Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9  
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Posted (1 year 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 31460 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Link to the previous thread can be found here FAA Grounds 787, Part 8 (by 777ER Feb 5 2013 in Civil Aviation)

WARNING: Due to the last thread going off topic quickly and turning into a 'battle ground', the moderators will be watching this thread frequently and ANY offending/rule breaking posts will be removed. Please respect each others right to have their opinion.

225 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 31416 times:

Well here we go. Hope enough people had time to calm down so I can actually post news from Japan.

As we all know, a single cell on the JL flight caused the whole battery to go off. What Boeing, FAA, NTSB, and the other investigators need to do now is figure out why it was just that one cell.


Here's the latest from Japan:

Test flight made, with 13 pilots on board, to see if battery went haywire,
"Uneventful" test:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...test-flight-to-probe-battery-fires

Customers getting delay warnings from Boeing

(Note: the journalism in this article suggest Boeing wants this investigation to wrap up ASAP so they can start delivering)
http://www.japantoday.com/category/b...rns-that-787-deliveries-could-slip

Batteries were often switched before the recent issues were acknowledged, some electricity powerback issues were to blame:

Quote:
All 10 replacements occurred last year—two in May, four in October, two on one day in November and two in December—involving seven Dreamliners, she said. The airline operates 17 of the planes.

ANA had not reported the replacements to the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) because “the 10 problems were found before flights so were considered not to affect safety”, Yamamoto said.

A JAL spokeswoman said the company had experienced “quite a few cases” where Boeing 787 batteries had to be replaced before the aircraft was grounded worldwide. She added that no further details were immediately available.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...switched-many-dreamliner-batteries

In regards to JL and NH's requests for compensation for the 787 delays, Boeing said they're going to wait until the grounding order is lifted to address this. AI also is considering seeking damages too.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/b...ation-after-dreamliner-back-in-air



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 31215 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
Test flight made, with 13 pilots on board, to see if battery went haywire,
"Uneventful" test:

I trust that this single test flight is not going to be a basis for a thumbs up to lift the grounding....???

Surely theres more testing than just a single flight to prove it won't occur again?



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 31175 times:

What if this comes down to bad batteries of later batches? Have they changed the chemistry since EIS? Shorts in the battery they say, does that not point to a manufactoring glitch? They will need to beef up the containment, is that a long certification?

The cells that shorted, they must be identfied for root cause and fixed at the factory?! But if they find the "smoking gun" what happens next?


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 30981 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
What if this comes down to bad batteries of later batches? Have they changed the chemistry since EIS?

Seems so yes, added to which the NTSB has raised concerns about whether the original certification battery tests were representative.



BV
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 16 hours ago) and read 30645 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
What if this comes down to bad batteries of later batches? Have they changed the chemistry since EIS? Shorts in the battery they say, does that not point to a manufactoring glitch?

Apparently a higher-than-normal proportion of batteries have required replacement since the 787 entered service - but none of the previous incidents have caused any danger. As far as a 'trend' can be established, the previous incidents have involved the batteries becoming fully discharged (mostly, apparently, due to incorrect disconnection/discharges while the aeroplanes were on the ground), at which point safety cut-offs operated and the batteries had to be exchanged.

So while Boeing will obviously have exhaustively to check the batteries themselves, it looks as if they will also have to check the rest of the aeroplane's power systems - especially the recharging processes.

For information, the batteries, as we know, are produced by GS Yuasa in Japan. The firm in general charge of the design of the 787's electrical systems is the French company, Thales. The recharging system was designed by a firm called Securaplane, based in Tucson, Arizona - they were a US firm when they joined the 787 programme, but they have since been taken over by a British company, Meggitt PLC.

So it looks as if a truly international effort will be needed to sort this business out.......  


Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 2):
I trust that this single test flight is not going to be a basis for a thumbs up to lift the grounding....???

No chance at all of that, Speedbird128. I imagine that test flights will continue nonstop for quite a while.

[Edited 2013-02-10 04:46:41]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 16 hours ago) and read 30557 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
No chance at all of that, Speedbird128. I imagine that test flights will continue nonstop for quite a while.

I would also imagine so... it just sounded that 1 positive test flight and it was looking good. That in itself is great, but 99.9% of flights had no battery thermal runaways either... so it was just my inquisiviteness at the wording of the report.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
So it looks as if a truly international effort will be needed to sort this business out

Thats what the 787 is (and most major other engineering projects as well) - a major international effort.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6471 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 15 hours ago) and read 30401 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
The firm in general charge of the design of the 787's electrical systems is the French company, Thales.

I don't think that's true. At least when we were talking about the ZA002 incident, it was Zodiac that was involved. Another French company.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 30331 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 7):
I don't think that's true. At least when we were talking about the ZA002 incident, it was Zodiac that was involved. Another French company.

Looks like they're both involved, Aesma? I've no idea to what extent the situation affects each individual company:-

"Les malheurs du 787 pourraient avoir de sérieuses conséquences pour les équipementiers aéronautiques français. De tous les Boeing, cet avion est celui sur lequel la part d'équipements français est la plus importante, si l'on exclut les moteurs CFM du 737. Safran, Thales et Zodiac vendent chacun pour plusieurs millions de dollars d'équipements par appareil. Tout problème technique qui ralentirait le rythme de production et de livraison du « dreamliner » serait autant de chiffre d'affaires en moins pour eux."

http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-s...-la-production-ralentit-529236.php



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 30314 times:

I think Hamilton Sundstrand has a big part of the electrical system.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 29986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 2):
Surely theres more testing than just a single flight to prove it won't occur again?
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
No chance at all of that, Speedbird128. I imagine that test flights will continue nonstop for quite a while.

The article quotes a Boeing spokesperson as noting there will be multiple test flights the following week.

[Edited 2013-02-10 08:04:49]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12270 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 29794 times:

I agree with the thread starter, let's talk ideas/opinions/issues and leave any comments about fellow posters out of this.

What I was going to post to the other thread is that I agree that the 787 won't return to service till the root cause is found and eliminated. I think it's likely that the airlines themselves if not other international agencies would reject any workaround based scheme that doesn't conclusively eliminate the root cause. From what has been made public we know short circuits appear in individual cells of the Li-Ion battery but we we haven't been told the cause of the short circuit. It seem the test flights are geared towards determining if the cells flex during flight and cause the short circuit.

It's a real ugly situation for Boeing. Changing the battery technology then requires changes to the upstream charger and monitoring tech. Not changing the battery technology means they have the burden of proving the relatively new tech is safe after the highly public failures.

It seems this is one of those times that CEOs are supposed to be earning their ridiculously high salaries (something like 400 times the average worker's wage in the US). Time to see if McNearney et al can save the day!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1026 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 11 hours ago) and read 29558 times:

Hmmm.

I would disagree that the root cause has to be eliminated. It has to be understood; and contained from causing significant flight or safety issues.

It is also possible that they may never find a leading Root Cause. Sometimes all you do in these investigations is identify things that need improvement; even if you cannot conclude that one (or two) of them are the Root Cause.


I would also agree that the batteries on the test flights are heavily instrumented with all kinds of extra sensors. For example mounting stress/strain gauges on the connecting bus bars and individual terminal posts seems rather obvious. I do believe that it is likely that the flexibility of the cells and the rigidity of the connecting bus bars are causing unanticipated flexing in the cells near the terminal post. That kind of problem occurs in all kinds of industries. Usually the answer is to provide more flexibility as you can rarely make the rest of the system ridged enough.

My personal guess at the solution for these batteries is:
1) The basic cell is reused as is.
2) Ridged connecting bars between the cells are replaced by flexible cables
3) To prevent a run-away cell from overheating the next cell about a 1/16" - 1/8" layer of insulating ceramic (likely the same material as the Space Shuttle Tiles as it is readily available) will be placed between the cells.
4) The containment box will become more robust.
5) They may include better temperature monitoring of the individual cells; which will require software changes in at least the monitoring and data storage software (I doubt this warrants any changes to information presented to the flight deck).

Have a great day,


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 27812 times:

Would large number of smaller cells helped with thermal runaway issue. I was reading Telsa Roadster's battery system paper. It has 6800 small cells vs 8 large cells on B787. Likelyhood of a car battery pack getting damaged is very high, but not many lives at risk. Tesla's theorey is 6800 x approx AA size batteries create large surface area to dissipate heat optimally.

User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2741 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 27748 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting sweair (Reply 9):

I know someone who is high level in UTC Aerospace Systems (the company Goodrich is now a part of) and he has said they did tests on the electrical system they provided and found it has nothing to do with the issues. It all leads back to the battery. Obviously I can't reveal who it is so people may not believe me but I put a lot of faith in this guy.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 27693 times:

Quoting RNAVFL350 (Reply 13):
I am completely confused by this response to PHX787's post. Care to explain what exactly was absurd about his post (reply 13)

He insinuated that Boeing would be happy to do a test flight and declare the plane safe. If they have learned something it is how fast the media spreads negativity and if they would even think acting that way..well it is absurd!

Not even the most greedy bean counter would think of that being a good idea right now, look we took a test flight and now back to business..


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 27010 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 16):
He insinuated that Boeing would be happy to do a test flight and declare the plane safe. If they have learned something it is how fast the media spreads negativity and if they would even think acting that way..well it is absurd!

That wasn't what I was insinuating. I am suggesting that B make these test flights, see the input and output with the battery, possibly show that it was a Yuasa thing, and bada-boom bada-bing paperwork tests etc FAA lifts ED and we're all happy again. If the tests show irregularities with the batteries' performance and/or safety hazards, then appropriate action will be taken, will it not?


And a side note sir- your comment is exactly why 777ER issued a temporary ban on discussion about the battery problems. No need to get all attacky on me.

Back on topic:

I don't know if anyone seen this yet from NH's page, but it says that they're not going to fly the 787 again until at least the 30th of March.

Quote:
ANA has revised all flight schedules on the assumption that operations of the Boeing 787 will not recommence before March 30th. Nonetheless, we will continue to cooperate with all parties to ensure and confirm the safety of this aircraft, so that 787 flights may recommence as soon as possible.

Due to the above situation, cancellations and schedule changes have been implemented on certain routes. Also, other routes will be subject to aircraft type changes, including some routes other than those originally scheduled for Boeing 787 operation. Operational information is available from the links below.

An update for operations commencing on March 31st will be provided in this space, as soon as further details are determined.



Includes a schedule:
https://www.ana.co.jp/topics/notice130116/index_list_e.html

[Edited 2013-02-10 14:40:50]


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 926 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 26901 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 17):
FAA lifts ED

You probably meant "AD". This made me laugh as it's related to a certain dysfunction and when combined with the verb "lift"...  

Cheers

[Edited 2013-02-10 14:44:30]


FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1019 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 26888 times:

They're doing the test flights to pinpoint the problem. Is it vibrations affecting the batteries, is it humidity affecting the batteries or are the cells too large and creating temperature variations within the cells like some have claimed.

The roadway back to flight is a temporary fix with more spacing between individual cells and a more robust battery case.

The permanent fix is a new battery design that avoids any kind of thermal runaway.

Without knowing the root cause there's no solution.


User currently offlineZKEYE From New Zealand, joined May 2005, 241 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 26764 times:

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 18):
This made me laugh as it's related to a certain dysfunction and when combined with the verb "lift"..

Well Boeing are having a problem getting it up aren't they?



Bring out the gimp
User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 926 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 26549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ZKEYE (Reply 20):
Well Boeing are having a problem getting it up aren't they?

I would allow other interested parties to check that.



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 25799 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 17):
That wasn't what I was insinuating. I am suggesting that B make these test flights, see the input and output with the battery, possibly show that it was a Yuasa thing, and bada-boom bada-bing paperwork tests etc FAA lifts ED and we're all happy again.

