jetblueguy22
Topic Author
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:44 pm

This is a continuation of Part 1 which got quite long. Part 1 can be found here ANA B787 Emergency Landing and Fleet Grounding (by eksath Jan 15 2013 in Civil Aviation)
Thanks
Blue
All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:48 pm

Ok since my reply was last in the other one and because I added information to it ill repost it here:


-
I just finished translating an article from the Asahi Shimbun, another major news source in Japan.
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0116/TKY201301160371.html?ref=rss

Please bear with me as its a lot of information.
On the morning of the 16th, NH 692, JA804A, took off from Yamaguchi Airport in Ube, at 8:28 local.
30 minutes into flight, the pilot flying contacted ATC in Fukuoka (FUK) and stated there was smoke in the cockpit, with a slight English anomaly: "cockpit in smoke."
Passengers reported that smoke began appearing in the cabin at the same time.
A gradual descent was initiated.
Sensors on board detected serious smoke in the cargo hold under the main cabin.
The actual lithium ion battery by the APU indeed failed as it overheated as established from other sources.
No power output therefore could occur. Auxilillary batteries would have had to been activated.
Because of that, and the smoke not subsiding, the pilots requested emergency landing at TAK, as it would have been right by TAK at that time.
Descent and landing took about 10 minutes, which passengers described as extremely tense and nervous. By this time the whole cabin was filled with an acrid smell.

The plane, as we have established, made its successful emergency landing on the runway and pulled off to a runway exit and evacuated using emergency slides. 1 person was taken to the hospital with hip injuries and other abrasion related injuries were treated on site. Smoke subsided in the cabin after landing but poured from an outflow valve while on the ground.

TAK was closed but I think they towed ship 804 to a remote for investigation. I'll check later when the airports normally open if TAK is open for business today.

Please refer to this for updated news and factual information. But as for the Japanese public, they're quite shaken by this. The Asahi Shimbun is calling this a strange anomaly, which are words which could create nervousness among the society.


Please excuse any erroneous translation, as my Japanese isn't the best. This took about 30 minutes to do.

Non translation references:
Ube Airport in Yamaguchi has the IATA code of UBJ with runway 7/35 as 2500 m, 8,202 f.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:52 pm

To (partially) recap, an NH 787 (JA804A) delivered exactly one year prior gave the flight crew indications of a possible issue with the Ship's (main) Battery located in the Forward Equipment Bay under the flight deck. There was a report of a "strange smell" in the flight deck and cabin. The flight crew chose to divert to TAK and once they cleared the active runway, they stopped the plane and ordered an emergency evacuation via slide. One person was injured (I believe during the evacuation). The Ship's Battery showed signs of discoloration and the electrolysis solution had leaked.

NH and JL have subsequently grounded their 787 fleets. At this time, all other 787 operators are continuing to fly the plane. A QR 787 flight was cancelled prior to departure from LHR, but it appears other QR 787 flights are operating.

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:57:26]
 
CO953
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:53 pm

If the translated article is correct, and yesterday's incident indeed was the APU battery - the second one in a week- what arguments are there to be made, not to ground all 787s until this issue is resolved?

Deciding to keep flying the 787 until investigations are complete and just pop the slides and evacuate pax if a problem arises would be inconvenient for passengers and crew, plus the expense of repacking slides, no?

Just asking for discussion's sake - not advocating either way.

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:53:52]

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:54:36]

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:54:53]

[Edited 2013-01-16 09:58:11]

EDIT: See an automatic translation I just did, below. I do not see APU battery listed?


[Edited 2013-01-16 10:11:14]
 
lhrnue
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:55 pm

I am looking forward to read how Randy tries to give a positive spin to this incident.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:57 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The flight crew chose to divert to TAK and once they cleared the active runway, they stopped the plane and ordered an emergency evacuation via slide. One person was injured (I believe during the evacuation).

