max999
Topic Author
Posts: 946
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:46 pm

There seems to be something wrong with a.net this morning and it's keeping me from posting the link. You'll need to copy and paste the URL below into your browser

Quote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578227621155767836.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Quote:

The fire was in the aft electrical equipment bay, where electrical problems and an earlier in-flight Dreamliner fire have been reported. In 2010, an electrical fire in the same bay forced a Boeing test plane to make an emergency landing in Texas. More recently, a power panel in the bay prompted an emergency landing in New Orleans by a United Continental Holdings Inc. 787.

"This incident goes to the heart of the innovative side of the 787," said Hans Weber, president of TECOP International Inc., an aviation consulting group that specializes in aircraft certification. Mr. Weber remained concerned that spate of electrical issues aboard the 787 could make it more difficult for the plane to fly extended missions far from diversion airports.

The 787 was designed for long over-water routes between midsize cities that couldn't profitably accommodate a larger jet with more seats. It has had to meet a stringent set of regulations to ensure the jet can still fly safely in the event one of its two engines fail.

Those regulations include strict guidelines for the lithium ion batteries on the 787 because of concerns about the batteries' potential flammability.

During the 787's development, Boeing repeatedly affirmed that it complied with the expanded safety standards for the batteries, which are part of the aircraft's emergency power system.








[Edited 2013-01-08 05:51:44]
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:52 pm

If there's any basis to this the weight savings of Li over Ni could be the most expensive 10 kilos ever in a commercial program.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1680
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:18 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
If there's any basis to this the weight savings of Li over Ni could be the most expensive 10 kilos ever in a commercial program.

Maybe, but the 100kg Airbus saved with composite wing tie feet will cost them $200m odd so its the nature of the business.

I guess restricted ETOPS on the 787 would result in billion dollar program costs but we are not there yet.
BV
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:31 pm

Quoting max999 (Thread starter):
There seems to be something wrong with a.net this morning

You can't post direct links to the WSJ because it's behind a paywall. Use a Google News link, like this one.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:48 pm

I call BS on this one.

Quoting max999 (Thread starter):
"This incident goes to the heart of the innovative side of the 787,"

As mentioned in the other thread (hint, hint) there are many other products flying around with Li-Ion batteries in them, including the A380, so it isn't necessarily anything 787 specific.

It all could very well just be an unfortunate one-off incident, and there's no evidence this particular battery incident is a part of a pattern nor due to anything about the 787 itself.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1680
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:54 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
As mentioned in the other thread (hint, hint) there are many other products flying around with Li-Ion batteries in them, including the A380, so it isn't necessarily anything 787 specific.

Also as mentioned in the other thread all Li-ion batteries are not the same, Li-ion is a description of the reaction, construction materials are vastly different.
BV
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:12 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
Also as mentioned in the other thread all Li-ion batteries are not the same, Li-ion is a description of the reaction, construction materials are vastly different.

Indeed they can be quite different, but I can imagine batteries for aviation applications need to meet similar goals/requirements, so do we know that they are in fact "vastly different"?
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
yellowtail
Posts: 3719
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:46 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:59 pm

Was there another 788 incident....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100363734
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7681
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:03 pm

It is comforting these events share a common factor, if anything. It will be so much easier to design the necessary fixes. That is a good thing!
 
airbazar
Posts: 6874
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:35 pm

If the problem is the risk of a fire on board, it doesn't matter how many engines you have so how in the world does this tie in with ETOPS? A fire on board is the single biggest problem a crew can face. You have to land ASAP no matter how many engines you have. More engines are not going to somehow make an emergency airport materialize our of the empty ocean.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:38 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 9):
If the problem is the risk of a fire on board, it doesn't matter how many engines you have so how in the world does this tie in with ETOPS?