I don't think that's what anyone really wants to see accomplished with the test flights, though. If it were me, I'd want the test flight to show that the failure, or at least the type of plate damage seen in the CAT scans of the JAL battery, can be re-created under specific conditions. Once that's done, we have a defined chain of events for how the failure occurs, and from there, we can figure out what to do about it. Presumably there would then be design mods, and an additional test flight to verify the modified battery.

The FAA doesn't care whose "thing" it is. They only care about what the problem is and how is it going to be fixed. Even if it were shown to be a manufacturing problem confined to one batch of batteries (which I doubt at this point), the FAA would want to know what is being done to prevent it from happening again.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 25687 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 17):
That wasn't what I was insinuating. I am suggesting that B make these test flights, see the input and output with the battery, possibly show that it was a Yuasa thing, and bada-boom bada-bing paperwork tests etc FAA lifts ED and we're all happy again. If the tests show irregularities with the batteries' performance and/or safety hazards, then appropriate action will be taken, will it not?

Not quite. Even if the batteries never fail again, the containment system has to be fixed as well.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 25507 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 17):
I am suggesting that B make these test flights, see the input and output with the battery, possibly show that it was a Yuasa thing, and bada-boom bada-bing paperwork tests etc FAA lifts ED and we're all happy again. If the tests show irregularities with the batteries' performance and/or safety hazards, then appropriate action will be taken, will it not?

I see few issues, No one is going to trust Boeing/FAA paper tests, not NTSB, not customers, not media, not public. NTSB already warned FAA about single cell testing assumption.

Second if Boeing design assumptions and written specs to Thales/Yuasa were wrong, it is difficult to pin on Yuasa. In a outsourced model Yuasa's responsibility is to live up to the written specs, not what Boeing thinks what a battery system should do. Obviously vendors/sub-vendors will do everything to address the issue, for PR reasons, not legal reasons.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 25512 times:

So the NTSB/FAA aren't on board these flights? Hmm I do see some conflicts then.


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 25972 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 25):

So the NTSB/FAA aren't on board these flights? Hmm I do see some conflicts then.

If you read the link you posted upthread (which is repeated by other news outlets), it says the test flight carried "a crew of 13 pilots and testing personnel", without identifying which parties they represented.

The article also reminds us that since the flight was part of the ongoing investigations of the 787 battery events, Boeing could not release any further details.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3361 posts, RR: 26
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 25906 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 25):
So the NTSB/FAA aren't on board these flights? Hmm I do see some conflicts then.

Let's not find problems and let them test. That comment is the type that starts the trolls.

Consider that Boeing, the FAA, and NSTB spend days/weeks designing a test series and instrumenting the plane, when everyone agrees, they run the test. It takes another week to review all the data. Once reviewed, they develop the second series and the cycle goes on. The thing is not all agencies need to be on the plane if they've agreed to the test protocols.
There probably is a Designated Representative (DR) on board, and from personal experience they are tougher than the agency they represent.


User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1470 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 26399 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 25):
So the NTSB/FAA aren't on board these flights? Hmm I do see some conflicts then.

I'm guessing whatever Boeing is doing now is just "data collection". If and when there is a certification flight the FAA will more than likely be onboard. If the NTSB were to fly, which I doubt, it would be political.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 26370 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 25):
So the NTSB/FAA aren't on board these flights? Hmm I do see some conflicts then.

It would depend what stage Beoing is at. If they are saying "See it works", then I would expect FAA on board, if they doing a "We wonder if this works", then no need for FAA.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2212 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months ago) and read 25944 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
Shorts in the battery they say, does that not point to a manufactoring glitch?

No, not only, sadly, it could also have been charged too much, discharged too much or discharged with too much current to have a short. Or there was a small problem, that would be easily switched off normally, raised to a big problem, because it went undetected too long because of the large format cells. You see the problem is not one-dimensional.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 25774 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 12):
3) To prevent a run-away cell from overheating the next cell about a 1/16" - 1/8" layer of insulating ceramic (likely the same material as the Space Shuttle Tiles as it is readily available) will be placed between the cells.
4) The containment box will become more robust.

This press story appears very much to confirm your 'diagnosis,' 2175301:-

"The Boeing 787 Dreamliner might get some design changes especially to its infamous batteries to keep fire risk at a minimum. This is temporary solution to keep the plane flying while a permanent solution to the technical problems is in the works.

"The lithium ion batteries that seem to be the cause of the Dreamliner’s problems might be modified with separation between the batteries cells increased."

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

"Boeing hopes to solve the matter as soon as possible, and have the new batteries ready to be shipped out by the end of February. If they manage this the most optimistic scenario should mean that all passenger flights should be opened sometime in March."


http://empowerednews.net/boeing-787-...to-stop-technical-trouble/1834485/

[Edited 2013-02-10 22:13:08]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3712 posts, RR: 11
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 25372 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 12):
3) To prevent a run-away cell from overheating the next cell about a 1/16" - 1/8" layer of insulating ceramic (likely the same material as the Space Shuttle Tiles as it is readily available) will be placed between the cells.

I think that would worsen the case...
If a cell overheats, then this shield would prevent the excess temperature to be spread out to the rest of the battery and would accelerate the thermal runaway for that cell. The result would be almost as catastrophic as before for the battery.

The solution would probably be to space them more to help air circulation around them to help them keep cool. air would also act as thermal insulation between cells.

Or maybe wrap each individual cell in a thermally conducting material and connect them to a heatsink. Maybe put a fan in there somewhere.

I think this is, in essence what one of these professors was advocating, wasn't it?



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12270 posts, RR: 25
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 24689 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
"The Boeing 787 Dreamliner might get some design changes especially to its infamous batteries to keep fire risk at a minimum. This is temporary solution to keep the plane flying while a permanent solution to the technical problems is in the works.

"The lithium ion batteries that seem to be the cause of the Dreamliner’s problems might be modified with separation between the batteries cells increased."

Personally, I feel that while Boeing will want to use a temporary solution to get the planes flying as soon as possible, that won't be acceptable to the US and Japanese regulators nor the airlines. Yes, I know that temporary solutions have been used in the past, but I think the amount of risk and the amount of publicity this specific problem has created will make a temporary solution unacceptable.

AvWeek speaks to the difficulties to be faced even when an acceptable solution is found:

Quote:

Among the 50 grounded aircraft belonging to eight operators which, for example, will be modified first? Likewise, how will modifications be implemented on the growing fleet of undelivered 787s that continue to stack up at Everett, Wash., where new 787s are rolling off the line at the rate of five per month?

Questions also remain over which of these takes priority and what follow-on disruption the modification program may cause to the already slowing process of change incorporation at the Everett Modification Center (EMC). The 100th 787 is on the assembly line, 50 have been delivered and the balance is made up of the original six development aircraft, 25 earlier production aircraft undergoing or awaiting modification in the EMC and more recently built aircraft awaiting delivery.

Even the basic suggestion of strengthening the cell walls and improving the containment will require two sets of such improved batteries and containment structures for each of the 50 grounded aircraft plus those already awaiting delivery due to the grounding. One clearly can't snap ones fingers and have 100+ sets manufactured overnight so even a temporary solution will be a challenge.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinealfablue From Spain, joined Jan 2013, 42 posts, RR: 10
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 24347 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
"Boeing hopes to solve the matter as soon as possible, and have the new batteries ready to be shipped out by the end of February. If they manage this the most optimistic scenario should mean that all passenger flights should be opened sometime in March."

7 times official delayed and grounded by the authorities does not give me confidence in Boeings hopes - it looks (to me) that the press statements are ouf of touch with engineering.


Coming back to the 787 problems. It looks that the authorities (and more or equally important) the insurance companies getting cold feet with that new battery technology. How can Boeing or the FAA justify maintaining those special conditions and lets remember other manufacturers pulled them out of their designs (Cessna and Gulfstream). The insurers will ask for a premium based on recent events compared to existing technology (especially after other abandoned that technology due to safety concerns).

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_02_04_2013_p23-543271.xml

Quote from the article:

Gulfstream decided to switch battery types barely a year before the G650's final FAA certification in September 2012, and Cessna abandoned the lithium-ion batteries on the nascent CJ4 fleet less than two years after first delivery.

alfaBlue


User currently offlineHumanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 23782 times:

From what I am reading here and elsewhere is that any modifications may be done within the exisiting footprint of the battery boxes. The only change would be in exchanging the unmodified batteries with newly modified ones. I suspect any other 'possible' airframe modifications would be minor and done fairly quickly if even needed.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 23679 times:

Polish Radio reports that LOT is extending 767 leases for an additional six months under an ominously worded headline:

Dreamliner fleet grounded until summer



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1032 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 23397 times:

Maybe just separating the 8 cells far enough apart in an upgraded box that contains splashing electrolyte is enough. Essentially 8 parallel, individually housed packs = each pack = one cell. Even 2 independent thermal runaways on the pack of 8 would perhaps be tolerable in terms of current and voltage available to start the APU? Would need low resistance connections to the bus, but otherwise, don't think the certification would be that great for this. This has probably been discussed already, but maybe worth repeating.

User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 23309 times:

Quoting alfablue (Reply 33):
Coming back to the 787 problems. It looks that the authorities (and more or equally important) the insurance companies getting cold feet with that new battery technology

Right, it is cascading intangibles like this that will make it difficult for this to be resolved quickly and cleanly. The engineering work that should have been done prior to certification will get done over the next weeks / months, but due to the inherent unkowns of Li-ion batteries as being utilized on the 787, engineering "fixes" may not be enough to statisfy certain key stakeholders.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12270 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 23202 times:

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 34):
From what I am reading here and elsewhere is that any modifications may be done within the exisiting footprint of the battery boxes.

I'm sure that's the hope, but I don't see a lot of excess room:




Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 23225 times:

For those interested, there was another test flight this morning:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/B...5/history/20130211/1815Z/KBFI/KBFI



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 22973 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 7):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
The firm in general charge of the design of the 787's electrical systems is the French company, Thales.

I don't think that's true. At least when we were talking about the ZA002 incident, it was Zodiac that was involved. Another French company.

A conspiracy is a foot I believe.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3361 posts, RR: 26
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 22805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting brilondon (Reply 40):
A conspiracy is a foot I believe.

and to pursue that angle will get the thread shut down.. even in jest...

Thales designed the battery system, Zodiac the distribution system.. and there are others designing other parts of the electrical systems.. This isn't a plane where all similar components come from just one supplier.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 22784 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 40):
A conspiracy is a foot I believe.


A 'worldwide conspiracy' by the look of it.........

"Even the first couple of tiers of the supply chain for these electrical systems are intricate.

"Thales of France supplies the 787 power conversion system, with subcontracts to GS Yuasa of Japan for the main batteries; Securaplane Technologies of Tucson, Ariz., for the battery charger system; and Kanto Aircraft Instrument of Japan for the charge monitoring system.

"Thales said all its systems have been certified by “very robust” processes.

“Thales is working very closely with Boeing in coordination with the investigative and regulatory authorities to understand the events and resolve the (battery) issue,” it said in a statement.

"The aerospace systems unit of United Technologies supplies many of the rest of the 787 electrical systems, but it also subcontracts with multiple companies.

"Nabtesco of Japan supplies the high-voltage power distributor. ECE Zodiac of France makes the power distribution panels.

"United Technologies supplies two power control modules that plug into the ECE power panel motherboard."


http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...5633_boeingoutsourcingsidexml.html



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineairplanecrazy From United States of America, joined May 2006, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 22836 times:

I heard on CBS news that "the damage to the Japan Airlines 787 was so severe the tail could have fallen off had the fire occured in flight." I found this related article:

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2199786/Re...nt-structural-damage-to-Boeing-787


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22746 times:

Looks like Boeing aren't planning any more test flights for now:-

"Boeing said Monday's flight included two pilots and 11 flight test personnel. The test plane includes special equipment that lets it track the conditions of its two big lithium-ion batteries during the flight. It's one of Boeing's fleet of six 787 test planes that were used for flight testing before the plane went into full production.