Yes during evacuation. Other abrasions were treated on site.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
a possible issue with the Ship's (main) Battery located in the Forward Equipment Bay under the flight deck. There was a report of a "strange smell" in the flight deck and cabin, but reports of smoke inside the flight deck and/or cabin have not been confirmed (and may have been erroneously reported).

Was it main? The articles I've seen said it was APU. Smoke was confirmed by Asahi and Yomiuri reports by the fire department and pax interviews.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
mham001
Posts: 4187
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:58 pm

Given the large discrepencies between posts #2 and #3, I'd say we don't really know much yet.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:58 pm

Quoting CO953 (Reply 3):
If the translated article is correct, and yesterday's incident indeed was the APU battery - the second one in a week- what arguments are there to be made, not to ground all 787s until this issue is resolved?

Reports say the problem was with the Ship's (main) Battery, which is located under the flight deck. Reports also say that the battery showed signs of discoloration and electrolysis solution leakage.

As to why not ground the fleet? Based on the evidence presented to date, neither issue appears to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality. In the case of the APU battery fire, the containment box looks to have done it's job based on pictures of it and of the installation area on the 787. In the case of this incident, there were reports of "leakage and discoloration", but no reports of fire or combustion/thermal damage. In no way am I implying that either incident was not serious or that there are grounds for concern that they happened. They need to be investigated both as separate incidents and to see if there is any correlation between them and that is what is happening.


Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
Was it main? The articles I've seen said it was APU. Smoke was confirmed by Asahi and Yomiuri reports by the fire department and pax interviews.

That's what AviationWeek was reporting earlier. They also originally reported that there were no signs of smoke in the cabin, but that is no longer present so they may have edited to reflect the information provided by the Japanese papers.


Quoting mham001 (Reply 6):
Given the large discrepencies between posts #2 and #3, I'd say we don't really know much yet.

I'm recapping all of the discussion in the original thread, which includes multiple news reports posted at different times, so I expect there to be confusion and contradiction as more and correct(ed) information is posted.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:13:45]
 
CO953
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:02 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Reports say the problem was with the Ship's (main) Battery, which is located under the flight deck. Reports also say that the battery showed signs of discoloration and electrolysis solution leakage.


Asahi Shinbun is a very respected news source, but maybe the reporter confused it with the earlier incident and got it wrong.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:02 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 6):
Given the large discrepencies between posts #2 and #3, I'd say we don't really know much yet.


I'll have to say though its all preliminary and i will keep cross checking my sources. This happened 16 hours ago of course we don't know much.

My sources did indeed say there was smoke on board and leakage occurred. I'll have to double check to see if it said anything about battery location.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):

Reports say the problem was with the Ship's (main) Battery, which is located under the flight deck. Reports also say that the battery showed signs of discoloration and electrolysis solution leakage.

Is the main also operated by lithium? If so I will go back and re translate.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:05 pm

Quoting CO953 (Reply 3):

The translated article contradicts itself and can't be trusted. Reads like a reporter jumping to conclusions without understanding the role of the batteries, their locations, etc. reporter WANTS it to be APU battery, as it makes a better story, but its a different problem than the APU. If the same company makes both batteries, it points to a manufacturing defect. Or it could be maintenance issues. The test birds did not have these problems but were maintained by Boeing, not airlines, and likely had pre-production batteries.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:07 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11):
Is the main also operated by lithium? If so I will go back and re translate.

Yes it is of the same composition and manufacturer as the APU battery. I believe it is of a higher capacity, however.
 