Fire suppression is a major component of ETOPS, which is no longer only about compensating for the lack of more than 2 engines, but is now more generally about improving safety for extended overwater operations.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6874
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:47 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 10):
Fire suppression is a major component of ETOPS, which is no longer only about compensating for the lack of more than 2 engines, but is now more generally about improving safety for extended overwater operations.

I get that but are you saying that quads don't have the same level of fire suppression? Is a fire on a A380 somehow less dangerous than on a 787 simply because the A380 has 4 engines?
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:21 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
If there's any basis to this the weight savings of Li over Ni could be the most expensive 10 kilos ever in a commercial program.

10 kg?

I don't know how heavy it is, but I know that among other things it must start the APU. The 787 APU is a massive piece of machinery, which delivers more power than a Merlin engine on a P-51 Mustang or Spitfire - up to 1.1 Mw electric power. A lot bigger than the traditional hydraulic/pheumatic airliners. I would bet on an entirely different battery mass to get that thing moving.

The alternative - NiCd - has roughly 40% of the Li-Ion power density. So any NiCd replacement would be roughly 2½ times heavier.

But if the 787 in the end will have to fly with 250 kg battery instead of 100 kg, then so be it. Just take out two seats, giving the rest a little more legroom. And add 1% to all fares, game over.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
mac3xx
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:34 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:28 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
Fire suppression is a major component of ETOPS, which is no longer only about compensating for the lack of more than 2 engines, but is now more generally about improving safety for extended overwater operations.

Fire suppression system can be installed in any comportment of an A/C but not in avionics bays (risk to damage electronics equipment when activated), most scaring event for crews is to face avionics smoke in flight. You can Imagine the atmosphere in the flight deck if you get the alarm in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, more the 200 minutes from the nearest airport. Think about it in CAA offices in charge of ETOPS regulation and certification.
mac3xx
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:31 pm

How many batteries does a B-787 have? We had two on the KC-135, both could be changed inflight. One battery was to start the APU, and the other one powered the hot battery buss. Our batteries were Ni-Cads and wighed about 50 lbs. each.
 
s.p.a.s.
Posts: 916
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2001 2:04 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:44 pm

KC135,

According to the FCOM, Vol 2, page 6.20.4:

Battery Power
The airplane has two primary batteries; main and APU. The main battery power
switch is located on the overhead electrical panel. The APU battery functions
automatically, and has no power switch. Operating indications for the main and
APU batteries are provided on the electrical synoptic.
The main battery provides power for:
• airplane power-up
• APU start (assists APU battery)
• refueling operations
• towing operations
• electric braking (as backup power source)
• captain’s flight instruments (energizes essential instruments until RAT
deployment)
(Refer to Modes of Operation in Chapter 6, Section 20, for additional
information.)
The APU battery provides power on the ground for:
• APU start
• navigation lights (during battery-only towing operations)


Both are rated 28V DC
"ad astra per aspera"
 
yeelep
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:53 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:40 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 9):
If the problem is the risk of a fire on board, it doesn't matter how many engines you have so how in the world does this tie in with ETOPS?

Tri's and quad's had lower cargo fire suppression limits than twin ETOPS planes before the new 2007 FAA ETOPS rules took effect. In fact they still have five weeks before the upgraded fire suppression systems are required.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 924
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:25 am

Here is a good image from the NTSB: NTSB investigator Mike Bauer evaluates damage to the JAL 787 Dreamliner, from yesterday's fire.



[Edited 2013-01-08 20:25:51]
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1680
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:29 am

Quoting ADent (Reply 17):

Interesting I would have expected more damage as the Brigade says it took 20-40 minutes to extingush and then the battery exploded..

Lets hope that the NTSB got copyright approval for this picture  
BV
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:21 am

Quoting ADent (Reply 17):
Here is a good image from the NTSB: NTSB investigator Mike Bauer evaluates damage to the JAL 787 Dreamliner, from yesterday's fire.

Just to orient people who are seeing the 787's aft equipment bay for the first time...