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

"Boeing said it will be analyzing data from the flight in the days ahead. It said the data is part of the investigations into the battery incidents, so it wouldn't release any details about what it found either on Monday's flight or on the earlier one conducted Saturday."


http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...1/boeing-doing-2nd-787-flight-test

My guess is that the next step is to install and test modified batteries?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offline14ccKemiskt From Sweden, joined Nov 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22667 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):
Personally, I feel that while Boeing will want to use a temporary solution to get the planes flying as soon as possible, that won't be acceptable to the US and Japanese regulators nor the airlines. Yes, I know that temporary solutions have been used in the past, but I think the amount of risk and the amount of publicity this specific problem has created will make a temporary solution unacceptable.

Agreed!

My analysis of the events that lead to the current situation is as follows:

• Boeing wants to put in all new technology advances there is at the same time into the same all new design.
• As all the new techs are put together in a plane, more and more issues arise which makes the project more and more late, more embarrassing and increasingly complex to manage.
• Management becomes highly stressed and presses the technicians that along with the FAA keeps most of their focus on what's not working at all. In the hurry and under that pressure they fail to think about the other parts of the design that is not malfunctioning at the moment but which would normally attain extra focus.
• The project barely manages to keep its head above water to get certified, but with an abnormal amount of exceptions having to be made. Since the battery design issue went past undetected, chances are higher than normal that there are more problems of the same dignity luring under the surface.

To me it is rather obvious that the both the design and the certification processes were flawed. If Boeing and the FAA don't go through both of them (and not only the battery issues) now during this grounding period, chances are in my opinion high that new serious problems arises. Getting the planes back in the air a.s.a.p. must never be top priority here. Another grounding of the 787 might be unbearable.


User currently offlineual747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 577 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22666 times:

Quoting airplanecrazy (Reply 43):
I heard on CBS news that "the damage to the Japan Airlines 787 was so severe the tail could have fallen off had the fire occured in flight." I found this related article:

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2199786/Re...g-787

I was just wondering if this news story had been verified. Was the JAL 787 that had the fire on board flown back to Japan or is it still in Boston?

Thanks in advance.

UAL747-600


User currently offlineairplanecrazy From United States of America, joined May 2006, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22648 times:

Quoting ual747-600 (Reply 46):
I was just wondering if this news story had been verified. Was the JAL 787 that had the fire on board flown back to Japan or is it still in Boston?

I first heard the story on the CBS Radio News World News Roundup on my drive home tonight, so I thought it came from a credible source. I am having trouble finding any good substantiation of the claim, however, on any other reputable web site. In fact, it is not even showing up as a story on cbs.com. Furthermore, Sharyl Attkisson (supposedly the original reporter of this information) isn't mentioning it on her twitter site.

http://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson

I do not know the current location of the JAL 787 in question.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1114 posts, RR: 13
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22626 times:

https://twitter.com/NTSB/status/301123347016720385

"NTSB investigators found only minor damage to electronics bay on JAL Boeing 787, following Jan 7 battery fire."

Since I don't imagine that it's possible to have minor damage to the EE bay, which is where the battery lives, but yet have "significant" structural damage elsewhere, I'm going to say that the CBS news report is simply incorrect.

[Edited 2013-02-11 16:54:26]


Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22564 times:

Quoting airplanecrazy (Reply 43):
I heard on CBS news that "the damage to the Japan Airlines 787 was so severe the tail could have fallen off had the fire occured in flight." I found this related article:

Is this true? News reports from sources have been known to be wrong before, especially when a claim this dramatic is made.


User currently offlineairplanecrazy From United States of America, joined May 2006, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22499 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 48):
"NTSB investigators found only minor damage to electronics bay on JAL Boeing 787, following Jan 7 battery fire."Since I don't imagine that it's possible to have minor damage to the EE bay, which is where the battery lives, but yet have "significant" structural damage elsewhere, I'm going to say that the KIRO report is simply incorrect.
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 49):
Quoting airplanecrazy (Reply 43):I heard on CBS news that "the damage to the Japan Airlines 787 was so severe the tail could have fallen off had the fire occured in flight." I found this related article:Is this true? News reports from sources have been known to be wrong before, especially when a claim this dramatic is made.

All,

Apologies for posting what must have been some kind of fabrication. Again, I did hear it on CBS Radio News and I found another web site with the same claims, so I did post in good faith. The information was also twittered by Charlie Kaye Executive Producer for Radio, CBS News, but it now appears that he has deleted the post.

Airplanecrazy


User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22487 times:

I hope Boeing was able to repro the runaway either in lab or on the test flights or both. That will give more confidence in the proposed solution.

But I also agree that in some systems, it may not be able to repro the issue, and one can only consider all possible scenarios and try to develop solutions to mitigate them.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22627 times:

Quoting airplanecrazy (Reply 47):

I do not know the current location of the JAL 787 in question.

It's still in Boston. And yeah, that bit about the tail falling off because of the battery is really far-fetched, especially considering that electronics bay in question is in the mid-fuselage area. There would be obvious damage to the plane if that were true. The photos of the airplane that I've seen show no damage that is visible from the exterior.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6471 posts, RR: 9
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22501 times:

They speculate on what would have happened if the battery had been left to burn with the plane flying. Not that their conclusion is that much better in light of this.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2730 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22423 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 48):
Since I don't imagine that it's possible to have minor damage to the EE bay, which is where the battery lives, but yet have "significant" structural damage elsewhere.

Well, the BFD put out the fire, so there could have been more damage had the fire occurred mid flight. Still, having the tail fall off seems like a wild exaggeration.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22434 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 54):
Well, the BFD put out the fire, so there could have been more damage had the fire occurred mid flight. Still, having the tail fall off seems like a wild exaggeration.

Which is one question that has never been answered. To what extent did fire breach the containment? Not at all? A little? Only when the fire brigage opened the containment?


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22397 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 54):
Well, the BFD put out the fire, so there could have been more damage had the fire occurred mid flight. Still, having the tail fall off seems like a wild exaggeration.

um, you can't put out this fire. When people talk about what to use on a lithium ion battery to "put it out" what they are really talking about is containing the heat output till it burns itself out. The containment structure has proven to work fine in both cases at preventing damage to nearby components. The boston fire clearly shows damage to the containment structure from being dropped from the plane by the fire department. We also have reports that they damaged the plane in their attempts to remove the battery. While I appreciate their training and desire to put out the fire, in this case I feel we would have been far ahead if they had left it alone and just monitored it such that they could suffocated any secondary fires if containment truely failed.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1114 posts, RR: 13
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22287 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 55):
Which is one question that has never been answered. To what extent did fire breach the containment? Not at all? A little? Only when the fire brigage opened the containment?

Agreed that I'm not sure we know that in detail. There was apparently some open flame in the EE bay but given the lack of exterior paint damage on the battery box, and the limited scorching in the bay itself, my personal guess is that the open flames were leaked electrolyte flaring off. I'm also assuming, perhaps rashly, that the main difference between the JAL and ANA events was that the ANA battery went off in-flight, so that there was better venting of the EE bay in the ANA case; perhaps that kept the flammables concentration low enough to prevent open flame, and everything I've read says that there was no sign of overt flame in the ANA case.

There were reports of "2 foot flames" in the JAL ee bay, but assuming those reports were valid, flames that size couldn't have lasted very long since fire fighters were able to go in and get the battery out. Also, the damage photos aren't consistent (IMHO) with sustained extensive flame. I'm thinking that any such flames were short-lived flare-offs.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22377 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 56):
um, you can't put out this fire. When people talk about what to use on a lithium ion battery to "put it out" what they are really talking about is containing the heat output till it burns itself out. The containment structure has proven to work fine in both cases at preventing damage to nearby

Looks like that the NTSB is not agreeing with you. According too the NTSB statement from 14. of January the BFD contained the fire but not the containment structure surrounding the battery.

"The airport emergency response group documented the airport rescue and firefighting efforts to extinguish the fire, which included interviews with first responders. Fire and rescue personnel were able to contain the fire using a clean agent (Halotron)"

There is no proof so far that the containment system would have worked because it was never put to the test, courtesy of the BFD who stepped in.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 22334 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 57):
my personal guess is that the open flames were leaked electrolyte flaring off

The connectors that go through the containment vessel appear to have been melted, it might be that was producing the visible flames. If so it could be visually impressive, bad to breathe, but no threat to the plane as that quanity of burning plastic wouldn't produce much heat at all.


User currently offlinewoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1029 posts, RR: 3
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 21847 times:

Why not do what Gulfstream and Cessna did and just ditch this LiOn battery all together and go with what they use in say, the 777. Does it make sense to try and make the somewhat inherent "danger" of a LiOn less of a threat or just install a battery that we know to be safe? At least in the remaining undelivered and unbuilt 850 planes, this should not be as big of a deal as it is to tear out equipment from existing planes.

User currently offlinenm2582 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 21894 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):


I haven't participated much in this discussion since the early threads - decided to take a back seat and let things develop a bit more first.

The image quoted above is very interesting to me - all the discussion (that I have seen) thus far has been centered around the idea that Boeing used 8 (arguably) unconventionally large lithium cells. But the picture looks (to me) like the "bricks" are comprised of more conventional sized cells (groups of six in parallel per brick).

It also looks like they could free up some space inside the existing enclosure if they move the circuitry (I assume the monitoring equipment) external to the enclosure. I'm not sure if they consider the circuitry to be a fire risk, though?


User currently offlinenm2582 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 21824 times:

It would be interesting to study the design options to make this battery modular - each "brick" being isolated in it's own flame/electrolyte leakage proof enclosure, each individually temperature monitored and fused. A single failing brick could not induce a thermal runaway in neighboring bricks; preventing the failure from spreading would reduce the total amount of heat/electrolyte/flame released into the aircraft (up to 7/8 reduction in a single brick failure, worst case scenario).

It might also have economic advantages - if individual bricks do fail from time to time, then an individual brick could be swapped in instead of replacing the entire battery. The charging/monitoring equipment would have to be flawless, though..


User currently offlineboacvc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 21703 times:

Quoting airplanecrazy (Reply 43):

I heard on CBS news that "the damage to the Japan Airlines 787 was so severe the tail could have fallen off had the fire occured in flight." I found this related article:

During the US incident of a B787 landing at MSY Incident United B788 on 12/4/2012, an a.net poster made a comment that felt odd at that time, and I paraphrase here: " ... two more
minutes and it would have been a serious problem"

Note, at that time, none of the battery related issues had come to light, and there were, AFAIK some discussion as to whether the paraphrased statement above was sensationalist or not.

In light of what we know now, lithium battery film separators and all, does that comment hold any water ? Was it a wholly different set of problems, and if so, have they also been included in this investigation ?



Up, up and Away!
User currently offlineZKCIF From Lithuania, joined Oct 2010, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 21637 times:

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 60):
Why not do what Gulfstream and Cessna did and just ditch this LiOn battery all together and go with what they use in say, the 777. Does it make sense to try and make the somewhat inherent "danger" of a LiOn less of a threat or just install a battery that we know to be safe?

As far as I understand, the two issues are: lack of space and need to develop a new containment system. Hence, it involves some redesign in any case.
Cheers


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2212 posts, RR: 5
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 21394 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 36):
Essentially 8 parallel, individually housed packs = each pack = one cell.

Parallel? Connecting single cells parallely does not give the require voltage.

You could however build 8 packs, where each consists of 8 cells serially, that could be connected parallely. That would result in 64 cells totally.