CO953
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:10 pm

Here is the automatic Babylon translation of that Asahi Shinbun article:


give off a stench Boeing 787 aircraft, emergency landing fall gradually

give off a stench on the flight altitude, lowering the vehicle. The trouble with the state-of-the-art machines that could lead to an accident, a very serious abnormalities. Takamatsu Airport on Wednesday morning, made an emergency landing in Boeing 787 aircraft. Passengers who want to escape the tension tens of minutes. Yamaguchi Ube Airport is approximately 30 minutes after the 8:28 am ANA, 1,692 flights from Fukuoka air traffic control of wireless. smoke in the cockpit." Many of the cockpit of the instrument and the abnormalities were notified. At the bottom of the vehicle ahead in the electric room, the smoke detector battery failure. ... Takamatsu airport to the pilot of the emergency landing.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:11 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 12):
The translated article contradicts itself and can't be trusted. Reads like a reporter jumping to conclusions without understanding the role of the batteries, their locations, etc. reporter WANTS it to be APU battery, as it makes a better story, but its a different problem than the APU. If the same company makes both batteries, it points to a manufacturing defect. Or it could be maintenance issues. The test birds did not have these problems but were maintained by Boeing, not airlines, and likely had pre-production batteries.

Please realize what I translated was copied down sentence by sentence into a notebook and cross checked with a number of other references. I then organizes the article sentences into a readable report. I am not saying it was the APU which caught but I will concede that one or two words may have took me off a bit, especially in regards to where the battery was located.

Upon further reference check I will say I didn't read that right and it indeed was the main battery which had issues, and the APU itself was activated to facilitate the descent, controls, landing, and evacuation. Thats what I got mixed up. See this sentence:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
The actual lithium ion battery by the APU indeed failed as it overheated as established from other sources.
No power output therefore could occur. Auxilillary batteries would have had to been activated.

So for records sake please make that correction.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 13):
Here is the automatic Babylon translation of that Asahi Shinbun article:

.........what the heck was that?

I speak Japanese to a high degree and also can read it well, but for aiding purposes I used a site called rikai which helps me translate words I don't know, in the context of the rest of the article. I don't use google translate or anything like that.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:14:51]
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
AA94
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:37 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:13 pm

I have posted this in the other forum several times, but apparently people either disregard or don't see it ...

ANA has stated that there was no smoke in the cockpit or cabin of the 787.

According to ANA, a battery alert was indicated in the cockpit, and a strange smell was detected in both the cockpit and the cabin. At that point, the pilots decided to make an emergency landing.

Quote:
Earlier reports that smoke was seen in the cockpit were inaccurate, ANA said. The pilots also received a warning that there was a fault in the battery system. ANA said the battery in the forward cargo hold was the same type as the one involved in a fire on another Dreamliner at a US airport last week.

"There was a battery alert in the cockpit and there was an odd smell detected in the cockpit and cabin, and [the pilot] decided to make an emergency landing," said Osamu Shinobe, an ANA vice president, at a news conference.
If you can't take the heat, you best get out of the kitchen
 
UALWN
Posts: 2171
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:13 pm

Quoting CO953 (Reply 13):

Thanks a lot. But., man, there sure is some work left to do on those automatic translators...
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
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2788
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:14 pm

Quoting AA94 (Reply 15):
ANA has stated that there was no smoke in the cockpit or cabin of the 787.

I didn't see them state this anywhere, only that they wouldn't confirm it.

Various passengers have now been quoted in several publications as saying there was smoke in the cabin, and we in fact saw smoke in the video of the evacuation. There was smoke.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
CO953
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:16 pm

Yeah, translating Japanese to English doesn't look like a job for automatic translators, does it? I thought I would just plug it in to see what came out. Note that it did say "forward" part of the aircaft.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:17 pm

tdscanuck.. I know you're monitoring the thread.. or Stitch or CM
Question
is there an optional battery available?(either by manufacturer or different composition). or was this battery sole sourced?

Also, have we received any indication that the bad batteries may have come from a single manufacturing lot like the circuit boards?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:18 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
The actual lithium ion battery by the APU indeed failed as it overheated as established from other sources. No power output therefore could occur. Auxilillary batteries would have had to been activated.

For clarification's sake for this statement by the reported, the APU battery only starts the APU and then only if there are no other power sources. Since the engines were turning, they would have been used to start the APU even if the APU battery was working fine. And since the engines were turning, the APU was not necessary (though NH procedure may have called for it to be started, anyway, as a backup).

