Problems with the Dreamliner battery

  • Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Battery
In summary: Basically, it's a new design that allows the aircraft to operate with a smaller number of batteries and keep the batteries in a more stable and safer condition. As a result of this design, there have been some concerns raised about the possibility of an interaction between the battery and the electric power distribution system. However, so far no such interactions have been reported.
  • #71
And when are the likely times for a runaway condition? On the tarmac during fast charging.

ptero - that was my point. Batteries warm up during charge and that needs to be sensed early not late. One overtemperature sensor for the whole pack(if indeed that's what they did) would be, well, indicative of amateurism. One cannot assume all cells are equal tempereature, a single sensor will only tell you that one cell is afire or nearly so and about to spread...
My reactor had fifty-one thermocouples immediately above core to monitor for local temperature anomalies. That's in adition to redundant bulk temperature sensors for control and protection.

but i am of the same thoughts as you on this point - airplanes should use a safer battery chemistry.

old jim
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #72
Jim, I was pointing out that, based on the literature I have read, heat sensors are not effective in finding the point of failure inside a Li-Co batttery. Nothing is. The only way to tell what happened is after the fact, with an "autopsy," if you will. But sensors will only provide an average temperature while likely missing entirely the "hot spot" as it develops.

My point is that people can easily be misled into thinking that temperature sensors on Li-Co batteries can provide the same kind of safety assurance they have demonstrated on metal-hydride, nickle-cadmium and even lithium-magnesium types. But Li-Co is a strange beast. When they work, they work really well and lull you into a false sense of security. It appears to me that we have gotten way ahead of ourselves in thinking that the larger ones can be managed safely.

Part of this false sense of safety comes from the design of thermal-triggered open circuits designed into each cell. A good discussion begins here around page 25 of Lithium-Ion Batteries Hazard and Use Assessment - Final Report:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Research/RFLithiumIonBatteriesHazard.pdf

Unfortunately, the reliability of this feature does not prevent a thermal runaway if it is in progress, but rather is intended to prevent too rapid discharge or charge conditions from damaging or degrading the battery.
 
  • #73
Thanks ptero

you posted that NFPA paper a few pages back and it IS an eye opener.
One could surround that battery with extremely sophisticated monitors and still have it go pyrotechnnic.

I am still curious just how far Boeing's "battery charger subcontractor" went with his monitoring.

Unfortunately, the reliability of this feature does not prevent a thermal runaway if it is in progress, but rather is intended to prevent too rapid discharge or charge conditions from damaging or degrading the battery.
Agreed, with that chemisty it likely just 'shuts the barn door after the horse has gone.'

old jim
 
  • #74
This morning, Aviation International News published a story about lithium ion battery types being incorporated into business jets. It appears that several new models from various manufacturers have backed away from lithium. Last year, for instance, Gulfstream had designed in lithium power for its G650 but recently redesigned the system in favor of nickel-cadmium. AIN also says it was told by Cessna on October 18, 2012 that the new Citation X would be fitted out with dual lithium battery packs, but the necessary FAA special order has still not been issued. Cessna's Soverign and CJ4 have also received FAA clearance for lithium batteries but following a lithium iron-phosphate battery fire onboard a CJ4 during fast-charging the FAA issued this Airworthiness Directive, effective November 1, 2011:
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model 525C airplanes. This emergency
AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these
airplanes. This AD requires replacing certain lithium-ion batteries
installed as the main aircraft battery with either a Ni-Cad or a lead
acid battery. This AD was prompted by a report of a battery fire that
resulted after an energized ground power unit was connected to one of
the affected airplanes equipped with a lithium-ion battery as the main
aircraft battery. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

The Spectrum Aeronautical S-40 has also recently canceled its plans for lithium batteries. And all this pales in the face of the huge Airbus redesign of its newest transport which drops Li-Ion in favor of bulkier but safer Ni-cadmium. See "Airbus scraps troubled battery for A350".

Now, I have been told by many people, some expert, who flatter themselves that they are knowledgeable in this area, that automotive lithium iron-phosphate batteries are safe and do not share the negative qualities of lithium cobalt-oxide batteries. However, "http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Research/RFLithiumIonBatteriesHazard.pdf" states that all types of lithium batteries can be subject to thermal runaway. This is not exactly what we were told following the Chevy Volt lithium iron-phosphate battery fires. The NHTSA closed the investigation of the Chevy Volt after blaming one fire on loss of coolant, stating "the agency’s investigation has concluded that no discernible defect trend exists." Two other fires were blamed on faulty charging systems. One of these fires resulted in the loss of an entire home and the other in the loss of a garage, in addition to both Chevy Volts. A new Fisker Karma EV was also blamed for burning down a home in Texas, while another self-immolated in California. Nether were plugged in.