The space for proper heat propagation suppression would still not be there however.

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 61):
But the picture looks (to me) like the "bricks" are comprised of more conventional sized cells (groups of six in parallel per brick).

No, this image must be misleading. Because cells with 70Ah or more are not sized conventionally (the capacity indicates 1:1 the cell size). Conventional cells might have up to 10Ah. So the 787 cells are really whoppers. The technology is new, error prone and by far not as proved as the small cells, that are shipped by the millions e.g. from Apple alone.


User currently offlineSeat55A From New Zealand, joined Jan 2013, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 21241 times:

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 61):
But the picture looks (to me) like the "bricks" are comprised of more conventional sized cells (groups of six in parallel per brick).

The electrodes are long and are folded into an accordion shape.

See the images and schematics in the Jan 24 NTSB presentation: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2...3/boeing_787/JAL_B-787_1-24-13.pdf


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 21103 times:

Quoting Seat55A (Reply 66):
The electrodes are long and are folded into an accordion shape.

Many thanks for that information, Seat55A - and the site with illustrations.

That settles it for me. In my business days I'd have 'rocketed' any clerk who even folded a letter that carelessly.......

This story seems to add yet another dimension to the problem:-

"Aviation safety investigators are examining whether the formation of microscopic structures known as dendrites inside the Boeing Co. BA -0.91%787's lithium-ion batteries played a role in twin incidents that prompted the fleet to be grounded nearly a month ago.

"The new information from the National Transportation Safety Board offers a glimpse into what could become an important line of inquiry for the investigation into a Jan. 7 battery fire aboard a Japan Airlines Co. 9201.TO +3.53%787 Dreamliner parked in Boston.

"Investigators have so far said they know that fire was triggered by short circuits, but haven't been able to determine the original cause of the incident, or of another one in which an overheating battery forced an All Nippon Airways Co. 9202.TO -0.52%787 in Japan to make an emergency landing. Japanese investigators have said the battery in that ANA incident also experienced an internal short-circuit and a "thermal runaway."

"Dendrites are tiny deposits of lithium resembling microscopic whiskers that can grow within the cells of a battery, potentially causing short circuits and significant heat and even fire. They are often a byproduct of rapid or uneven charging of lithium-ion batteries, according to experts."



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 21075 times:

PS quote above is from the WSJ (John Ostrower) - the link won't post. Nor could I add my final comment - that I hope Boeing somehow 'create' the needed extra space and revert to 'proven' batteries ASAP......

[Edited 2013-02-12 04:18:56]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 52
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 20587 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 62):
It would be interesting to study the design options to make this battery modular - each "brick" being isolated in it's own flame/electrolyte leakage proof enclosure, each individually temperature monitored and fused.

What you are doing here is reducing fuel load. Nothing about this design would lower the probability of a cell going into runaway - but it would reduce the fuel load. That means the situation where you have a runaway and fire in a battery still exists and the containment idea must be fulfilled and certified. It also means significant connections external to each pack connecting it to the others. As rheinwaldner noted, you would connect them in series, not parallel, to achieve design voltage.

Note - individual cell monitoring is not helpful except as a indicator. Once the cell goes into thermal runaway- there is nothing you can do externally but isolate it and hang on.

Also - keep in mind that in a series connection - each wire between each cell will carry full load current - so they are not 1/8 the size - hmm - maybe. Each one would need to be interuptable. I need to think about that - it is the obvious answer, but I probably better spend some time with circuit models for LiIon batteries. Been too many years since I've done this kind of design work.

Since containment of a battery fire is still a requirement, it is not clear to me that the advantages of 1/8 the fuel load will offset the complexity of a system like this. But - I'm quite sure it is under investigation.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 62):
t might also have economic advantages - if individual bricks do fail from time to time,

I think there may be some serious matching problems. When we replace batteries in our fire engines - we replace the set - whether series or paralleled. (some have 3 parallel, some 2 sets of 2 in series for 24V). If we don't, we tend to destroy the new battery due to the imbalanced capacity on the old ones. More of a problem on the parallel systems than series. We do use 'smart' charges that monitor each cell individually.

The point is that if a 'brick' or 'cell' goes - I'm thinking you would not want to swap out a new one with a bunch of old ones.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 67):
"Dendrites are tiny deposits of lithium resembling microscopic whiskers that can grow within the cells of a battery, potentially causing short circuits and significant heat and even fire. They are often a byproduct of rapid or uneven charging of lithium-ion batteries, according to experts."

Dendrites are a classic failure mode in NiCads as well - though they do not lead to runaway, they lead to lowered capacity.

This is looking more and more to be a flaw in the battery itself (design/manf), than the system.



rcair1
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2212 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 20575 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 67):
They are often a byproduct of rapid or uneven charging of lithium-ion batteries, according to experts."

For the root cause analysis you have to ask "why" until there is no further reason. So continueing that for this statment leads to the following upstream reasons:

- The former (the "rapid" aspect) can mean, that the charger is flawed (wrongly dimensioned). Rapid discharging would mean, that the load can exceed the current-capacity (the C-constant) of the battery. Which again can mean that the battery has not a large enough C-rate - or - that the battery power consumers can reach a state, where they draw too much current.

- The later (the "uneven" aspect) can mean, that the balancer is not up to the task. Or the large cells behave not uniformally internally.

Just here are five potential root causes. Three lay in the surrounding design of the battery system (charger supplies too much current, bug in the battery consumers or balancing fails). And two lay within the battery itself (C-rate too small or cells are too large).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 20475 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 63):
During the US incident of a B787 landing at MSY (Incident United B788 on 12/4/2012), an a.net poster made a comment that felt odd at that time, and I paraphrase here: " ... two more minutes and it would have been a serious problem"

I believe you are confusing the comments made by F9animal (based on his speaking with "higher ups at Boeing") about the incident with ZA002 at Laredo.

As I recall, the UA plane experienced the failure of one of the six generators which caused some minor load-shedding (IFE system reboots and cabin lights flickering) as the system switched over to the other good generators.


User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1470 posts, RR: 8
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 20376 times:

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 60):
Why not do what Gulfstream and Cessna did and just ditch this LiOn battery all together and go with what they use in say, the 777.

Cessna "ditched" the LIon batteries to get their airplanes back in the air, however, they still plan to return to LIon in the future.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-out-on-four-jets-after-q2-381434/


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5085 posts, RR: 19
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 20096 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 68):

PS quote above is from the WSJ (John Ostrower)

Might as well quote Mary Schiavo.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3361 posts, RR: 26
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20021 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

regarding the Boston Fire Dept. they may have been confused as to the make up of the battery and what extinguishing techniques would work and not feed the fire. (see RCAIR1's comments on earlier threads).

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kanban (Reply 74):
regarding the Boston Fire Dept. they may have been confused as to the make up of the battery and what extinguishing techniques would work and not feed the fire.

They were trained on how to respond to emergencies with the 787, so how to respond to a battery fire may have been part of that training.


User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 19925 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 56):
The boston fire clearly shows damage to the containment structure from being dropped from the plane by the fire department. We also have reports that they damaged the plane in their attempts to remove the battery. While I appreciate their training and desire to put out the fire, in this case I feel we would have been far ahead if they had left it alone and just monitored it such that they could suffocated any secondary fires if containment truely failed.
Quoting kanban (Reply 74):
regarding the Boston Fire Dept. they may have been confused as to the make up of the battery and what extinguishing techniques would work and not feed the fire. (see RCAIR1's comments on earlier threads).

So it might seem that the whole problem could be solved issuing a retrainig directive for Fire Depts. Not any more a Boeng problem.
Great.



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1032 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 20066 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 69):
Since containment of a battery fire is still a requirement, it is not clear to me that the advantages of 1/8 the fuel load will offset the complexity of a system like this. But - I'm quite sure it is under investigation.

The individual containment per cell can help prevent heat induced thermal runaway from one cell to the next (assuming proper thermal isolation , i.e. aerogel, between cells and adequate heat transfer via Fins or Fans to the environment for a failed cell). So the effect of an incident in terms of thermals for a bad cell is reduced by 7/8 or about 86%. Re connections, the applications consist of common/ordinary voltage and current levels to start and APU so cabling and shielding should be a routine design matter.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 69):
As rheinwaldner noted, you would connect them in series, not parallel, to achieve design voltage.

This is a more vexing problem, as one cell will probably lose the battery capacity for the APU duty.

However, at this point, you are now principally looking at a system availability issue and not (or greatly mitigated to the point of acceptability) a thermal or fire threat. This could be the difference to get the Plane back in the air while something like a parallel voltage pack architecture is designed (say maybe 3 packs of (smaller) 8 cells each - 1 failure doesn't affect any other cells, no drop in voltage, 1/3 Amp hours loss, which might still work).

[Edited 2013-02-12 10:25:08]

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 19987 times:

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 76):
So it might seem that the whole problem could be solved issuing a retrainig directive for Fire Depts. Not any more a Boeng problem.

With or without the grounding, we would be seeing the same investigation into preventing more fires from the battery. My statements should be in no way taken to mean that there is no problem. I think most reasonable people would like the Fire Departments to be better trained on this issue regardless of the fix. If your efforts are ineffective and cause additional damage to a 150M plane....

That said, hindsight is 20/20, and the batteries were likely one tiny section in a very large training package. The training was likely focused on traditional important things like the changes to fuselage and what it means for piercing.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3361 posts, RR: 26
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 19530 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 75):
They were trained on how to respond to emergencies with the 787, so how to respond to a battery fire may have been part of that training.

Remember our initial confusion back about thread 3.. the extinguishing of lithium type batteries is substantially different for each formulation.. and the guys who showed up may have been thinking along the lines of laptop batteries where let them burn out is preferred.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 19235 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 78):
With or without the grounding, we would be seeing the same investigation into preventing more fires from the battery. My statements should be in no way taken to mean that there is no problem. I think most reasonable people would like the Fire Departments to be better trained on this issue regardless of the fix. If your efforts are ineffective and cause additional damage to a 150M plane....

Were did you get the information that the action of the fire department on Boston did more damage to the plane, rather than saving the plane from more damage?


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 18980 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 78):
think most reasonable people would like the Fire Departments to be better trained on this issue regardless of the fix. If your efforts are ineffective and cause additional damage to a 150M plane....

This is the first fire incident for this model in the world. One cannot blame Fire Department for not doing a perfect job for a new model started service just 3+ weeks earlier. Doesn't matter it is $150 Million or $500 Million, not worth putting even a single firefighter's life in risk.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 18650 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 81):
This is the first fire incident for this model in the world. One cannot blame Fire Department for not doing a perfect job for a new model started service just 3+ weeks earlier. Doesn't matter it is $150 Million or $500 Million, not worth putting even a single firefighter's life in risk.

I think I covered that. I know why their response wasn't "perfect", and I mentioned it.

going into the aircraft *ADDED* to the danger to the firefighters, as did the dropping of the battery from the aircraft.


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1023 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 18559 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The NTSB is investigating if the recent Boeing 787 battery issues could be linked to the formation of small build-ups, known as dendrites, inside lithium-ion batteries.
Dendrites have been suspected among the possible causes of two battery incidents that prompted the grounding of all 50 787s in operation.
Dendrites build up in lithium batteries, usually through uneven absorption and desorption of lithium ions, and can penetrate the inner membranes that divide the anode and cathode. The dendrites, which also can be triggered by foreign object particles on the surfaces, introduce a physical contact between the positive and negative electrodes, generating a short circuit.