Quoting kanban (Reply 19):
is there an optional battery available?(either by manufacturer or different composition). or was this battery sole sourced?

If the Ship's Battery did indeed stop providing power, the APU battery would not have taken up the load as it is not designed to do so. In this specific case, the engine generators would have provided power, perhaps along with the APU if it had been started.



Quoting kanban (Reply 19):
Also, have we received any indication that the bad batteries may have come from a single manufacturing lot like the circuit boards?

I have not seen any information as of yet, but it is, IMO, critical to know in terms of the investigation. I'd also like to know how long this battery has been in the plane - has it been there all 52 weeks, or was it recently replaced?

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:20:18]
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:18 pm

Quoting AA94 (Reply 15):
According to ANA, a battery alert was indicated in the cockpit, and a strange smell was detected in both the cockpit and the cabin. At that point, the pilots decided to make an emergency landing.

When it comes to Japanese investigations, I trust the reports released by the ministry of transportation and other public departments, such as fire, NPA, and the like, over what's released by the company itself. The company may be saying this only to save its reputation or prevent fear from spreading, which tends to happen quite a bit in japan.

Since the Asahi got its sources from public reports, including what was reported to ATC FUK, I'm sticking by my articles and translation until I hear otherwise.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):

I see, thanks for that. I'm not an expert on the mechanics of the 787. I'm guessing the energy from the engines would have been fine enough to power it to landing.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:20:46]
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
PITingres
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:19 pm

Quoting CO953 (Reply 3):
If the translated article is correct, and yesterday's incident indeed was the APU battery - the second one in a week- what arguments are there to be made, not to ground all 787s until this issue is resolved?

I'd say it doesn't matter which battery it was, even two in a week (with none preceding) is a ordinary if unfortunate statistical cluster. Batteries can melt themselves into ash and as long as it's contained properly it's not really a safety-of-flight issue, and hence not (as far as I can tell) a reason for a fleet grounding. (I DO NOT mean to say that it's not serious, it is; just that if containment is holding there's no imminent danger to passengers.)

What I would be more concerned about are the reports of smoke in the cabin in flight. If that is confirmed, it's possible that there is something wrong with smoke containment and that is a big deal. I don't think it warrants a fleet grounding *before* having some idea of what actually happened, but I'm sure that the smoke / smell issue is receiving top attention at the moment. If it turns out to be a design or build flaw that needs to be corrected, then I could see the possibility of a fleet grounding until it's fixed (or inspected for).

This is all armchair opinion of course, I'm not a flight test or safety engineer.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:22:21]
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
CO953
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:19 pm

Not trying to split hairs, but I'm not that concerned with trying to differentiate between smoke and smells. Smells are composed of molecules, as is smoke. Molecules from something were getting into the cabin - that much is agreed upon.
 
71Zulu
Posts: 1605
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:42 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:21 pm

Clickable links only please!
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:23 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
As to why not ground the fleet? Based on the evidence presented to date, neither issue appears to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality.

So in other words unless we have fatalities or a hull loss, there is no reason to worry? Because "neither issue **appears** to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality"???
 
jreuschl
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:04 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:27 pm

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:27 pm

Quoting PITingres (Reply 21):
What I would be more concerned about are the reports of smoke in the cabin in flight. If that is confirmed, it's possible that there is something wrong with smoke containment and that is a big deal.

Smoke cannot get into the flight deck or the cabin from the Electrical Bays while the plane is in cruise - the air-flow system is designed to prevent this and it was required that this be proven during the certification process.

That being said, once the plane is on the ground, there is no longer any air-flow and therefore smoke probably can find it's way out of the bays and into the cabin.

Yes, it may seem pedantic to some to make this distinction, but it is an important distinction. The cabin cannot fill with smoke or fumes from the batteries or a fire in the bays during flight. And even though it may fill up once on the ground, it cannot do so before the plane can be evacuated - that also had to be proven during certification.



Quoting sankaps (Reply 24):
So in other words unless we have fatalities or a hull loss, there is no reason to worry?

