thing that are written by 2 different (groups) of people - maybe in a different language. The reason we do that is to reject common mode failures. If somebody screws up - and doesn't catch it - it is unlikely that somebody else using different tools, different method and in a different place, will screw up the same way.

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 156):
The containment did not work -- the ANA flight was forced into an emergency landing due to the smell of fire in the cockpit, from the article:

There was NEVER ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE AIRCRAFT PROTECT PEOPLE FROM SMELLS.
The containment did not fail
- No smoke in the cabin
- No loss of any control/system. In fact, no damage other than some stains.
- Fire went out by itself

The issue is would the containment always work?

Back to the basics.
In a nutshell.
- We had 2 failures in a 9 day period - that is higher than expected. So investigation.
- There was no in-flight failure that would have caused damage or danger.
- The emergency landing by ANA was appropriate - but there is no evidence that the aircraft could not have remained in flight.
- The system did not behave as expected (contained to 1 cell, too high a frequency)
- The electrolyte escape was concerning - could it cause damage or fire to spread? (not that it did - but could it?).

What we are investigating
- While the containment did achieve the goals. - we are worried that the margin is not there.
- Until we are comfortable with that margin - we are not putting the traveling public on the plane.
- The frequency of failure is higher than expected.
- The type of failure (spread to multiple cells) is not as designed.
- The electrolyte escape - while allowed - is concerning because it is flammable.
- Once we are comfortable that the design is working as envisioned, or has been modified to increase margin - we fly.

One last point
- In reference to the comments that Boeing may be changing the battery to have more cell spacing - to prevent cascade from cell to cell.

You do realize this does not reduce the probability of a fire in a cell. It reduces the fuel load. So - still a fire, still contained, just less to burn. It is not a fundamental change in design objective.

- BG



rcair1