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1023 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 18508 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

if the Lithium Ion battery is so easily contaminated then it might not be the best battery for the 787 no matter HOW much power it generates. if the battery has to be assembled in a "Clean Room" and serviced in a "Clean Room" then the field servicing and care of the battery would neither be cost effective nor damage tolerant. which would limit the airplane to major maintenence hubs just in case the battery had a malfunction. Heck !!t This is a worse situation than obtaining and shipping chemical oxygen Generators

User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 18510 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 82):
going into the aircraft *ADDED* to the danger to the firefighters, as did the dropping of the battery from the aircraft.

A single firefighter's life is more worth than a empty hull loss. Dropping a battery to save 230+ souls makes sense even few get hurt on the ground.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 18488 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 82):
I think I covered that. I know why their response wasn't "perfect", and I mentioned it.

going into the aircraft *ADDED* to the danger to the firefighters, as did the dropping of the battery from the aircraft.

You said that the fire fighters damaged the plane or made the damage worse by touching the battery.
You imply that the removal of the battery was not necessary.

Please show on what information you build that, or did you personally check the plane?

[Edited 2013-02-12 18:52:07]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 18394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 84):
if the Lithium Ion battery is so easily contaminated then it might not be the best battery for the 787 no matter HOW much power it generates.

NiCad batteries are also susceptible to dendrite build-up, though I'm not sure it causes short circuits. It does lead to loss of charging capacity.


User currently offlinePart147 From Ireland, joined Dec 2008, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 17952 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 87):
NiCad batteries are also susceptible to dendrite build-up, though I'm not sure it causes short circuits. It does lead to loss of charging capacity.

And despite such a physically microscopic issue - there is a big difference between loss of charging capacity in a NiCad battery and Thermal Runaway in a Lithium Ion battery.

I think it's fair to say that the damage tolerant design philosophy can only apply to the former.


If this this is indeed the smoking gun (and I hope it is something as simple as this) then I can see this technology having to mature further before un-grounding



It's better to ask a stupid question during training, rather than make a REALLY stupid mistake later on!
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2212 posts, RR: 5
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 17849 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 83):
The NTSB is investigating if the recent Boeing 787 battery issues could be linked to the formation of small build-ups, known as dendrites, inside lithium-ion batteries.

This point is in the news everywhere, but we also have to read carefully.

This article e.g. adds context:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/02...als-eyed-in-787-investigation.html

Quote:
She also said investigators haven't seen evidence of the crystals in other batteries they have examined.

So current examinations did not confirm that possibility so far.

Quote:
The particles are among several areas under investigation that could have caused one of eight cells within the battery to short-circuit and burn, igniting adjacent cells, Nantel said.

So dendrites are just one of several areas, that is investigated.

Quote:
The safety board is looking into whether a manufacturing defect, the charging process or the battery design could have led to the fire, Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said at a news conference Feb. 7.

So the whole rest that we also have discussed here (issues with manufacturing, surrounding systems or the battery design) are still not ruled out.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 17282 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Part147 (Reply 88):
If this this is indeed the smoking gun (and I hope it is something as simple as this) then I can see this technology having to mature further before un-grounding.

If it is just dendrite buildup, if a non-invasive examination can be performed of the batteries, then that should allow the 787 to be returned to service with an inspection period to detect this dendrite buildup and remove the batteries for repair.



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 89):
So current examinations did not confirm that possibility so far.

Or perhaps it is not a common occurrence, which could explain why 787 batteries were not entering thermal runaway on a regular basis over the previous year.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2212 posts, RR: 5
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 17166 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 89):
So current examinations did not confirm that possibility so far.

Or perhaps it is not a common occurrence

Correct, therefore I wrote that dendrites are not confirmed as root cause so far. They are certainly not ruled out either.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
If it is just dendrite buildup, if a non-invasive examination can be performed of the batteries, then that should allow the 787 to be returned to service with an inspection period to detect this dendrite buildup and remove the batteries for repair.

Not if they did happen because of that:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 70):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 67):
They are often a byproduct of rapid or uneven charging of lithium-ion batteries, according to experts."

In that case this applies:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 70):
Just here are five potential root causes. Three lay in the surrounding design of the battery system (charger supplies too much current, bug in the battery consumers or balancing fails). And two lay within the battery itself (C-rate too small or cells are too large).


About the second last point I have to add that the C-rate typically also defines the charging current. So this would certainly be in scope.


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 17174 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 85):
Dropping a battery to save 230+ souls makes sense even few get hurt on the ground.

If you are suggesting that the battery should be modified to be "ejected" in flight, that will never happen. Regulations forbid that kind of feature from being present on civilian aircraft.

The answer is fixing or modifying the existing battery system, not spending millions in designing an ejection system which would not be allowed in the first place.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 17044 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 92):
If you are suggesting that the battery should be modified to be "ejected" in flight, that will never happen. Regulations forbid that kind of feature from being present on civilian aircraft.

The answer is fixing or modifying the existing battery system, not spending millions in designing an ejection system which would not be allowed in the first place.

When I replied firefighter's life is more valuable than not doing a perfect job, fellow member quoted my suggestion from one of the early threads. There were suggestions to keep couple of folks in electronics bay, install a webcam... all innovative ideas, none of those are feasible.

Point is it is all relative. BOS Fire Captain could have decided not to send anyone inside and let it burn out, because there is no one inside.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16617 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 93):
Point is it is all relative. BOS Fire Captain could have decided not to send anyone inside and let it burn out, because there is no one inside.

Which is what I have been saying... Not sure why you are insisting that I am arguing in favor of them sending someone in?

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 86):
You said that the fire fighters damaged the plane or made the damage worse by touching the battery.
You imply that the removal of the battery was not necessary.

Please show on what information you build that, or did you personally check the plane?

You can go over the last 8 threads, and other associated threads. Its been posted several times that there was damage to the surrounding area from a "axe", and the pictures of the enclosure shows clear damage from being dropped. Not sure how a fire could cause the enclosure to show clear signs of being dropped wiring connector side down from the distance you would expect if dropped out of a plane.

We also have clear evidence that the plane was in no danger thanks to the 2nd occurance which didn't burn up... and the battery self-extinquished prior to landing.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16487 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 94):
ou can go over the last 8 threads, and other associated threads. Its been posted several times that there was damage to the surrounding area from a "axe", and the pictures of the enclosure shows clear damage from being dropped. Not sure how a fire could cause the enclosure to show clear signs of being dropped wiring connector side down from the distance you would expect if dropped out of a plane.

We also have clear evidence that the plane was in no danger thanks to the 2nd occurance which didn't burn up... and the battery self-extinquished prior to landing.

I do not know were you get your information.

Occurrence number one:

The battery burns on the JAL B 787 in Boston.

There is a fire in an air plane standing at a building with thousands of People inside.
You expect the fire department to let the fire in the plane continue and take the risk that the whole plane catches fire?

Occurrence number two:

In flight ANA the battery has a thermal runaway but fails to catch fire. How does that tell us if the fire in Boston should have been contained, what the fire department did, or not.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3712 posts, RR: 11
Reply 96, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16434 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
if a non-invasive examination can be performed of the batteries,

I doubt it can. Those dendrites seem like microscopic formations deep inside the battery cell, near the electrodes.
You'd probably need to tear the battery cells apart to find them, which sounds more like an autopsy than an in-service check.

And it remains to be seen why those batteries would have formed dendrites with such an occurrence rate, if dendrites they were the cause, given the number of li-ion batteries already in service in cars and smaller devices.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 15930 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 96):
I doubt it can. Those dendrites seem like microscopic formations deep inside the battery cell, near the electrodes.
You'd probably need to tear the battery cells apart to find them, which sounds more like an autopsy than an in-service check.

That would be my guess.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 98, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 15877 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 93):
BOS Fire Captain could have decided not to send anyone inside and let it burn out, because there is no one inside.

I don't think they would have done that because the aircraft was parked at a gate. In that case, there's always the possibility of the fire spreading to adjacent aircraft, or the concourse building. Had the aircraft been parked at some far corner of the airport, it might have been different.


User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1026 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 15479 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 96):

I doubt it can. Those dendrites seem like microscopic formations deep inside the battery cell, near the electrodes.
You'd probably need to tear the battery cells apart to find them, which sounds more like an autopsy than an in-service check.

In an investigation like this they typically will do a destructive examination of "good" batteries and at least 10X of the number of batteries that have failed.

Thus, I suspect that they have in fact disassembled at least 20 batteries that have decent service life on them looking for developing problems. While I have heard that they are looking for dendrites - I have not heard a thing about finding any.

Have a great day,


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 15432 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 99):
In an investigation like this they typically will do a destructive examination of "good" batteries and at least 10X of the number of batteries that have failed.

Thus, I suspect that they have in fact disassembled at least 20 batteries that have decent service life on them looking for developing problems. While I have heard that they are looking for dendrites - I have not heard a thing about finding any.

francoflier was commenting on Stitch's comment that they could inspect the batteries on the planes to see if they were still OK or needed replacing. I would doubt that is possible if you want to find dendritres.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 101, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 14809 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 100):
francoflier was commenting on Stitch's comment that they could inspect the batteries on the planes to see if they were still OK or needed replacing. I would doubt that is possible if you want to find dendritres.

On the plane would be nice, but I would expect that if a non-invasive procedure could be designed, it would be performed off the plane.

In other news, Scott Hamilton believes that Boeing can return the 787 to service within 3-4 months.

LOT has also announced they are suspending 787 operations until October for scheduling reasons.

[Edited 2013-02-14 07:26:57]

User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 52
Reply 102, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14591 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 93):
Point is it is all relative. BOS Fire Captain could have decided not to send anyone inside and let it burn out, because there is no one inside.

Yes - but it unlikely. Fire fighters are equipped and trained to enter areas of immediate life hazard - we do it carefully, but we do it. We do not limit it to only cases where 'lives are at risk'.
If I were IC on this fire - based on what I've heard and read, I would likely make entry and attempt to remove the battery/extinguish it.
As I said in a post many moons ago - it would take a lot of 'guts' for a fire crew to decide - let the containment handle it - even if they were sure it would. And -they do NOT have the detailed knowledge of the design to make that decision. You cannot learn to this level of detail on every craft. You learn "techniques" like - dealing with battery fires....

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 95):
There is a fire in an air plane standing at a building with thousands of People inside.
You expect the fire department to let the fire in the plane continue and take the risk that the whole plane catches fire?

No

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 95):
In flight ANA the battery has a thermal runaway but fails to catch fire.

I think the ANA battery did burn.

Quoting cornutt (Reply 98):
I don't think they would have done that because the aircraft was parked at a gate. In that case, there's always the possibility of the fire spreading to adjacent aircraft, or the concourse building. Had the aircraft been parked at some far corner of the airport, it might have been different.

Yes. But likely if they felt it safe - they would have intervened.



rcair1
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 103, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 102):
I think the ANA battery did burn.

Some of the cells suffered damage from the heat generated by the runaway, but the JTSB did not officially classify it as a fire. So it sounds more like smoldering with heat then open flames.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 104, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 14147 times:

I was thinking about the public relations impact of the 787 trouble today, as I was sitting next to this guy on a transcontinental flight across the US. He seemed reasonably educated and was maybe in his early 30s. At some point he was reading an article about the 787 troubles preventing JAL from opening some routes. He started chatting with me, and we talked about how funny it is that a small battery causes a major airliner to be grounded for a long time. So far so good...

Then he explained to me that the United Arab Emirates is the first airline to use the new 787 jet. He had been on a flight somewhere, and the captain had told that the new 787 jet is next to them. He explained how the plane was at least four times as large as the one they were on, and had two passenger decks. Uh oh... the A380 effect.

So much for the accuracy of public's view about aviation matters and aircraft models. The only thing that matters is size, and the only thing that they remember is that huge plane. If the press talks about some new aircraft, it must be that plane.