I stated in my post that both incidents needed to be investigated to see if there is any correlation between them and that is what is happening, but you willfully chose to selectively quote me so you could then accuse me of something I specifically did not say. Quite discourteous, IMO.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:34:36]
 
capri
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 1:32 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:32 pm

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 23):

flightradar24 shows 777

flightaware don't update fleet quickly

someone beat me to it

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:33:36]
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:32 pm

Before everyone becomes an armchair investigator/engineer and elects to toss the battery manufacturer under the bus, please keep this in mind:

1. Batteries are connected to the powergrid of the aircraft. This alone means there are variables to account for in tracking down the problem, not just the battery itself;

2. Lithium Ion batteries are more sensitive then other battery types to "out of norm" variations in current. They are lighter and pack more power per kilo than other commercially available batteries which is likely why they were chosen.

3. The batteries are housed in containment units designed to protect the airframe in the event of a "thermal event" with the battery. This could include the battery melting down or going up in flames. The length of time this containment could be expected to hold isn't public knowledge. We do know from the Boston incident that the containment unit worked fine (at least until it met the axe of a firefighter).

This isn't a simple, oh the battery is dead/bad, get another manufacturer onboard. The electrical system needs to be checked and if there are "beyond tolerance" spikes/changes in current within the system due to either a material/manufacturing issue within the system or a design issue with the system, those must be corrected.

The batteries of course will be checked. However, the battery manufacturer is one of the best so I don't buy the whole theory that their batteries are terrible and must be replaced wholesale.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:33:21]
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:34 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
is there an optional battery available?(either by manufacturer or different composition). or was this battery sole sourced?

The battery is sole source. The supplier is Thales and the manufacturer is GS Yuasa.

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
Also, have we received any indication that the bad batteries may have come from a single manufacturing lot like the circuit boards?

No idea, but I know the investigation will look for all common causes, including manufacturing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
the APU battery only starts the APU and then only if there are no other power sources. Since the engines were turning, they would have been used to start the APU even if the APU battery was working fine. And since the engines were turning, the APU was not necessary (though NH procedure may have called for it to be started, anyway, as a backup).

The main battery works in concert with the APU battery during APU start - they are both used to start the APU. The APU battery, is only used for APU start. If the main engine generators are making power, neither battery is ever used for any airplane function, including APU start.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 24):
So in other words unless we have fatalities or a hull loss, there is no reason to worry? Because "neither issue **appears** to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality"???

The point is "worry" has nothing to do with what we are dealing with. If the FAA and Boeing make a decision to ground the airplane it will be based on an evaluation of the likelihood and consequence of an event, not worry, concern, fear, hysteria, anger, embarrassment or any other emotion people may or may not feel as a result of recent events.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5006
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:36 pm

Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:38 pm

Thanks, PHX787 for the translation!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
As to why not ground the fleet? Based on the evidence presented to date, neither issue appears to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality.

Probably not required in the technical sense, but IMHO probably is required in the public relations sense. You can explain all you want about how the system is designed to contain battery fires, but I'm thinking we've got to the tipping point where some (many?) pax won't fly on it till the root cause is discovered, explained and corrected. The "random event" in BOS doesn't look so random to many now. Someone quoted the expected failure rate of the batteries in an earlier thread. I don't remember the exact number, but it certainly wasn't this frequent.

Note there was an injury, after a pax hurt a hip on the emergency slide. I point this out because if nothing else, pax don't find exiting down an emergency slide a nice way to end a trip.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Yes it is of the same composition and manufacturer as the APU battery. I believe it is of a higher capacity, however.

The other threads said the two have the same part number. I don't know if that means they can draw more power in one config or the other, though.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 15):
ANA has stated that there was no smoke in the cockpit or cabin of the 787.

And re-reading the translation, either the report has it wrong, or ANA meant that there was no smoke during flight. The translation is consistent with the BOS scenario, where the smoke traveled once the plane landed and the AC was no longer running.