The photo is taken from the RH side of the EE bay, looking left. Right in the photo is forward in the airplane and left is aft. Mr Bauer's left hand is resting on an opening which extends to a hatch which goes down through the WTB fairing and exits the airplane. When cargo is loaded in the aft pit, this is the only way into the aft equipment bay.

Adjacent Mr Bauer's right hand is the control unit for the electric wing ice protection system. Each slot in the box represents the electric control function for a symmetrical pair of ice protection zones on each wing.

Above the APU battery slot, where Mr Baur is inspecting, is the APU power panel. This manages all power from the APU.

Directly behind Mr Bauer is the oft-discussed P100 power panel. The P200 panel is directly behind the photographer.

By Mr Bauer's left shoulder is a liquid cooled equipment rack (often referred to as an "HVDC" (high-voltage direct current) rack). This rack contains the ATRUs (auto transformer/rectifier units) and large electric motor controllers, which are the heart of the 787's more-electric system's architecture. There is an identical rack at the right shoulder of the photographer.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 3649
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:33 am

Can anyone tell me what would have become of this latest incident if the plane was over the Pacific Ocean, and halfway past say Hawaii and the mainland? I think this incident is serious enough to question the outcome if it had happened at cruising altitude, and hundreds of miles from land. I dont understand why this airplane continues to fly with so many fires! It is a blessing that nobody has been hurt yet. However, I dont like the odds in this roulette game. I think a grounding is the safest option, and Boeing needs to get it figured out. I would rather see the issues resolved before more of these planes are flying.

I am sure I will get flamed for my views, which is fine. But... I lost a friend on Valujet 592. Granted the circumstances were different because of oxygen canisters.... It was still a fire, and the results are haunting. Which is why I will not hold back my swings. Airplanes and fire are a lethal combination. I am emotional about it, and thats all.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5450
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:17 am

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
I dont understand why this airplane continues to fly with so many fires!

You don't know why there was a fire this time. If it was a defective battery, why on earth would you demand they ground the fleet? I am not 100% on top of all things 787 but how many fires is "so many fires!"? Ironically, the link posted earlier about the A380 incident sounded earily similar (to me) to the ZA002 (?) incident in San Antonio, yet we heard absolutely nothing about that here or in the news because it was a more mature airframe.

I'm definitely not going to deny that there are problems with the aircraft. When I see the headlines concerning the incidents involving the aircraft I'm like anyone else - I cringe. It smacks of the time when the A380 would have bad news after bad news, or the A350 would go through iteration after iteration, or frankly most everything involving the 787 program over the past five years. It sounds really bad and it just seems to pile on to the existing bad news, making it appear REALLY bad.

I am not prepared, though, to join the elite cast of characters who deride the safety of the 787 at every turn. I respect that you have emotions about this, and I'm not "flaming" you, but I guess I just can't get onboard with your desire to ground the fleet when we don't even know what the problem was, why it happened, and if it is easy to fix. I hope that nothing ever happens to an airframe, and I hope that that's how the previously-referenced characters feel as well. I know that you absolutely want nothing to happen either.

Anyhow, I am eager to hear what the ultimate cause of this incident was and what the repercussions will be. We need to get this airframe out of this perceived danger zone and soon.

-Dave
-Dave
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:17 am

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
Can anyone tell me what would have become of this latest incident if the plane was over the Pacific Ocean, and halfway past say Hawaii and the mainland?

Here is my guess:

- There is no fire/smoke detection in the aft equipment bay, so no fire indication in the flight deck.
- The battery has active monitoring, so the crew would likely have received an overheat message, which would have stopped them from trying to use it in flight and caused them to isolate the battery from the charger.
- Normal E/E bay venting is directly to the outflow valve, so no smoke would have entered the cabin.
- The battery enclosure is designed to contain an event like this, so minimal collateral damage (as evidenced in the NTSB photo)
- Li-ion batteries have finite energy to release, so the event would have been self limiting.
- The airplane would have landed with a battery squawk and the maintenance crew would have found a crispy battery.