[Edited 2013-02-14 14:12:22]

User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13968 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 104):
I was thinking about the public relations impact of the 787 trouble today

The 787 has been getting bad press since production delays began in 2008 -- that's a 5 year run. The only reason McNerney still has a job is that he doesn't have the guts to fire himself.


User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1026 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13943 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 105):

The 787 has been getting bad press since production delays began in 2008 -- that's a 5 year run. The only reason McNerney still has a job is that he doesn't have the guts to fire himself.

As much as it may seem otherwise here on A-Net. The 787 is just one modest program of many that Boeing has; and the vast majority of the other programs are doing very well (and the press ignores them).

Over the years that the 787 Project has existed Boeing's financials have been very good. No reason to think that McNerney's overall job performance is unacceptable.

Have a great day,


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13917 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 106):
The 787 is just one modest program of many that Boeing has

That is simply not true. The 787 is Boeing's flagship program. many senior managers have been given the heave-ho by McNerney over the past 5 years due the 787 missteps -- the only reason he has survived to date is that he is also COB.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 108, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13857 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 105):
The only reason McNerney still has a job is that he doesn't have the guts to fire himself.

The shareholders are the one who have the power to remove him.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13787 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):
On the plane would be nice, but I would expect that if a non-invasive procedure could be designed, it would be performed off the plane.

Having to remove the battery for a non-invasive process that does not exist yet does not sound too solid a concept at this point in time.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13668 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):
LOT has also announced they are suspending 787 operations until October for scheduling reasons.

They made the kind of public comment that Boeing would not want to see.

The decision is “the result of uncertainlty,” said LOT spokesman Marek Klucinski said. “We want to carry our passangers in a forseeable and safe way.”


User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13598 times:

Just noticed that LOT has grounded the 787 through October. IMHO I think that's a bit extreme.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayi...ts-through-october-poland/1919983/


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 112, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13563 times:

Reading between the lines of this story, it look as if the two test flights have afforded no additional clues as to what may have caused the two fires:-

"(Reuters) - Two test flights of Boeing Co's 787 Dreamliner have not revealed the cause of the battery malfunctions that grounded the jets, leaving it to focus on low-tech interim fixes, the Wall Street Journal said, citing government and industry officials.

"More test flights are planned, including efforts to assess potential fixes, although no significant new clues emerged to help pinpoint the cause of the problem, the Journal said.

"Boeing is now considering putting the lithium ion batteries in a sturdier container to stop heat, flames and toxic chemicals from escaping if the power packs overheat, the newspaper said.

"People familiar with the design of the container told the Journal that titanium is a possible material for its construction."


http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...amliner-test-idUKBRE91D06N20130214

It begins to look as if Boeing will just have to try to persuade the FAA that 'containment' will be enough for now; allowing the aeroplanes to return to service, while Boeing continues intensive testing and evaluation of the existing batteries, or alternatively considers eventually specifying different ones.

In my view that can be expected to move things to the 'political' level. The Federal Aviation Authority will likely be 'in the hot seat' - with Boeing arguing that two incidents, only one while the aeroplane was in the air, do not justify grounding an entire type indefinitely, especially if the containment has been beefed-up; and the National Transportation Safety Board pushing for a complete redesign and re-certification before the 787 re-enters service.



"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, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13468 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 112):
In my view that can be expected to move things to the 'political' level. The Federal Aviation Authority will likely be 'in the hot seat' - with Boeing arguing that two incidents, only one while the aeroplane was in the air,

I don't understand that 'only one while the plane was in the air' line of reasoning.

For example.

a) An engine fell off, but no while it was in the air.
b) There was a general power failure, but not while it was in the air.
c) The cockpit caught fire, but not while it was in the air.

In each case, it was lucky the plane was not in the air, but luck doesn't really count as an argument in favour of the planes safety.

As for the time to create a fix, it's taking a long enough time already to find the cause. At least with QF32, they could identify the cause relatively quickly and with some certainty, and they could do inspections to check for the problem easily.

The problem for Boeing is that it's so hard to just even know exactly what went wrong and why. The NTSB report is out in early March. Hopefully, they can add some certainty to this.


User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1470 posts, RR: 8
Reply 114, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13254 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 105):

The 787 has been getting bad press since production delays began in 2008 -- that's a 5 year run. The only reason McNerney still has a job is that he doesn't have the guts to fire himself.
Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 107):
That is simply not true. The 787 is Boeing's flagship program. many senior managers have been given the heave-ho by McNerney over the past 5 years due the 787 missteps -- the only reason he has survived to date is that he is also COB.

The train wreck that is the 787 was already in place when McNerney took over, he was just stuck with Mullaly's mess and some messes are harder to clean up than others. If senior managers hadn't been given the "heave-ho" to try and "right the ship" he wouldn't have been doing his job and then he should have been fired.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 29
Reply 115, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13033 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 106):
The 787 is just one modest program

That's a good one.   

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2212 posts, RR: 5
Reply 116, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12779 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 102):
As I said in a post many moons ago - it would take a lot of 'guts' for a fire crew to decide - let the containment handle it - even if they were sure it would.

Absolutely. They even had to assume that the containment had failed, because otherwise they wouldn't have noticed at all that there was a fire.

So the following definition for a containment is not a good basis for the future IMO:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 59):
The connectors that go through the containment vessel appear to have been melted, it might be that was producing the visible flames. If so it could be visually impressive, bad to breathe, but no threat to the plane as that quanity of burning plastic wouldn't produce much heat at all.

For that to be acceptable the certification requirements would have to be rewritten as follows:
a.) No cell is allowed to ever reach unsafe temperatures ... bla bla bla ...
x.) But - if the battery burns, no quantity of burning plastic may reach the surrounding compartment that produces more than visible and impressive flames, that make it hard to breathe....

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 107):
The 787 is Boeing's flagship program.

It is and it will stay. What is currently going on does not impact the long term prospects. It does "only" reduce profitability and lengthen the time to break-even.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 112):
The Federal Aviation Authority will likely be 'in the hot seat' - with Boeing arguing that two incidents, only one while the aeroplane was in the air, do not justify grounding an entire type indefinitely, especially if the containment has been beefed-up; and the National Transportation Safety Board pushing for a complete redesign and re-certification before the 787 re-enters service.

The FAA will not sign off the 787 on Boeing's word a second time IMO. They will take care, that the battery will never start burning again.

If another case would happen in the near future, maybe far away from an airport, their reputation probably goes down the drain no matter whether the containment works or not. They don't want to be the guys that cleared "shacky" Boeing technology a second time (in the eyes of the public).

I also think that the place where the two incidents took place (in air or on the ground) is irrelevant. RickNRoll is completely right about that one.

There are no relaxed requirements while the aircraft is on the ground.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 117, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12581 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 116):
For that to be acceptable the certification requirements would have to be rewritten as follows:
a.) No cell is allowed to ever reach unsafe temperatures ... bla bla bla ...
x.) But - if the battery burns, no quantity of burning plastic may reach the surrounding compartment that produces more than visible and impressive flames, that make it hard to breathe....

really dude? you might note that on the ground there is no requirements for smoke in the cabin. There was no airflow to cool the outside of the containment vessel like there would be in flight. So your points about the JAL fire have 0 merit.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2212 posts, RR: 5
Reply 118, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12436 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 117):
You might note that on the ground there is no requirements for smoke in the cabin. There was no airflow to cool the outside of the containment vessel like there would be in flight. So your points about the JAL fire have 0 merit.

Your claim is completely wrong. Show me where the certification requirements do differ between in-air and on-ground. I have read them and they don't support your dangerous attitude with one word.

According to your understanding of safety a fire on the ground during de-boarding would be acceptable due to lack of airflow to cool the outside of the containment. This is of course nonsense. Do you really believe that the 787 does not need to be safe when there is "no airflow"? E.g. while stuck in a queue on a taxiway prior departure? I am sure that the 787 is safely designed also while on ground with and without airflows. Because it must be.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12295 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 118):
According to your understanding of safety a fire on the ground during de-boarding would be acceptable due to lack of airflow to cool the outside of the containment. This is of course nonsense. Do you really believe that the 787 does not need to be safe when there is "no airflow"? E.g. while stuck in a queue on a taxiway prior departure? I am sure that the 787 is safely designed also while on ground with and without airflows. Because it must be

That is the way it is designed, but IIRC, some of the deadliest plane fires have been on the ground, now that you put it that way. Another FAA requirement or specification that possibly needs clearing up. Do other planes have similar requirements?


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 120, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12203 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 118):
According to your understanding of safety a fire on the ground during de-boarding would be acceptable due to lack of airflow to cool the outside of the containment. This is of course nonsense. Do you really believe that the 787 does not need to be safe when there is "no airflow"?

Misunderstanding here, I think. As far as I know, the aeroplane on the ground had been 'shut down' for the best part of half an hour? And had no passengers or crew aboard? So there was no question of "a fire on the ground during de-boarding."?

If that's so, we could very well be looking at two problems, not one. The first (most serious) one being a malfunction in flight, the second being problems when a parked aeroplane was switched to the local 'ground power' for recharging etc. - only too possible, given that there are wide variations, worldwide, in voltage, amperage, etc.?

Stand by my view that the malfunction in flight was (and remains) by far the most serious issue.

[Edited 2013-02-15 04:14:28]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12279 posts, RR: 47
Reply 121, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12101 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 112):
It begins to look as if Boeing will just have to try to persuade the FAA that 'containment' will be enough for now; allowing the aeroplanes to return to service, while Boeing continues intensive testing and evaluation of the existing batteries, or alternatively considers eventually specifying different ones.

I don't see the grounding being lifted unless something changes. There's no way the FAA will simply change their mind if a root cause cannot be clearly identified.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 120):
Misunderstanding here, I think. As far as I know, the aeroplane on the ground had been 'shut down' for the best part of half an hour? And had no passengers or crew aboard? There was no question of "a fire on the ground during de-boarding."?

I think rheinwaldner's question was hypothetical, not referring specifically to the Boston incident.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11963 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 120):
Misunderstanding here, I think. As far as I know, the aeroplane on the ground had been 'shut down' for the best part of half an hour? And had no passengers or crew aboard? So there was no question of "a fire on the ground during de-boarding."?

This is the first of the special condition for certification of the batteries:

(1) Safe cell temperatures and
pressures must be maintained during
any foreseeable charging or discharging
condition and during any failure of the
charging or battery monitoring system
not shown to be extremely remote. The
lithium ion battery installation must
preclude explosion in the event of those
failures.

I would assume that this applies also when the aircraft is on the ground when it is "powered" because every time when the aircraft is powered up by ground power or the APU, the battery chargers are powered. On top of that, as we all know by now the battery is used to start the APU on the ground, and provide power for emergency lighting for disembarking on ground.


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11662 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 114):
The train wreck that is the 787 was already in place when McNerney took over, he was just stuck with Mullaly's mess and some messes are harder to clean up than others. If senior managers hadn't been given the "heave-ho" to try and "right the ship" he wouldn't have been doing his job and then he should have been fired.

McNerney was named CEO by the board in late 2005, well before things started to go south. Mullaly bolted for Ford--for which has done an outstanding job--due to the board bypassing him in favor of McNerney. I have no issue with McNerney firing senior executives as a means to improve the performance of the 787 program, but obviously those firings had no effect on the meltdown. McNerney is also COB, which is a built-in conflict of interest that blurs the lines between oversight and execution duties as it relates to the performance of the company under the leadership of senior management. IMO he should have been out in and around 2011 when deliveries slipped beyond 3 years late--he has demonstrated neither the ability to avoid the crisis nor lead Boeing out of it--he is part of the problem.