In any case, I'm sure there's still some reconciling of the reports required. It's been a week+ since BOS and there's still a lot of ambiguities out there.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:43 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 29):
The point is "worry" has nothing to do with what we are dealing with. If the FAA and Boeing make a decision to ground the airplane it will be based on an evaluation of the likelihood and consequence of an event, not worry, concern, fear, hysteria, anger, embarrassment or any other emotion people may or may not feel as a result of recent events.
CM, I respect your posts but I think we are splitting hairs over semantics here. If the "evaluation of the likelihood and consequence of an event" results in a sufficiently worrisome finding, then they will ground the aircraft. Not hysteria, unfounded fear, or media pressure, but if they find a genuine cause to be sufficiently concerned ("worry") about the risk to safe operation.

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:43:56]
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:45 pm

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 25):

Today's flight is supposed to be operated by a 772.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):

 
I'll keep you guys updated. Japan wakes up in a few hours so when that happens expect another update from the major news sources.


Looks like it indeed came from the front of the aircraft.

Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
jreuschl
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:04 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:45 pm

http://www.flightradar24.com/LOT3

LO 787 is still on way to ORD for the inaugural flight.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:46 pm

Quoting CM (Reply 29):
The point is "worry" has nothing to do with what we are dealing with. If the FAA and Boeing make a decision to ground the airplane it will be based on an evaluation of the likelihood and consequence of an event, not worry, concern, fear, hysteria, anger, embarrassment or any other emotion people may or may not feel as a result of recent events.

Right, but it's my recollection in the QF32 incident QF and SQ grounded their A380s before the authorities did, and I suspect they did so to avoid the "worry, concern, fear, hysteria, anger, embarrassment or any other emotion people may or may not feel" occurring in the minds of their pax.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
PITingres
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:49 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Smoke cannot get into the flight deck or the cabin from the Electrical Bays while the plane is in cruise - the air-flow system is designed to prevent this and it was required that this be proven during the certification process.

Indeed, but there were (possibly incorrect) reports of smoke and/or smell in the cabin *in flight* anyway. If those reports were false then I see very little cause for a fleet grounding. If the reports had been confirmed it would have pointed to a flaw or defect that might have been of sufficient concern to warrant a grounding (for inspection if nothing else).

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:50:10]
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:54 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 36):
Right, but it's my recollection in the QF32 incident QF and SQ grounded their A380s before the authorities did, and I suspect they did so to avoid the "worry, concern, fear, hysteria, anger, embarrassment or any other emotion people may or may not feel" occurring in the minds of their pax.

Which is why ANA and JL grounded the a/c. Part is to conduct an inspection and part was a p/r tactic. Both airlines are likely burning up the phone/internet lines to PAE to get information from Boeing about their progress in tracking these issues.

While most airline passengers don't really care what a/c they fly, the more often "major events" happen, the more likely it is the flying public will focus on the a/c type. This is a major event given the evacuation and the fact it's an issue related to the battery/electrical systems on the a/c.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:57 pm

Quoting sankaps (Reply 33):
CM, I respect your posts but I think we are splitting hairs over semantics here.

My point is this: having sat through many Safety Review Board meetings (they are held regularly for all models), the conversation is never about people saying "I'm worried about X.." or "I'm concerned about Y..." As I mentioned earlier, the standardized SRB process uses a scorecard which looks at probabilities and the consequence of events and results in a score (literally categorizes the event into a bucket which dictates the action required). The product of an SRB review is not "sufficient concern" or "enough worry" to warrant a decision about the airplane. The SRB simply results in a prescriptive result - no grey areas or descriptions based on undefined/emotional terms. I think it is actually quite important that subjective terms like "worry" and "concern" are excluded from the process. We'll leave those terms for the press releases, Randy and the PR teams.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:58 pm

I've lost two big replies due to a.net/bad-internet connection so I'm not going to try to reply to quotes this time in the hopes I can actually get a reply off.
-The main and APU battery are the same P/N. That's so you can swap the batteries if the main goes down.