In other words we would be exactly where we are today... an airplane on the ground with minimal damage and an active investigation to understand why the battery went into thermal runaway.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
I dont understand why this airplane continues to fly with so many fires!
Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
I am sure I will get flamed for my views

I understand this is an emotional topic for you and I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. However, if you don't want to get flamed, try to avoid posting factually inaccurate statements. This is the first fire event (by anyone's definition of fire) for the 787 in service. The airplane has been modified since the ZA002 flight test event to preclude that problem from happening again. This fire is the first in-service event and was clearly unrelated to the ZA002 event.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 12):
The 787 APU is a massive piece of machinery, which delivers more power than a Merlin engine on a P-51 Mustang or Spitfire - up to 1.1 Mw electric power.

The 787 APU has two 220Kva starter generators for a total power output of 440Kva, not 1.1Mw.

[Edited 2013-01-08 22:20:49]
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:56 am

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
Can anyone tell me what would have become of this latest incident if the plane was over the Pacific Ocean, and halfway past say Hawaii and the mainland? I think this incident is serious enough to question the outcome if it had happened at cruising altitude, and hundreds of miles from land. I dont understand why this airplane continues to fly with so many fires! It is a blessing that nobody has been hurt yet. However, I dont like the odds in this roulette game. I think a grounding is the safest option, and Boeing needs to get it figured out. I would rather see the issues resolved before more of these planes are flying.

I am sure I will get flamed for my views, which is fine. But... I lost a friend on Valujet 592. Granted the circumstances were different because of oxygen canisters.... It was still a fire, and the results are haunting. Which is why I will not hold back my swings. Airplanes and fire are a lethal combination. I am emotional about it, and thats all.

Look, as a pilot myself, I can say one of the biggest fears we have is an inflight fire, especially in a hard to get place, with limited access. We can sit here all day long and go back and forth on the "what-ifs" of any certain event. However, by us doing that, we really wouldn't get anywhere. It didn't happen over the pacific, halfway between Hawaii and the mainland and it didn't happen in flight. What if the Capt. of Swiss Air 111 had just diverted, instead of running a lengthy checklist? That incident would be just a distance memory, but instead the industry as a whole learned a lot from it. Just like with yesterdays incident, the investigators will do their job and find a solution to the problem. Rather then asking "what-ifs" we should be asking, how and why it happened?

I would have no problems walking on a 787 tomorrow, even with all of these issues. Yeah, clearly it is an issue that Boeing has to work out, but at the same time, you have to trust the safety net that exists. If the mechanics and pilots think it is still safe to fly, the companies will continue to operate the aircraft, even with these teething issues. If you think about it, because of these issues that have arisen, the 787 might actually be even safer, based on the scrutiny that the aircraft is getting by all parties.

I think a lot of people just need to take a step back and wait for the final report to come out, before suggesting the aircraft be grounded, or Boeing be shut down, or we go back to the steamship days for transportation  
ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5157
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:05 am

Regarding CM's latest post above...

I am far from someone who assumes that all manufacturers always engage in the best engineering practices, or that regulators always catch the manufacturers if they make a mistake or an intentional omission.

However, from the moment this story broke, knowing the miniscule amount that I know about thermal runaway, batteries, and aircraft design and certification, my reaction was that battery-flambe was an obvious possibility that would have been designed-for at the earliest stages, and the design solution investigated and validated by the certifying authority at the earliest stages. In other words, of the things that could go wrong, I expected that this would have been well-planned-for by the manufacturer (as it was LIKELY to happen in the service life of the aircraft) and the solution checked by the authority.

I was pleased to have been told that at any time that the aircraft would be operating with the doors closed, any smoke from this thing going up would be vented overboard with none entering the cabin, which I was curious about. It never crossed my mind that a battery fire (in the *aircraft's own batteries*) could bring down the aircraft in flight, and it appears that it couldn't and wouldn't if everything functioned as designed.

