Airliners.net

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

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

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


PS

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

Quoting aviateur (Reply 1): For those who were criticizing my comments about the APU and APU battery location.... Look, they stuck a camera in my face and started asking me about APUs. I was wrong about the location of the 787 APU battery, but the rest of what I said was based on what was known about the fire AT THE TIME. It was not yet being reported as an equipment bay fire, but rather as an APU fire.

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

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

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

Of course I'm not a NTSB  

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

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

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

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

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

Tom.

We have a picture:



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

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

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

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

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

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to remove it they may have breached the containment.

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

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

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

GB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I ask who the "Boeing people" are?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting CM (Reply 17): May I ask who the "Boeing people" are? To my knowledge, there are only two of us participating in this thread who have worked directly with the 787 and neither of us view this as "normal" or have attempted to dismiss it in any way. In the first thread on this topic, I specifically agreed this is NOT a normal "teething" issue (reply #152) and Tom (tdscanuck) stated this event requires a careful investigation to fully understand why it happened (reply #177). Tom and I have both expressed confidence this event would not have brought down the airplane or choked the cabin with smoke, but this is different than saying the issues are "normal for a new airplane" or in any way acceptable to us.

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

-Dave

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

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

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

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 22): Bless you! It's like a breath of fresh air in these threads reading the comments of you and Tom. -Dave

I could not have said that better myself! I have nothing intelligent to add to this topic so will refrain. I wish other people would do the same, but that's just my opinion.  

Paul

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 21): Dripping plastic! Does this suggest that the CFRP melted due to the fire?

The CFRP does not melt. It chars. Any melting would probably come from the thermoplastic trims and other small parts that are not part of the airframe structures.

Look at the blackened floor panel in the picture. That panel is a glass phenolic system (educated guess here).

You can see that the panel is charred but more or less maintained it structure. The top skin is probably shot, but the lower skin may still have some strength.

Thai

Quoting CM (Reply 17): May I ask who the "Boeing people" are?

I believe he is referring to the thread about the plane having normal teething problems... and has erroneously linked that to this event.

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

The NTSB said the damage to the APU battery unit was severe:

"The NTSB investigator on scene found that the auxiliary power unit battery had severe 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

Quoting rwessel (Reply 28): The NTSB said the damage to the APU battery unit was severe:

Well sure. We also have reports that the battery was physically removed from the plane and tossed onto the tarmac while the assembly was burning. What we don't know for sure is if the containment unit failed as a result of the initial fire, the actions of the firefighters, or didn't fail at all.

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 21): Dripping plastic! Does this suggest that the CFRP melted due to the fire? That's scary. I don't know what's worse though, burning alluminum or melting plastic.

I think it suggests that the battery was melting.

Quoting CM (Reply 17): Tom and I have both expressed confidence this event would not have brought down the airplane or choked the cabin with smoke, but this is different than saying the issues are "normal for a new airplane" or in any way acceptable to us.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 22): Bless you! It's like a breath of fresh air in these threads reading the comments of you and Tom.

Absolutely second that. Thanks, Tom and CM for all you're bringing to the discussion.  

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 29): Well sure. We also have reports that the battery was physically removed from the plane and tossed onto the tarmac while the assembly was burning. What we don't know for sure is if the containment unit failed as a result of the initial fire, the actions of the firefighters, or didn't fail at all.

Right, but I was commenting on flood's comment that seemed to imply that the NTSB had called the damage to the *EE bay* severe, when in fact the NTSB statement is that damage to the EE bay itself is fairly limited ("Thermal damage ... confined to the area immediately near the APU battery rack...").

Looks like the common factor to these electrical problems was a batch of faulty circuit boards. Except for this one.

I think Boeing loses their 'Get Out of Jail Free' card ("Teething problems; normal for a new plane, etc.") because of the nearly decade-long delay in getting the thing into service. You can't be THAT much delayed and STILL blame mishaps on 'teething problems.'

Quoting chrisnh (Reply 34): I think Boeing loses their 'Get Out of Jail Free' card ("Teething problems; normal for a new plane, etc.") because of the nearly decade-long delay in getting the thing into service. You can't be THAT much delayed and STILL blame mishaps on 'teething problems.'

Of course you can. You find unexpected problems in service, not while the airplane is sitting on a ramp with techs fiddling around with fasteners and side-of-body joins.

I'm always amazed by how many 10 and even 20-year-old bugs I find in the product I work on, that have hidden until some customer does exactly the right combination of X, Y, and Z. It doesn't seem to matter how much static analysis or code review we do (and yes, we do catch many problems that way, before customers see them). It's no different for airplanes. You have to use 'em to find the elusive problems.