-Smoke containment protects the main deck from the lower lobe. It does not protect from smoke (or smells) that come from the main deck or inside the ECS system.

-The smells/smoke distinction is actually very important because smoke triggers smoke detectors and smells don't. Triggering the smoke detectors is one of the ways the ECS system will know to reconfigure to protect the main deck. Smells won't trigger that automatic response, so crews would have to manually shut down the recirculation fans (with switches for that purpose on the flight deck) if they want to stop smells from spreading.

-Lack of immediate threat to safe flight and landing isn't sufficient reason to not ground a fleet. As CM has posted, there are established protocols and thresholds for this (defined by the regulators, not the OEMs). If there is signs that the battery fire is more than a fluke event and that whatever the cause is may be present on more than one aircraft, that *may* meet the grounding threshold (but I am in no position to know if it does).

-Given that the the 787 was designed for ETOPS330 (whether it actually has that certification or not), the battery containment has to be good for at least that long. Given how battery fires work, that's functionally indefinite containment since a battery isn't big enough to burn for 330 minutes.

Tom.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:59 pm

I'm having issues editing my last post. I found an article from the Wall Street Journal. (Which I am having issues posting the link of)
Smell originated from front of aircraft, confirming what Stitch said.


JL to keep fleet grounded until late Thursday at the very least. Maybe reactivation on thurs night but not confirmed; if anything it may be reactivated Friday.

NH remains indefinite.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:00 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 38):

While most airline passengers don't really care what a/c they fly, the more often "major events" happen, the more likely it is the flying public will focus on the a/c type.

I heard two different extended reports before I left the house (NPR, BBC) and both were quite focused on the a/c type, the idea that it was all-new, and the fact that it uses a lot more electricity than any previous type.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
BIZJETTECH
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:53 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:04 pm

If I had to take a wild guess here, the Lithium Ion batteries will soon be removed from this aircraft and replaced with standard NiCad. That is if they prove the battery at fault. There has been issues with Li Ion batteries in other aircraft. Hopefully the solution is as simple as that!
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:05 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
As to why not ground the fleet? Based on the evidence presented to date, neither issue appears to have been one that would have resulted in a hull loss and the risk of injury or fatality. In the case of the APU battery fire, the containment box looks to have done it's job based on pictures of it and of the installation area on the 787.

That may be the case, and the containment box may even have withstood the fire if nobody had come to extinguish it.
But I can fully understand that JAL does not want to have to rely on the containment box in pax operations on a daily basis until they can be reasonably sure to understand what caused the fire and how likely it is to occur again.

To draw a comparison from my own work experience - I used to work in enterprise storage support; we're talking about big cabinets with - usually - at least two battery packs for uninterrupted power supply. If one of these had ever caught fire, even if that fire was contained as planned, you could have been sure to see some customers (not all, of course) elect to at least stop using the battery packs (and quite possibly the whole cabinet if they're in a position to move to other equipment quickly enough) until the root cause was known.
And this would be "just" to not risk fire damage to a data centre (which probably replicates data to another location and has some disaster recovery plan in place), without a planeload of lives at stake.

My point being that I don't think it's any more extraordinary for ANA and JAL to ground their 787 fleet for the time being than it was for Qantas to ground their A380 fleet after the engine failure. In both cases, other operators (in the case of the A380 even those with the same type of engines) continue(d) to operate the type.
42
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:08 pm

Quoting PITingres (Reply 37):
Indeed, but there were (possibly incorrect) reports of smoke and/or smell in the cabin *in flight* anyway. If those reports were false then I see very little cause for a fleet grounding. If the reports had been confirmed it would have pointed to a flaw or defect that might have been of sufficient concern to warrant a grounding (for inspection if nothing else).

People can be confused as to what they experienced. Or they may have truly experienced it, but not when some people are making the assumption that they experienced it (during cruise).