I am eternally grateful for CM's calm ability to provide simple, solid FACTS to counter the knowledgeless supposition by doofy fanboys like Ostrower, who does nothing to make his bones as a serious student of the aircraft business by his performance today, nor the 20-year-old "analysts" at financial firms whose equally-dumb suppositions move billions of dollars in market value daily.

When asked about this earlier today, I told someone that I expected that if the battery had gone up over the Pacific, there might have been a minor warning in the cockpit, that nobody in the cabin would have noticed a thing, that the thing would just have consumed itself and gone out, and that maintenance would have found a combusted battery nestled in its containment vessel when they checked as to why the APU battery wasn't working. But, heck, what do I know?

Accordingly, it was a true delight to read CM's post which says basically the same thing, but explains it clearly and concisely from an engineering perspective. Thank you, Sir, and welcome to my RU list -- not that you need it.

In short, the only really bad luck for Boeing was that this thing caught fire in the one place that anybody (outside of those in the industry and here on a.net) would have noticed.

The only thing that I'm looking for from the NTSB is whether they think that the engineering solution to prevent this from being a problem functioned as designed, i.e. was it robust enough. Contrary to all the dramatic verbage from the Boston Fire Department that we have seen, it sure looks like it did and was, but I'm happy to await the report.

[Edited 2013-01-08 23:19:18]
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:25 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 2):

JAL can get back to NRT or HND via Alaska without ever going more than 60 min etops of they had to by crossing over the Aleutians- sakhalin- south east over the Kamchatka peninsula thru sapporo control then over the mainland especially now that the Russians are pretty cool about overflights.. Had to go that way to deliver a King air in the past. the flight planning is a lot of work because there are few way points that far east going north -south but it can be done and the Chinese and Russians do it quite a bit I'm told.
 
FlyingAY
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:26 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:32 am

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
It is a blessing that nobody has been hurt yet.

Well, one firefighter has been injured slightly.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 21):
If it was a defective battery, why on earth would you demand they ground the fleet?

Because there might a systematic fault made at the battery manufacturer and every single 787 APU battery might be faulty? Remember that things get grounded even if there is not enough information to say if the problem concerns the whole fleet. DC-10 got grounded in 1979 even if there was nothing wrong with the plane! However, I do not think this incident warrants grounding of the whole fleet - it seems this has not been done for any airframe in the last years even after more serious issues with a plane...

It seems strange that a LiIon battery would continue to burn 40 minutes, usually these things burn away rather quickly when the reaction starts. A LiIon thermal runaway does not need oxygen, so even if it was in an airtight container that should not slow down a runaway. Since NTSB is on the case, I'm sure we get all the details over time...
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:35 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 12):
I would bet on an entirely different battery mass to get that thing moving.

Not really. The total power output of the 787 APU is roughly comparable to other APUs (it's just puttting all that power out as electric, rather than electric + pneumatic). However, since it has no load compressor, it's a lot easier to start...the generators are also the starters so they don't put any load on the APU during the start.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
How many batteries does a B-787 have?

Two major ones, plus several system-specific auxiliaries (not unique to the 787).

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 18):
Lets hope that the NTSB got copyright approval for this picture

If NTSB took the picture, they'd have the copyright. No issue.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
Can anyone tell me what would have become of this latest incident if the plane was over the Pacific Ocean, and halfway past say Hawaii and the mainland?

I agree completely with CM's assessment.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
I dont understand why this airplane continues to fly with so many fires!

How is 1 "so many"?

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 23):
What if the Capt. of Swiss Air 111 had just diverted, instead of running a lengthy checklist?

They'd have died anyway. This is an oft overlooked part of the TC report...even if they had diverted at the first sign of a problem the fire would have rendered the aircraft uncontrollable prior to reaching an airport.