User currently offlinePugman211 From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11477 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Its a shame we dont know more info about these 2 test flights. what were they testing/looking for etc. These 2 incidents have happened to in service aircraft, has Boeing tried to replicate the incidents using ground power?? Basically, do 2 - 3 test flights in a day with an aircraft as if it was in service to see if that replicates any symtoms, whether it be inflight or whilst on the ground. What is the sequence of events for a normal days ops for the 787 i.e,

ground power to start APU,
APU to start engines,
test flight to somewhere for a few hours (testing inflight)
land and park, back onto ground power as you would if in service whilst aircraft is prep'd for next flight.
ground power to start APU or APU battery
APU to start engines,
test flight back to base etc

Its another angle of approach but could shed some light if nothing is being discovered in test flights.


User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1470 posts, RR: 8
Reply 125, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11496 times:

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 123):
McNerney was named CEO by the board in late 2005, well before things started to go south. Mullaly bolted for Ford

The underlying issues that created the problems in design and manufacturing were present when the Board voted to offer the airplane for sale a year and a half before McNerney came on board, but you are right Mullaly "bolted" before the xxxx hit the fan.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 126, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11495 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 123):
IMO he should have been out in and around 2011 when deliveries slipped beyond 3 years late--he has demonstrated neither the ability to avoid the crisis nor lead Boeing out of it--he is part of the problem.

So who should have replaced him? Mullaly was not going to leave Ford to come back.


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11660 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 126):
So who should have replaced him? Mullaly was not going to leave Ford to come back.

The board has a succession plan, they need to exercise it.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3361 posts, RR: 26
Reply 128, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11520 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 123):
McNerney was named CEO by the board in late 2005, well before things started to go south. Mullaly bolted for Ford--for which has done an outstanding job--

Some people need to look at Boeing's org chart before making absurd statements..Mullaly was never CEO.. he was President of Commercial Airplanes, a job now held by Conner..(there have been several people in this function since Mullaly left). I believe Albaugh was in the post when much of the internal sleeping was going on. While McKerney has at at the helm, he relies on the sub company presidents to run their businesses.
Mullaly leaving.. he left because when McKerney became CEO, Mullaly was no longer in the succession plan for CEO because he would be too old when McKerney retired. (Plus Ford offered a hefty reward for joining them).

So yell for heads to roll and make accusations, , but it won't change what the board thinks is the right course.

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 124):
Its a shame we dont know more info about these 2 test flights.

Actually it's a relief that some information remains internal since we have so many unqualified armchair quarterbacks. As I noted earlier, after tests they have to review the data and design new tests, get FAA concurrence for both the test and flight, revise instrumentation, and then go.. it's not an overnight process. They may even have found something that can be further tested in the lab making another flight unnecessary at this time.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 129, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11492 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ServantLeader (Reply 127):
The board has a succession plan, they need to exercise it.

That succession plan is in place in the event McNerney is killed or incapacitated. And that successor would continue to execute corporate policy as McNerney has done, so nothing would change.


User currently offlineServantLeader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11425 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 130):
That succession plan is in place in the event McNerney is killed or incapacitated. And that successor would continue to execute corporate policy as McNerney has done, so nothing would change.

That's a cynical view corporate governance and a low expectation of the role of the CEO. If it is as simple as executing corporate policy then why do CEOs get paid so much? McNerney is a textbook modern day disconnected CEO incapable of true leadership.


User currently offlineMigPilot From Germany, joined Nov 2005, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10920 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 132):

pot, may I introduce you to the kettle?

Actually I think Boeing has already learned its lesson. The next project will be different from the "dreamliner", I reckon. Hopefully Airbus watches closely.


User currently offlinealfablue From Spain, joined Jan 2013, 42 posts, RR: 10
Reply 132, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10736 times:

It's about "FAA Grounds 787, Thread 9" -- that includes management mistakes or shortcomings leading to this situation. This threat is not limited to batteries.

IMO recent developments have made it impossible now for Boeing to stick with that technology (type of battery and containment). Airbus officially pulled those batteries now from the A350 and ICAO will not allow the transportation of those batteries in Passenger planes as cargo which makes it very hard to get spare ones to stranded Dreamliners unless you pay for a dedicated cargo plane.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ery-to-avoid-787-lithium-woes.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...e-shipped-on-passenger-planes.html

alfaBlue

[Edited 2013-02-15 14:03:04]

[Edited 2013-02-15 14:03:58]

[Edited 2013-02-16 01:20:19 by SA7700]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 133, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10770 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting alfablue (Reply 136):
IMO recent developments have made it impossible now for Boeing to stick with that technology (type of battery and containment).

It appears that the 787's electrical system is designed around Li-Ion batteries so Boeing may have no choice but to continue forward with them, first with a demonstrable-capable containment system and then with a new formulation that is far less susceptible to thermal runaway.


User currently offlinebradmovie From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10611 times:

Stitch, what does it mean exactly that "the 787's electrical system is designed around Li-Ion batteries..."? How does the downstream electrical system react differently to the battery than it would if it were a NiCad or other traditional battery? From what I've read the Li-ion battery may be faster to provide power, and lighter weight. Is it that it starts the APU better?

I am not very knowledgeable about batteries, and did not know that electrical systems needed to be designed differently for a different battery. Does that mean some of the electrical components in the 787's systems also found on other aircraft have had to be changed to accommodate the Li-Ion battery? If so, I could certainly understand Boeing's reluctance to change battery types--the repercussions would be timely and expensive.

On the other hand, seeing that Airbus has dropped Li-Ion from the A350, how important is it for Boeing to stick with this technology? It seems with the difficulty of finding provable causes for the two battery incidents, and the anticipated design changes that must be coming, not to mention the politics of the FAA and NTSB, that at some point it could be a much wiser course for Boeing to take a slight weight penalty and go back to proven battery technology.

What I'm getting at, are more knowledgeable posters beginning to think that this may be the way to go?

Thanks.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6374 posts, RR: 54
Reply 135, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10338 times:

Quoting alfablue (Reply 136):
IMO recent developments have made it impossible now for Boeing to stick with that technology (type of battery and containment). Airbus officially pulled those batteries now from the A350 and ICAO will not allow the transportation of those batteries in Passenger planes as cargo which makes it very hard to get spare ones to stranded Dreamliners unless you pay for a dedicated cargo plane.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ery-to-avoid-787-lithium-woes.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0....html

Thanks, alfablue, for posting these two links. I think that your conclusion is very valid. To me this issue seems now to have been settled.

At least Airbus has put their potential issue to rest.

And it seems more and more impossible for Boeing to protect the Li-Ion battery in what becomes a more and more uphill battle. ICAO banning spare batteries on pax planes is a new and important one. That means not only "cargo plane", but "hazardous goods" on cargo plane - that is in itself not an unimportant issue, making things a lot more complicated (it being by plane, ship, train or truck), and many cargo companies simply don't deal with hazardous goods.

But there are many more issues left, even if Boeing and the FAA come to an agreement on a containment system and reliability in general. Airline insurance companies, PR in general, and the fact that airlines, when the 787 flies again, want to tell their pax that they are on the world's most modern airliner, and they are not test dolls on a hopefully properly fixed problem plane.

Quoting bradmovie (Reply 138):
How does the downstream electrical system react differently to the battery than it would if it were a NiCad or other traditional battery? From what I've read the Li-ion battery may be faster to provide power, and lighter weight. Is it that it starts the APU better?

Right bradmovie. The downstream equipment in an 28VDC environment has no idea from what chemistry its electron flow was generated. But the charging and monitoring logic must be changed - copy and paste from 737, 747, 757, 767 or 777.

For the same capacity NiCad is slightly better delivering power at the critical condition - when they are cold. But they charge more slowly. They must be conditioned (fully cycled) once in a while to maintain proper capacity for many years (memory effect). And energy density is only about 40% of Li-Ion, meaning they are 2½ times heavier. So 2 x 30 kg become more like 2 x 75 kg = 90 kg more. That means 90 kg less fuel on a MTOW take-off, and almost 10 miles reduced range. And it means roughly 0.05% increased fuel consumption, give and take quite a bit depending on payload and sector length.

NiCads also take up more space, not 2½ times more, but still enough so I can't imagine them taking the space allowed for the Li-Ions in the E&E bays. But honestly, whatever the chemistry, batteries should not be placed in E&E bays. They belong to battery bays where can do all their nasty things without doing any harm except some mess in the battery bay.

So my best guess is a slightly reduced underfloor cargo space. Which may have the unlucly effect that one less standard container can be loaded.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 136, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10218 times:

I guess that we should formally recognize that the Boeing 787-800 has now been grounded for 1 month..


BV
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 137, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10207 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bradmovie (Reply 138):
Stitch, what does it mean exactly that "the 787's electrical system is designed around Li-Ion batteries..."?

I don't know. The folks saying this in media reports don't say why.   



Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 139):
So my best guess is a slightly reduced underfloor cargo space. Which may have the unlucly effect that one less standard container can be loaded.

I'd be surprised if the battery pack was moved to the cargo bay. I would guess they'll strap them to the floor of the EE bay.


User currently online7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1470 posts, RR: 8
Reply 138, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10029 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 141):
Quoting bradmovie (Reply 138):Stitch, what does it mean exactly that "the 787's electrical system is designed around Li-Ion batteries..."?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 141):
I don't know. The folks saying this in media reports don't say why.

Folks saying that in the media are "aeronautically challenged".

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 139):
The downstream equipment in an 28VDC environment has no idea from what chemistry its electron flow was generated.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 139, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9956 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 142):

Folks saying that in the media are "aeronautically challenged".

Bit of a sweeping statement that...

Li-ion has different charge and discharge characteristics than Ni-cad, its just possible that the 787 systems rely on a specific Li-ion characteristic differences for correct functioning.



BV
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12779 posts, RR: 100
Reply 140, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9903 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kanban (Reply 26):
There probably is a Designated Representative (DR) on board, and from personal experience they are tougher than the agency they represent.

Agree on both parts. DRs (they have other names too) are very tough. They tend to like using ex-military types who know their stuff.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 140):

I guess that we should formally recognize that the Boeing 787-800 has now been grounded for 1 month..

Already!?! Only thread #9.  


Most of the rest of this thread is speculation that seems to go around all the 787 threads... but there are useful tidbits.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 141, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9761 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 143):
Li-ion has different charge and discharge characteristics than Ni-cad, its just possible that the 787 systems rely on a specific Li-ion characteristic differences for correct functioning.

Maybe the APU starter. Most avionics won't care; they have to convert the battery voltage to lower voltages anyway, so as long as they're getting something in the 24-32V range, they don't care.


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 142, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9647 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 143):
Li-ion has different charge and discharge characteristics than Ni-cad, its just possible that the 787 systems rely on a specific Li-ion characteristic differences for correct functioning.

This could apply to the brakes.

Conventional braking system on aircrafts relay on hydraulic accumulator pressure as last resort power for the brakes in case of hydraulic failure.

I would assume that the battery has to be capable to power the brakes in case of a total generator failure on the 787 since the brakes are electrically powered, and they possibly draw a lot of current when applied to the maximum.


User currently offlinejox From Sweden, joined Jan 2003, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 143, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9591 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yesterday, I came across a guy that had a theory that is quite different from the ones I have read about here.

The 787 differs from most airliners in another way, besides the LiIon batteries - right? The composite airframe! This guy ha a theory that older fuselages acted as a Faraday cage to the static electricity (that is generated by the friction(?) between the fuselage and the surrounding air), and held the induced currents outside (or rather within the aluminum). But now, with a composite construction, that cage isn't there any more - thus making the plane being a "flying capacitor" - and that the induced currents in the long wires connected to the batteries could then charge the batteries without passing the normal charging regulators etc. There could also be spikes and transients entering the batteries this way.

I know waaay to little about static electricity etc to comment on this - what do you others think? Is this even something Mythbusters could call plausible or busted?