The CJ4 fire was blamed on improper charging using certified equipment. Although the FAA blamed the mechanic for following improper procedure, it nonetheless issued the AD forcing the replacement of the lithium iron-phosphate batteries. (A lead-acid replacement was chosen by the operator.)

I ask again, what is going on? When the problem is human error, the FAA typically issues a procedural directive and additionally may incorporate some fail-safe devices such as switch locks. It does not force replacement of the entire system. This appears unusual and contradictory when compared to the NHTSA action where no system replacement was mandated. And why was the NTHSA investigation of the Chevy Volt fires fast-tracked, then suddenly closed when FAA investigations can go on for years, as mentioned a few posts back?

(Another curious point is that the CJ4 lithium iron-phosphate battery was manufactured by A123 Systems, which was readying for assembly of the Chevy Volt battery packs for this year when it suddenly went bankrupt.)

See this article by the same AIN reporter for more.

See this list of battery fires in NA from the FAA.

_________________
"it ain't what you don't know
that gets you in trouble,
it's what you 'know' that ain't so."
-- Mark Twain
 
Last edited:
  • #75
A human interest side of the story. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/uk-boeing-dreamliner-pilots-idUSLNE91R00920130228

The pilots Reuters spoke to said the 787 is easy to fly, though one was wary about any quick fix to the battery problems.

"Personally, I'm not satisfied by Boeing's proposals as the fundamental cause has not been identified," he said. "I want to fly, but I won't until it's certain the aircraft is safe."

As they wait for the all-clear, pilots' routines have been turned upside-down.

One of the pilots, used to constant jet-lag and skipping meals because of his flight schedule, now eats three home-made meals a day. He's put on weight and says his uniform has become a little tighter. For now, he's playing more sport and reviewing his flight manuals. The second pilot said he's keeping busy with gardening and DIY projects around his home. He also checks regulators' websites for updates on the 787 investigations.
 
  • #76
Fun with lithium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BliWUHSOalU

And in http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/02/us-boeing-787-oversight-idUSBRE92104W20130302, a description of "an occupation with a built-in conflict of interest" is interesting:
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said it would no longer directly manage routine inspection of design and manufacturing. Instead, it would focus on overseeing a self-policing program executed by the manufacturers themselves through more than 3,000 of their employees assigned to review safety on behalf of the FAA. These so-called designees had existed for decades, but the FAA had vetted and controlled them. Under the new system, companies chose and managed them, to the point where the FAA even had trouble rejecting those they felt were unsuitable for the job, according to one government watchdog. As the drama of the overheating lithium-ion batteries on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner unfolds, that relationship is coming under intense scrutiny.

Wasn't this what we did with the banks?
"They knew they had problems. They just said 'OK.'" -- former DOT Inspector General Schiavo
 
Last edited:
  • #77
Ptero said:
Fun with lithium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BliWUHSOalU

Back in the 1970s I knew a guy who worked for a specailist air-conditioning company. He was working on aircon for manufacturing some military devices using Lithium (I don't know if they were Li batteries back then - might have been some sort of pyrotechnics).

The "fun" part was keeping the entire factory permanently below 1% RH, to avoid the reactions with water as in the video. And moving the entire operation from the UK to the middle of a hot desert was not an acceptable option!
 
  • #78
The Boston Globe reports that it took firefighters 40 minutes to put out the lithium battery fire on the JAL Dreamliner in Boston. One might think this would be something to avoid happening in the air, perhaps over the Pacific Ocean.

But it now looks to me like we are witnessing one of the greatest kludges in the history of aviation taking place before our eyes. The engineers who said the lithium cobalt-oxide battery packs would work were wrong. They don't work. They catch on fire. And they come NOWHERE NEAR their safety expectations and MTBF. But they are part of a mission-critical system that they really can't change, the bean counters say, so they got another team of engineers to build a heavy stainless steel armor box around the problem so that when it burns up or explodes or whatever, the flames and smoke will hopefully be vented outside the plane.

This is not how engineering was done in the past on American equipment, not to mention American aircraft. I just read in the Indian press that the Indian Dreamliners will be flying with this FAA-approved kludge next month. What could go wrong?