Tom.
 
flood
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:05 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:46 am

Quoting CM (Reply 22):
The battery enclosure is designed to contain an event like this, so minimal collateral damage (as evidenced in the NTSB photo)

To be fair, what the photo shows is minimal collateral damage with the added benefit of the Boston FD. That said, an axe may have made things worse - but we don't know the details yet.

Anyway, interesting photo and thank you for the tour of the bay  
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:52 am

Quoting CM (Reply 22):
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 12):
The 787 APU is a massive piece of machinery, which delivers more power than a Merlin engine on a P-51 Mustang or Spitfire - up to 1.1 Mw electric power.

The 787 APU has two 220Kva starter generators for a total power output of 440Kva, not 1.1Mw.

In any event, later Merlins put out over 2000hp, which would be ~1.5MW, less generator efficiency* if you wanted to match the application.


*In this size class, you'd expect efficiencies well over 90%
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5450
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:58 am

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 26):
Because there might a systematic fault made at the battery manufacturer and every single 787 APU battery might be faulty?

So they certify the aircraft knowing that a battery can do exactly what appears to have happened here, and that would then require a grounding? If it's a "known known" and it's designed for, as CM posted, why on earth would you ground them? It isn't like a battery going POOF is unheard of or unplanned for.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just looking at it as a planned for incident - just unfortunate and awfully early in the program perhaps. Now, if the battery went POOF "because" it's the 787, that might be a different story, but I don't think you'd ground them because "well, it's possible".

-Dave
-Dave
 
packsonflight
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:02 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 27):
If NTSB took the picture, they'd have the copyright. No issue.

Strange...

Did the NTSB violate the ND agreement between Boeing and the Buyer?
 
Unflug
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:11 am

Quoting CM (Reply 19):
Just to orient people who are seeing the 787's aft equipment bay for the first time...

Thanks for these explanations!

Quoting CM (Reply 22):

Here is my guess:

And thanks again for this assessment!
 
FlyingAY
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:26 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:11 am

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 31):

Strange...

Did the NTSB violate the ND agreement between Boeing and the Buyer?

Why an agreement between two other parties would limit NTSB in any way?

[Edited 2013-01-09 00:12:05]
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5450
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:28 am

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 33):
Why an agreement between two other parties would limit NTSB in any way?

I'm guessing packsonflight might have been following the lead of BoeingVista:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 18):
Lets hope that the NTSB got copyright approval for this picture

Why, I don't know.....

-Dave
-Dave
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:49 am

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 26):
DC-10 got grounded in 1979 even if there was nothing wrong with the plane!

The DC-10 was grounded because the AA191 accident pointed out that slat mechanism was non-locking, and the slat-disagreement indicating system was likely to be taken out by an event that took out the slat hydraulics, which meant that the aircraft did not meet the certification requirements. So yes, there was something wrong with the aircraft.

Of course, had AA191 not occurred, and had the design issue gathered enough attention to get the FAA to order its remediation, it would unlikely have resulted in a grounding, rather just the more typical AD with a time limit.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 924
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:27 am

CM -thanx for the good posts.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 33):
Why an agreement between two other parties would limit NTSB in any way?

It references photos from after the ZA002 incident - an inside joke on the thread. These were on the web (including this site) and on the the Seattle newspapers site. All were removed by request from Boeing.

See http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...2010/11/22/boeing-versus-bloggers/ and reply 81 here: 787 Test Flight Evacuated Due To Smoke - Part 2 (by moderators Nov 19 2010 in Civil Aviation) .

[Edited 2013-01-09 01:29:09]
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:59 am

Quoting CM (Reply 22):
In other words we would be exactly where we are today... an airplane on the ground with minimal damage and an active investigation to understand why the battery went into thermal runaway.