User currently offlineRicknRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9582 times:

Doesn't make sense to me. Besides that, the skin has to have enough conductivity to handle lightening strikes. IIRC, they have a conductive mesh embedded in it for that purpose.

User currently offlineStarglider From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 677 posts, RR: 44
Reply 145, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9413 times:

Quoting jox (Reply 147):
But now, with a composite construction, that cage isn't there any more - thus making the plane being a "flying capacitor" - and that the induced currents in the long wires connected to the batteries could then charge the batteries without passing the normal charging regulators etc. There could also be spikes and transients entering the batteries this way.
Quoting RicknRoll (Reply 148):
Doesn't make sense to me. Besides that, the skin has to have enough conductivity to handle lightening strikes. IIRC, they have a conductive mesh embedded in it for that purpose.

The 787 has a current return network (CRN) in its design to address these issues. I am sure the CRN will also be part of the investigation.

Best Regards,

Starglider


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 146, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9360 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 144):
I would assume that the battery has to be capable to power the brakes in case of a total generator failure on the 787 since the brakes are electrically powered, and they possibly draw a lot of current when applied to the maximum.

Yes, powering the brakes is a function of the ship battery in the case of a total electrical failure.



BV
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 147, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9139 times:

I do not understand this talk why it should be nearly impossible for Being to revert to nickel cadmium batteries.
Apart from the circuitry directly controlling the charging and discharging of the Li ion battery the rest of the system should not know about what type of battery is behind the voltage and ampere flowing.
The charging and discharging control units should be modular stuff you either take out and replace or geld and but in the new stuff parallel.

What could be the Problems:

1.Li ion gives you the full voltage longer while discharging.

Answer, go for a bigger battery and do not discharge as much or go to a Battery with a higher voltage and use a DC to DC converter to keep the right Voltage.

2.Li ion allows you to draw more ampere or watt per second than nickel cadmium battery of the same size.

Answer, I believe it is the other way round but if not go for a bigger battery.

3.You do not have enough voltage to charge the new battery.

Answer, go for a DC to DC converter, you can up the voltage.

4.It is to much work to do the certification.

Answer, you have of the shelf already certified circuitry including chargers used in other planes, you have certified batteries in other planes, you have one of the best groups of engineers in the industry, how hard can it be?
If you need space but a box in the cargo hold.

I think it is better to take the weight increase and get flying again.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2591 posts, RR: 5
Reply 148, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8937 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 147):
bigger battery

My understanding from reading the many threads on this subject is that a bigger battery would require some significant structural modifications - perhaps even a complete redesign of the bay - to allow a bigger battery to fit. It is therefore not simple at all.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 149, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8903 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 148):
My understanding from reading the many threads on this subject is that a bigger battery would require some significant structural modifications - perhaps even a complete redesign of the bay - to allow a bigger battery to fit. It is therefore not simple at all.

Also the problem of physically getting it through the hatch and manoeuvring a battery that would be expected to weigh 65kg, 144lbs using only human power because of the tight confines. At this kind of weight practicality might dictate that you have to use 2 batteries which means other stuff ends up being redesigned too.



BV
User currently offlineaudidudi From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8903 times:

The Qatar B788 A7-BCK at LHR has just been towed from BA Engineering Base towards T4. I don't have confirmation yet that it is on stand there, but if so then it must be getting ready to ferry back to DOH!


Update....it has been parked adjacent to T4, near the Royal Suite.










[Edited 2013-02-16 06:32:38]

User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 151, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8643 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 148):
My understanding from reading the many threads on this subject is that a bigger battery would require some significant structural modifications - perhaps even a complete redesign of the bay - to allow a bigger battery to fit. It is therefore not simple at all.
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 149):
Also the problem of physically getting it through the hatch and manoeuvring a battery that would be expected to weigh 65kg, 144lbs using only human power because of the tight confines. At this kind of weight practicality might dictate that you have to use 2 batteries which means other stuff ends up being redesigned too

Put a box into the cargo hold to keep the batteries until you do a redesign.
I have anyway the question if having the batteries in the e-bays was a good idea.
If one battery is to heavy to handle take a size you can handle and take more of them.
Two half size take the same space as one full size.
Nothing some good engineers should not be able to handle.

In the Cessna business jet they had to exchange the lithium ion battery for a nickel cadmium and did it.
Must have been similar problems.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 152, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8703 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 151):
Put a box into the cargo hold to keep the batteries until you do a redesign.

Since NiCad batteries can catch fire or leak, would having them in the cargo hold be a new risk? Also, what about worries about damage from the box being hit with LD3s or pallets? Then there is running the wiring looms and such from the hold to the bays - are their risks involved there, as well?

Would all this have to be tested and certified? And if so, how long would that take?

Or would the FAA/EASA/Etc. just issue a waiver because NiCads are better known than Li-Ion and therefore what could possibly go wrong? If said waiver was issued, how would that play in the media and public?


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2350 posts, RR: 11
Reply 153, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8665 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 147):
If you need space but a box in the cargo hold.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 151):
Put a box into the cargo hold to keep the batteries until you do a redesign.

Not sure if this will fly. I would expect that NiCad also have containment and ventilation requirements. It may not be a good idea to put a high intense energy (both electric and chemical) accumulator in a cargo hold where other flammable stuff might be present, stuff where you have only limited control over it contents and movements.

That might be a much larger fire hazard than the existing design, as there is basically nothing to burn in the EE bays (except from the battery itself and it’s electrolytes.

So as I understand (this may be incorrect, please correct me if I’m mistaken), any replacement type battery should still be placed in the same general area for the above requirements. Adapting a cargo hold would mean a very significant redesign of multiple other systems, and you still have containment issues which may be worse than what you are trying to solve.

Rgds,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 154, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8633 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 152):
Since NiCad batteries can catch fire or leak, would having them in the cargo hold be a new risk? Also, what about worries about damage from the box being hit with LD3s or pallets? Then there is running the wiring looms and such from the hold to the bays - are their risks involved there, as well?

Would all this have to be tested and certified? And if so, how long would that take?

Or would the FAA/EASA/Etc. just issue a waiver because NiCads are better known than Li-Ion and therefore what could possibly go wrong? If said waiver was issued, how would that play in the media and public?

The danger from the NiCads catching fire or leaking is far lower than of lithium ion, it is comparable a rather robust design.
If I talk about a box I do not talk about a paper box, but something keeping the battery save, you sound like the e-bay on the B787 has some special armour.
Running the wiring looms should be no problem, you have similar looms all through the plane.
On some air planes there are extra tanks installed or removed in the cargo hold, like the business versions of A320 and B737, are you afraid of pallets hitting them?

I started writing this as some people talk about the exchange of battery type on this plane would be a major redesign.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 155, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8631 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 147):
I do not understand this talk why it should be nearly impossible for Being to revert to nickel cadmium batteries.

Not impossible as much as not practical. The problems are space and time. Technically it can obviously be done.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 156, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8587 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 155):
Not impossible as much as not practical. The problems are space and time. Technically it can obviously be done.

They found the space in a Cessna.

Why do some think that the recertification of the lithium ion takes less time than changing the battery to known technology?
Does somebody imagines that the B 787 will fly again with the current battery in the current containment?


User currently offlineaudidudi From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 157, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8577 times:

Qatar's B788 has now been towed back to BA Enginerring Base, so no imminent ferry flight back to DOH. At least there was a little temporary excitement here at LHR!

[Edited 2013-02-16 08:14:42]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30397 posts, RR: 84
Reply 158, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8570 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 154):
If I talk about a box I do not talk about a paper box, but something keeping the battery save, you sound like the e-bay on the B787 has some special armour.

Not special armor, but it does have a metal containment box. And it's not susceptible to external impacts.



Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 154):
Running the wiring looms should be no problem, you have similar looms all through the plane.

Yes, but those runs were all designed into the structure from the beginning.



Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 156):
Does somebody imagines that the B 787 will fly again with the current battery in the current containment?

No, because it evidently cannot meet the original special requirements.

But that in no way means Boeing cannot develop a new containment system that does meet the special requirements and then prove it meets the special requirements via testing.

If Boeing has to, they can send up ZA005 with the crew strapped into parachutes, fly her out over the Pacific, and then set fire to the battery in the bay and let it burn and see if the plane can still fly for 330 minutes and land safely.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 159, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8489 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 158):
Not special armor, but it does have a metal containment box. And it's not susceptible to external impacts.

I am getting a little bit tired of the metal containment box.

As a containment it did not work. In Boston it did not contain the flames, in Japan it did not contain flammable liquid or the vapours.
And before that starts again, flammable liquid is not something unspecified but a defined hazard.

Without the metal case there is no battery, just some electrical circuits and 8 single cells, quite difficult to handle without a box around it.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 160, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8462 times:

Just a question, were is the battery in a B 777, 747, 767, 737 an what containment is there for the NiCad battery.

User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3361 posts, RR: 26
Reply 161, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8457 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 159):
I am getting a little bit tired of the metal containment box.

A metal containment box is a regulatory requirement at this time.. and probably would remain even with a battery type change.
The containment did work .. as noted in many previous posts the containment was designed to allow vapors to prevent pressure build up and explosion. The electrolyte is a paste and when heated appears to run about as fast as hot molasses that solidifies as it cools.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 162, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8432 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 161):
A metal containment box is a regulatory requirement at this time.. and probably would remain even with a battery type change.
The containment did work .. as noted in many previous posts the containment was designed to allow vapors to prevent pressure build up and explosion. The electrolyte is a paste and when heated appears to run about as fast as hot molasses that solidifies as it cools.

Flammable liquid is a defined hazard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammable_liquid

Are yo implying that the NTSB does not know what they are talking about?


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 163, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8393 times:

The "containment" for the battery was never design to contain what happened.

It was not taken in account that the thermal runaway of one cell in the battery would induce the thermal runaway of the rest of them.

The thing happening twice was not expected to happen ever.

That the non containment of a flammable liquid in an electric bay is acceptable as contained is only possible if you are sure that the flammable liquid is not a danger by itself.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2922 posts, RR: 29
Reply 164, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8195 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 162):
Flammable liquid is a defined hazard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammab...iquid

Spare us Wiki - please! First, it's completely irrelevant - the only definitions that apply in this context are those in the FARs (and equivalent regulations in other jurisdictions). Secondly, there are electrical, battery and aeronautical engineers posting on this thread who have much more relevant knowledge and experience than Wiki - should you choose to acknowledge their expertise.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3361 posts, RR: 26
Reply 165, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8091 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kanban (Reply 161):
Are yo implying that the NTSB does not know what they are talking about?

no I'm implying that someone has not read the volumes of posts by knowledgeable people including a fire chief before making rash statements and rehashing discounted ideas..

We are still trying to establish the flashpoint for the electrolyte in both the paste stage and in the molasses stage. All things become flammable at some point, however it appears that the electrolyte needs a much higher temperature than would be found outside the containment. Also the normal lower lobe venting system did remove the vapors allowing the air mixture to reduce the concentration well below any chance of ignition.

Again based on design and vendor data, the containment box was designed for a 1 in 1M chance. it did it's job, could it have done more , yes. However the first task is to understand the failure and reduce that to an acceptable risk level. then look at modifications to the containment box. note when the change a battery, the box and all are removed and replaced as a single LRU.. so it is not opened in the plane to service.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 166, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8009 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 164):
Quoting kanban (Reply 165):

The NTSB is talking about flammable liquids. If you do not like the Wikipedia please give me another official definition of flammable liquid, the Wikipedia definition matches with the one in my handbook regarding fire fighting.

instead of Wikipedia: http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/flammable/flam.html

Regarding the electrolyte in a lithium ion battery, there are two I know of, ethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate.
One is a flammable liquid the other a combustible liquid according to the definitions I know.