Melting point of new stainless steel box: 2750 F
Melting point of old titanium box: 3040 F

This is how it's done, kids. This is how perfectly good airplanes fall out of the sky in flames. The engineers say it will work and they are proved wrong.

Oh, and there's this:

Swelling found in second battery on Japanese Dreamliner
 
Last edited:
  • #79
Boeing are busy spamming the media about how fast this will get fixed. Google "787" for links.

The FAA made a statement last week contradicting them:
Industry and federal officials said the agency had rejected a request from Boeing to set a date to begin checking the solutions on flights by Boeing’s test aircraft.

Laura J. Brown, an agency spokeswoman, said Tuesday that “reports that we are close to approving test flights are completely inaccurate.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/business/regulators-await-boeing-battery-results.html?_r=0

But "don't believe everything you read in a newspaper" is hardly a new concept!
 
  • #80
Elon Musk (co-founder of Tesla Motors and SpaceX) had this to say about the Dreamliner battery.

“The 787 batteries have very large cells, the battery cells are very big and they’re quite close together and there’s not enough insulation between the cells. So if one cell goes into thermal runaway and catches on fire, it’s going to cascade into the other cells.

The approach we take at Tesla and SpaceX is we have smaller battery cells with gaps between them, and we make sure that if there’s a thermal runaway event which creates quite a bit of fire and smoke that it directs that fire away from other cells, so you don’t have this domino effect….

The long term solution for having a battery pack that’s reliable and safe and lasts a long time is to reduce the size of the cells, and have more cells that are smaller and have bigger gaps and better thermal insulation between the cells.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/02/26/elon-musks-solution-to-boeings-battery-problem/
 
  • #81
Does anyone know what method is used to cool the 787 battery pack?

Chevy Volt apparently has liquid coolant system for the battery that can tap into the car's passenger compatrment refrigeration system... they limit their battery to 104F.

I've not seen mention of a coolant system, and on what few pictures I've seen i expected to see connecting pipes for forced air or liquid but didn't..http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=257987&cid=NL_Newsletters+-+DN+Daily&dfpPParams=ind_184,industry_aero,aid_257987&dfpLayout=article

also there's a low temperature threshold below which they shouldn't be charged.

Just curious,... 787 battery temperature control is a subject i haven't stumbled across.

http://www.coolingzone.com/index.php?read=508&onmag=true&type=marketing
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #84
Meanwhile, back at the suppliers, and on the factory floor, it's full speed ahead. Boeing has a strong business plan. :wink:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/03/04/boeings-ray-conner-confident-on-787.html?page=3
Currently the plan is to increase 787 production to seven monthly in mid-year, and then 10 monthly by the end of 2013.

“That could change if something goes sideways with FAA or something like that, but we’ll cross that bridge if we come to it,” Conner said. “Right now we’re on track to break to seven, and then go to 10.”

Respectfully,
Steve
 
Last edited:
  • #85
What could go wrong?
__________________

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012...tery-pack-reportedly-caused-gm-lab-explosion/
__________________

In my experience, people who know what they are doing don't get hurt.

On the other hand, people who don't know what they're doing create situations where people get hurt. I just hope we don't see something like this happen in the cockpit of a passenger transport at 30,000 over the Pacific.
 
  • #86
http://www.king5.com/news/local/FAA-delaying-approval-of-788-battery-fix-195778871.html

SEATTLE - KING 5 News has learned that the FAA is not yet ready to greenlight Boeing’s plan for a 787 fix. A source familiar with negotiations between Boeing and the FAA says the sides are still trying to figure out if Boeing should be given credit for certain battery tests already performed.

FAA approval, which was hoped for as early as today, is now not expected until next week at the earliest.

Credit, even if the plan was 100% solid (dubious) I would make them repeat every test with a randomly picked plane including a full charge single cell thermal runaway test.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Dotini said:
Meanwhile, back at the suppliers, and on the factory floor, it's full speed ahead. Boeing has a strong business plan. :wink:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/03/04/boeings-ray-conner-confident-on-787.html?page=3
Currently the plan is to increase 787 production to seven monthly in mid-year, and then 10 monthly by the end of 2013.

“That could change if something goes sideways with FAA or something like that, but we’ll cross that bridge if we come to it,” Conner said. “Right now we’re on track to break to seven, and then go to 10.”