Boeing had to show that smoke could not travel from the bays to the cabin while the aircraft was in cruise. There may be areas of the flight when smoke could get from the bays to the cabin, but I would expect those are at low-speeds (like final approach) or during deceleration on the runway.

IMO, there is a relevant difference to the cabin "filling with smoke" at FL350 and "filling with smoke" parked on the ground in terms of how it impacts the safety of the flight and the passengers.


Quoting anfromme (Reply 44):
That may be the case, and the containment box may even have withstood the fire if nobody had come to extinguish it. But I can fully understand that JAL does not want to have to rely on the containment box in pax operations on a daily basis until they can be reasonably sure to understand what caused the fire and how likely it is to occur again.

If they wish to undertake that action of their own volition, then I believe they are perfectly free to do so. Just as AA was perfectly free to ground their 757 fleet to double-check the bolts holding passenger seats to the floor.

But AA grounding their 757 fleet was not proof that every seat was improperly bolted to the floor across the entire active 757 fleet and therefore the entire 757 fleet should have been grounded. Even if another 757 operator had seen a set of seats break free, that would still not be proof it was a fleet-wide issue.

And before some folks correctly point out that a loose seat is not as serious an issue to the overall safety of an airframe as a battery fire is, I would like to note that we currently have no confirmation that there was a battery fire aboard JA804A or that there was imminent danger of a battery fire aboard JA804A.

But even so, I expect everyone is going to be checking their batteries very carefully and we may very well see an Emergency AD issued that calls for very frequent inspections of the batteries until a final cause is identified and a fix confirmed. And for the record, if such an Emergency AD is issued, I would consider it an appropriate action warranted by the investigation to date. On the flip side, if an EAD is not issued, I would also consider it an appropriate action warranted by the investigation to date.

[Edited 2013-01-16 11:18:40]
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:08 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 42):
I heard two different extended reports before I left the house (NPR, BBC) and both were quite focused on the a/c type, the idea that it was all-new, and the fact that it uses a lot more electricity than any previous type.

I got up to see the BBC World News report at noon GMT and it was long on sensationalism and short on facts. This is the downside to the information age, it takes no effort to toss information (correct or not) into the air. Investigators can't get to an incident scene fast enough plus investigate plus publish information to correct erroneous reports.

As a result, we'll have more than our share of doomsayers, naysayers and spin meisters speculating. Hopefully, all of us can keep things in perspective. I don't think this a/c is unsafe but do think there will be some changes incorporated into the electrical system of this a/c. What's both amusing and frustrating is it may turn out to be a relatively small design or manufacturing change somewhere in the system that stops the issue cold.
 
jreuschl
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:04 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:12 pm

Does anyone know if Boeing has multiple suppliers for the batteries? I would hope they are working on that, if not.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1865
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:19 pm

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 47):

Does anyone know if Boeing has multiple suppliers for the batteries? I would hope they are working on that, if not.

They are sourced from a single supplier who receives them from a single manufacturer. Its way to early to consider switching battery suppliers until the source of the problem is isolated; the battery reports we are getting may be a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22947
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:20 pm

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 47):
Does anyone know if Boeing has multiple suppliers for the batteries? I would hope they are working on that, if not.

They do not.

This is a specialized battery in design and composition. I fully expect there is not another option available "off the shelf" that could be substituted.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: ANA B787 Emergency Landing/Fleet Grounding Part 2

Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:22 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
People can be confused as to what they experienced. Or they may have truly experienced it, but not when some people are making the assumption that they experienced it (during cruise).

Boeing had to show that smoke could not travel from the bays to the cabin while the aircraft was in cruise. There may be areas of the flight when smoke could get from the bays to the cabin, but I would expect those are at low-speeds (like final approach) or during deceleration on the runway.

Now remember the pilot reported to ATC that the cockpit was "in smoke." I gotta check on Yomiuri but the article I had yesterday said that the fire department detected smoke on board.

I've heard of course of smoke alarms tripping false reports but given the incidents I'm going to go out on a leg and say that this one was no false alarm.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787