Quoting chrisnh (Reply 34): I think Boeing loses their 'Get Out of Jail Free' card ("Teething problems; normal for a new plane, etc.") because of the nearly decade-long delay in getting the thing into service.

Your sense of time is a little out of wack--better get it adjusted. Among the myriad of issues the press is headlining the only one that counts is the battery and whether that proves to be a major issue or not is yet to be determined.

By the way, launch to delivery of the B787 and A380 both took around 7 years and the A380 was not a major advance in multiple systems.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 36): By the way, launch to delivery of the B787 and A380 both took around 7 years...

And even with 7 years of gestation, the A380 still encountered issues once it entered revenue service that were not found during testing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37): And even with 7 years of gestation, the A380 still encountered issues once it entered revenue service that were not found during testing.

and they are still finding new ones..

Quoting kanban (Reply 38): and they are still finding new ones..

Exactly.

As many members with direct experience in certifying and operating commercial airliners have noted, issues will be found as long as the type is in service.

We don't go off the deep end about issues with "established" airframes like the A320, A330, 737, 747. 767 and 777 because we've become immunized to them through experience. How many of those frames reported a possible brake issue this week? And of those, how many were given a thread in CivAv? I would expect the answer to the former is "some" and the answer to the latter is "none".

And yes, you can (rightfully) claim a false brake reading is not the same thing as a battery catching fire in an equipment bay, but how many batteries catch fire in equipment bays every week? Month? Year? I would expect the number is not very high, but I would also expect it is not just "one" nor would I expect it has never happened before until the JL 787.

These teething issues are completely normal, as Boeing has claimed, but that doesn't mean that each issue is treated the same. Some teething issues are more severe than others and I can assure that they are all taken very seriously by everyone at Boeing (and Airbus or any other manufacturer when a new products is rolled out).

Almost every single item that enters service will have some sort of teething issue. My wife and I bought a skillet last week and the rubber handle has began to split. A skillet!

I am actually in awe by the lack of issues that show up in newly introduced aircraft, especially when considering everything that could go wrong. I have zero qualms about flying on the 787 and neither should anyone else.

CM and Tom, for every one member that has an issue with your analysis (for whatever reason), just know that there are hundreds of other members that absolutely appreciate and learn a great amount from your posts. Please keep them coming!

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 40): CM and Tom, for every one member that has an issue with your analysis (for whatever reason), just know that there are hundreds of other members that absolutely appreciate and learn a great amount from your posts. Please keep them coming!

        

Quoting chrisnh (Reply 34): I think Boeing loses their 'Get Out of Jail Free' card ("Teething problems; normal for a new plane, etc.") because of the nearly decade-long delay in getting the thing into service.

The *delay* wasn't nearly a decade. Total development was nearly a decade. There's a big difference.

Quoting chrisnh (Reply 34): You can't be THAT much delayed and STILL blame mishaps on 'teething problems.'

Yes, you can. You just get different teething problems. It is pretty unlikely that infant mortality and latent failure modes will ever be engineered out. The best we can hope for is that the engineers are good enough to keep failures from cascading to castrophic outcomes...so far, all the OEM's are doing an absolutely stellar job on that front.

Quoting Gatorman96 (Reply 40): CM and Tom, for every one member that has an issue with your analysis (for whatever reason), just know that there are hundreds of other members that absolutely appreciate and learn a great amount from your posts. Please keep them coming!

Thank you!
Tom.

Haven't seen it mentioned, the NTSB has released an update which includes photos of the battery:

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130114.html

Quoting flood (Reply 43): Haven't seen it mentioned, the NTSB has released an update which includes photos of the battery:

So it looks like the containment vessel did it's job pretty well.

Great link! The pictures definitely show that the containment vessel for the most part kept everything together.

Weren't there flames too? So did the flames make it out of the containment vessel?

The release said that the aircraft was released back to JAL on 10JAN. Anyone have any idea when it will fly back to NRT?

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 47): The release said that the aircraft was released back to JAL on 10JAN. Anyone have any idea when it will fly back to NRT?

I'm guessing it will be a while. Until it's been repaired by AOG I can't see it going anywhere.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 48): I'm guessing it will be a while. Until it's been repaired by AOG I can't see it going anywhere.

I would speculate a little that Boeing already had the parts shipped ready to go for when it was released to help JAL get it's newest 787 back. But I could be wrong.