Respectfully,
Steve

But those are "batteries not included" :wink:
 
  • #88
The NTSB Interiim Factual Report on the Boston incident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/boeing_787/interim_report_B787_3-7-13.pdf

I just love section 1.9:

When smoke is detected, the avionics cooling function is designed to exhaust smoke overboard through fans in the cooling ducts and changing supply valve positions (and the use of differential pressure if the airplane is in flight). During this incident, the supply valves (which are electrically driven) lost electrical power after the APU shut down because the APU was the only source of electrical power being used at the time.
Translation: the fans to prevent smoke from the battery getting into the cabin didn't work, because they were powered by the battery that had caught fire.

You couldn't make this stuff up :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml

Boeing and 787 operators around the world may be breathing easier following U.S. Federal Aviation Administration approval of the manufacturer's battery system redesign certification plan, but the hard work is only just beginning,

As the grounding of the 787 stretches into an unprecedented 10th week, Boeing has been told by the FAA the aircraft will only be cleared to return to service after the manufacturer conducts “extensive testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with the applicable safety regulations and special conditions.”
...
The NTSB has announced plans to hold a forum and investigative hearing in April to review the battery's technology, safety and process used in its certification. The agency's investigation found—among other things—no record of the final production-standard charging system having been tested with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery. The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing.
 
  • #91
Boeing statement with some details on their fixes
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2622
and some news comment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/boeing-details-its-fixes-for-787.html
“We think the likelihood of a repeat event is very unlikely,” Ron Hinderberger, a senior Boeing 787 engineer, said on a conference call on Friday.
That guy's name sounds a bit too close to "Hindenberger" for comfort :smile:

Interesting that Boeing's interpretation of "extensive testing" appears to be a couple of weeks of lab tests, and just ONE flight test "because the batteries are not used in normal flight" (NYT article).

But the issue is not about whether the batteries are used in normal flight, but whether they catch fire in normal flight. And they have already demonstrated that fact.
 
  • #92
It's all too easy to nitpick from afar
but I can't resist this, from 'spook's Aviation Week article:

The agency's investigation found—among other things—no record of the final production-standard charging system having been tested with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery. The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing.

So a battery charger that flies blind after estimating its battery's state of charge wasn't tested with a real battery because it sets real batteries afire? And somebody put one in an airplane?
( See front page of battery charger patent(US5780994) for a synopsis of the charging algorithm:
http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid...&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page
)

we must not be getting the whole story.
Operational improvements also focus on tightening of the battery system's voltage range. This addresses another finding of the NTSB interim report that the battery did not behave as either Boeing or the system subcontractor Thales indicated. In particular, the battery's power discharge was “not at the constant rate described by the Boeing or Thales documents and included large changes and reversals of power within short periods of time,” it notes.


Yet from the interim report, page 33:
Battery testing consisted of full-performance, environmental qualification, and destructive tests. The destructive tests included external short circuit (low and moderate impedance shorts at battery terminals), overcharge (charge battery at 36 volts for 25 hours), high-temperature storage (185º F for 18 hours), and overdischarge (discharge battery to zero volts) tests. Boeing indicated that the tests found no evidence of cell-to-cell propagation failure or fire.


I'm beginning to appreciate my bumpersticker: "Real aviators fly homebuilts".
 
Last edited:
  • #93
jim hardy said:
It's all too easy to nitpick from afar

It's not nitpicking.

From the NY Times link:
During the presentation, Boeing also disputed characterizations made by the National Transportation Safety Board in its investigation of the Boston episode. The safety board has described it as a fire event that was caused when a failure in one cell cascaded to others, in what the board referred to as a thermal runaway. Boeing executives took issue with both assertions, contending there never was a fire inside the battery. They pointed out that the only eyewitness report referred to two three-inch flames on the connectors outside the battery box. The second episode involved only smoke.

In a report last week, the safety board said that firefighters reported “radiant heat waves” along with considerable smoke, but no flames, and one firefighter was burned in the neck when the battery exploded.

In response, a safety board spokeswoman said the board stood by its report and would “release only factual information as we are able to corroborate it.”
 
  • #94
... there never was a fire inside the battery. They pointed out that the only eyewitness report referred to two three-inch flames on the connectors outside the battery box.
"sometimes you have to look reality square in the eye and deny it." garrison keillor
Through another test, the team demonstrated that fire cannot occur within the new enclosure. Its design eliminates oxygen, making the containment unit self-inerting. Inerting is a step above fire detection and extinguishing as it prevents a fire from ever occurring.

When the oxygen is already inside the battery ? LiCoO2

PR Pablum, unless I've misinterpreted verb "inerting"...
 