Well, today we are where we are because of the intervention of the Boston Fire Department, which spent 40 minutes putting out a fire with two-feet high flames. Had the fire developed during flight, the outcome would surely have been different. I don't know how different, but certainly different.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1213
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:50 am

Quoting CM (Reply 22):
In other words we would be exactly where we are today... an airplane on the ground with minimal damage and an active investigation to understand why the battery went into thermal runaway.

If it had been in the air, and it could easily have been, we would have another story. A stroke of luck does not make the situation any safer. It's like saying there was no problem if the oil pipe had failed after QF32 had landed. We do still have to find out the reason for the runaway, manufacturing defects are not the only reason.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:09 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 37):
Had the fire developed during flight, the outcome would surely have been different.
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 38):
If it had been in the air, and it could easily have been, we would have another story.

Based on what we know about the incident and how the airplane is designed, I don't think things would be any different for the airplane if it had happened in flight. I've explained why in #22. You disagree and feel an in-flight event would have had a different result but have not said what would be different or why you feel this way. Can you elaborate?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:45 pm

Quoting ADent (Reply 17):
Here is a good image from the NTSB

Cool!

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 24):
However, from the moment this story broke, knowing the miniscule amount that I know about thermal runaway, batteries, and aircraft design and certification, my reaction was that battery-flambe was an obvious possibility that would have been designed-for at the earliest stages, and the design solution investigated and validated by the certifying authority at the earliest stages. In other words, of the things that could go wrong, I expected that this would have been well-planned-for by the manufacturer (as it was LIKELY to happen in the service life of the aircraft) and the solution checked by the authority.

From the moment the story broke, we didn't know it was a battery fire, we just knew smoke was coming from the same area as one could have expected in the ZA002 incident. In my case, I wasn't up to speed on the battery aspect, and I appreciate the a.net members who contributed their knowledge.

Quoting flood (Reply 28):
thank you for the tour of the bay

Me too!

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 31):
Did the NTSB violate the ND agreement between Boeing and the Buyer?

I know where you are going with this, but even in the ZA002 threads it was said that if NTSB released photos as a part of a report, Boeing would not object. I suppose that's because a report would have had a review first. I'm not sure if Boeing is happy or not about this photo, but clearly the infamous P100 panel has its covers on, so Boeing doesn't have the same intellectual property issue it raised after the ZA002 incident.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 37):
Well, today we are where we are because of the intervention of the Boston Fire Department, which spent 40 minutes putting out a fire with two-feet high flames. Had the fire developed during flight, the outcome would surely have been different.

Surely? I don't see any scorching above the battery compartment. As per above and reply #24, I'm confident this failure mode was analyzed a long time ago, presumably for other aircraft carrying around such batteries for many years now. I imagine the NTSB, Boeing and JAL are looking at the evidence to confirm this was a pure battery fault and if so we'll get a nice report in a few weeks saying such.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 38):
If it had been in the air, and it could easily have been, we would have another story.

Uhm, no. We would have had a battery burning inside of its enclosure, some smoke (perhaps not enough for anyone to notice) being vented outboard, a battery error being handled by the crew, and mechanics replacing a battery once on the ground.

I'm pretty amazed at the sense of panic in the air. Yes, there have been incidents with the 787. They cause bad press and cost the airlines money, which is unfortunate, but some people seem to ignore all the work and testing that's already gone into the 787.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:54 pm

Sounds kind of minor...

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

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130108b.html

[Edited 2013-01-09 04:54:53]
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:01 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 39):
You disagree and feel an in-flight event would have had a different result but have not said what would be different or why you feel this way. Can you elaborate?

I already elaborated above:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 37):
Well, today we are where we are because of the intervention of the Boston Fire Department, which spent 40 minutes putting out a fire with two-feet high flames.

Without the intervention of the fire brigade, how would have the fire on the ground evolved? There is no fire brigade while on the air (and no access to that compartment).
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
jlager2
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:43 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:05 pm

My first post on A.net and probably not a good one to get involved in but have viewed from the sidelines for many years and this has prompted me to post. I had some observations and questions.