  • #95
"There never was a fire inside the battery." -- Boeing
Boeing-Dreamliner-1.jpg

ANA battery.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/187629791_Boeing_faces_battles__fixing_Dreamliner_and_winning_back_fliers_to_repair_the_787_and_public_s_trust.html

0125-plane_full_380.jpg

NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman
I have to say, I admire this woman. She is placing the safety of people ahead of Boeing's financial desires. -- Ptero
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0125/NTSB-Boeing-787-batteries-show-signs-of-short-circuiting

There was never a fire inside the battery." -_ Boeing
article-2258626-16CC9F5E000005DC-293_634x666.jpg

"Where there's smoke, there's fire." -- Smokey Bear
http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t722258p1/

Now I have a few comments. I am learning a lot from the posters here. Thank you for this.
During the past 15 years, I have worked with quite a few high-tech companies who have been either destroyed by competitors or the financial institutions they trusted. The business strategy has shifted from outright competition, using excellence of product and marketing skills, to that of military-styled disinformation and subversion of competitors. This is widespread. It is destroying our country, as well, but I will save this for another forum.

We are presently witnessing Boeing, who have extensive historical experience building aircraft that carry bombs, attempting to persuade the FAA and the NTSB that they know best and that battery packs which have demonstrated they can explode like small bombs can be carried safely on passenger aircraft, not bombers, with a little clever "engineering". This is a new transition in thought, and the government agency leaders are balking at committing themselves to this. Perhaps, like myself, they feel that real engineering actually avoids the problem in the first place, rather than wrapping a kludge around it. Now with their back to the wall, Boeing seems, to me, to be moving toward disinformation and, likely in my opinion, other questionable activities that may, in the long run, not turn out well for them or the people who fly on their Dreamliners.

Putting lipstick on a pig is not engineering. It is instead, a shameful admission that real engineering has been abandoned in favor of essentially political/corporate "solutions".
 
Last edited:
  • #96
They pointed out that the only eyewitness report referred to two three-inch flames on the connectors outside the battery box.

So why are were they using electrical connectors that can spontaneously combust? :biggrin:
 
  • #97
jim hardy said:
So a battery charger that flies blind after estimating its battery's state of charge wasn't tested with a real battery because it sets real batteries afire? And somebody put one in an airplane?
...
we must not be getting the whole story.

I'm not trying to defend anybody here, but I certainly wouldn't expect "what is declared for certification" to be "the whole story". Dealing with a certifying authority is a bit like being intervied by the police. Telling them lies is usually a bad strategy, but telling them everything you know isn't a good plan either. Any information that goes to the certifying body can potentially appear in the public domain and be raked over by no-win-no-fee lawyers, outsiide of your control.

Even for well established technology, there's an art to writing certification reports that demonstrate compliance but contain the absolute mimumum of information.

I could give examples from my personal experience where the amount of actual testing done was much more than was ever declared, and things were redesigned because of the results of the undeclared tests. But there is no way we would ever release the fact that those tests had even been done, let alone give a lawyer the chance to put the case to a jury (hand-picked to know nothing about science and technology, of course) that "you knew all along that XYZ blew up the first time you tested it".
 
  • #98
NTSB reminds Boeing of the "rules of engagement" over media briefings.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-22/boeing-faulted-by-ntsb-for-comments-on-787-battery-fix.html
 
  • #99
It just keeps getting better.

Shares in GS Yuasa, the Japanese battery supplier for Boeing's troubled Dreamliner, plunged on Thursday after its power packs overheated or caught fire in Mitsubishi's electric and hybrid vehicles.
http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/news/dreamliner-battery-makers-shares-plunge-034113052.html

Japan's Mitsubishi reports battery overheat problems
The move follows the melting of a lithium battery pack in a hybrid Outlander that was due for sale earlier this month, as well as a fire triggered by an overheating unit in a factory which produces the MiEV electric vehicle.
http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/news/japans-mitsubishi-reports-battery-overheat-140348276.html

GS Yuasa Crisis Deepens as Mitsubishi Car Battery Catches Fire
“This is more serious than the airplane incident.” -- Shoichi Arisawa, an analyst at Iwai Cosmo Securities Co.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...s-as-mitsubishi-car-battery-catches-fire.html

As if this isn't enough, the Dreamliner battery box now seems to be taking on characteristics of the "box" in which Erwin Schroedinger placed his infamous cat and the "event horizon" of a black hole.