The panel by the NTSB investigators cap, does appear to show scorching as does the floor space although this could be residue from any retardant used. Therefore at some point, surely this "incident" could have become uncontained?

Also, I am not sure of the shielding that is placed on the cables within an avionics bay but they don't look particularly insulated and at some point couldn't the flashpoint have been reached which would have lead to a secondary fire? This is sometimes (and not always the case) what causes the acceleration of a fire to other areas and beyond.

It would be good to hear from someone with experience of fire prevention as well as relying on certification statements which are being mentioned here.

One final point. there was a comment made earlier which I have pasted below:

"Li-ion batteries have finite energy to release, so the event would have been self limiting"

Isn't this is a bit like saying a match has finite energy to release.
 
s5daw
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 8:15 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:20 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 42):
Without the intervention of the fire brigade, how would have the fire on the ground evolved? There is no fire brigade while on the air (and no access to that compartment).

Did firemen's effort actually contribute to shorten the time it took the battery to burn? How do you stop a fire that does not need external oxygen? They took the battery out if I understood correctly, so that's good, but it had been burning for about 45 minutes a that time, right?

On the other hand, to have no access to that bay would make any pilot (or passenger) nervous with fire in there during ETOPS, no?
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:33 pm

By the way, is the NTSB photo a photo of P100 / P150 and P200 panels ?
Quite interesting...
 
BoeingVista
Posts: 1680
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:37 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 39):
You disagree and feel an in-flight event would have had a different result but have not said what would be different or why you feel this way. Can you elaborate?

OK Not my comment but let me take a shot at it. Two simple and fundamental differences between in flight fire and on ground fire as in this case spring to mind.

1) The main electrical equipment in rear E/E bay was not powered, hot chemical saturated air could possibly have caused issues with high powered equipment or the logic of tripping the APU battery while the aircraft was fully powered may not have worked properly.

2) Airflow, aircraft was not pressurised so air was able to expand and escape into cabin, this would not have been the case if in flight.

Quoting CM (Reply 22):

- There is no fire/smoke detection in the aft equipment bay, so no fire indication in the flight deck.

I find this quite incredible, I checked the A330 and it has FD fire indication of the avionics bay and in flight access where as the 787 has neither. No FD indication on the 787 seems sub optimal from a safety standpoint.
BV
 
s5daw
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 8:15 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:57 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 46):
Airflow, aircraft was not pressurised so air was able to expand and escape into cabin, this would not have been the case if in flight.

I'm not sure this makes any sense.

Apparently the bay is not sealed from the cabin, or there would be no cabin smoke even in this incident.
Since it's not sealed, they must have the same pressure. So the situation would be exactly the same, as both, the cabin and the bay would be under equal pressure in both cases.

In fact, some sources say ZA002 had to be evacuated due to smoke in the cabin. In there was not even "fire".
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:21 pm

Quoting s5daw (Reply 44):
Did firemen's effort actually contribute to shorten the time it took the battery to burn?

I'd presume so. Certainly this must have been their goal.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 44):
How do you stop a fire that does not need external oxygen?

What do you mean by "external"? A fire that was reported to shoot flames 2 ft into the air does need the oxygen in the bay.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 44):
They took the battery out if I understood correctly, so that's good, but it had been burning for about 45 minutes a that time, right?

The WSJ, via Jon Ostrower, reported that, after the firemen put out the fire, the battery exploded, whatever that means.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
PITingres
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?

Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:28 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 18):
Lets hope that the NTSB got copyright approval for this picture

As pointed out elsewhere, if it's their photo, they own the copyright.

The other question is trade secret and I suspect that these guys have worked with the OEM's long enough to know what sorts of photos might provoke trade secret response. This photo, showing rows of covered panels, hardly seems like a candidate for trade secret suppression and I don't think we'll hear any attempt to suppress it.
Fly, you fools! Fly!