Finally, it looks like the FAA is going to restrict all future 787 flights to over-land operation during the validation phase. This is not going to make Boeing's customers, who rely heavily on trans-ocean routes, very happy.
Boeing 787 faces new risk: limits on extended range: sources
http://news.yahoo.com/boeing-787-faces-risk-limits-extended-range-sources-000633878--finance.html;_ylt=AwrNUbCmhlRRXEEAl2bQtDMD

Here's a $237MM loss to the U.S. Navy in a lithium battery fire I hadn't heard of before.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/07/navy_seal_minisub_072709w/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2660

EVERETT, Wash., April 19, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Today's approval of battery system improvements for the 787 Dreamliner by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) clears the way for Boeing (NYSE: BA) and its customers to install the approved modifications and will lead to a return to service and resumption of new production deliveries.

"FAA approval clears the way for us and the airlines to begin the process of returning the 787 to flight with continued confidence in the safety and reliability of this game-changing new airplane," said Boeing Chairman, President and CEO Jim McNerney. "The promise of the 787 and the benefits it provides to airlines and their passengers remain fully intact as we take this important step forward with our customers and program partners."
 
  • #101
So the FAA caved in and issued that statement before the NTSB's public hearings on 23 and 24 April. And they are maintaining the 180 minute ETOPS rating.

The Japanese Civil Aviation Board doesn't plan to just roll over (though they probably will eventually) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/20/boeing-dreamliner-battery-idUSL2N0D61UG20130420

The next step for Japan would be to revise its version of the airworthiness directive, known as a "technical circular directive" Takano said that could come on or after April 25.

"We want to make the final decision on flight resumption based on the FAA's airworthiness directive revision as well as checking the results of a U.S. National Transportation Safety Board-hosted hearing set to take place on April 23 and 24," he said.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the top U.S. transportation investigator, is investigating a battery fire on a JAL Dreamliner plane parked at an airport in Boston in January and will have an investigative hearing on the jet's battery next week.

Japan has yet to decide whether it should require ANA and JAL to take additional measures to ensure the safety of the lithium-ion batteries used in the Dreamliner, Takano added.
 
  • #102
Forgive my well-founded pessimism but I really don't think they have even identified the problem, much less solved it. Certification testing cannot duplicate the random rogue shorting that causes these batteries to ignite or explode. In fact, due to the fact that shorting cannot be initiated or predicted or discovered by any means prior to failure, short-term certification testing can only suggest a meaningless number for MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure). If I am correct, in the worst case, we will see a 787 fall out of the sky in flames - ignited by a thermal runaway/explosion in one of the lithium batteries. More likely will be a repeat of one of the prior incidents and a re-grounding of the 787 fleet. I doubt this will take long.

If we do have a serious accident resulting from this jury-rigged "fix", this upcoming meeting will take on historical significance as an illustration of how secular financial, corporate and governmental desires trumped sound electrical engineering and the so-called priority of passenger safety. Don't miss it.

National Transportation Safety Board Investigative Hearing:
Boeing 787 Battery
April 23-24, 2013 at 9:00 am ET

After 8:30 am on April 23 (next Tuesday), you will be able to find the live link to a live web stream of the meeting, staring the usual suspects, here

http://www.capitolconnection.net/capcon/ntsb/ntsb.htm

You will also find archived at this link, the 2-day hearing on "Lithium Batteries in Transportation" from April 11 - 12.
_____________________

Boeing Press Release: April 19, 2013
- Modifications to existing fleets to begin; deliveries to resume soon
- Boeing to provide customers support for return to service
EVERETT, Wash., April 19, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Today's approval of battery system improvements for the 787 Dreamliner by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) clears the way for Boeing (NYSE: BA) and its customers to install the approved modifications and will lead to a return to service and resumption of new production deliveries.
"FAA approval clears the way for us and the airlines to begin the process of returning the 787 to flight with continued confidence in the safety and reliability of this game-changing new airplane," said Boeing Chairman, President and CEO Jim McNerney. "The promise of the 787 and the benefits it provides to airlines and their passengers remain fully intact as we take this important step forward with our customers and program partners."
The FAA's action will permit the return to service of 787s in the United States upon installation of the improvements. For 787s based and modified outside the United States, local regulatory authorities provide the final approval on return to service.
Approval of the improved 787 battery system was granted by the FAA after the agency conducted an extensive review of certification tests. The tests were designed to validate that individual components of the battery, as well as its integration with the charging system and a new enclosure, all performed as expected during normal operation and under failure conditions. Testing was conducted under the supervision of the FAA over a month-long period beginning in early March.
"The FAA set a high bar for our team and our solution," said McNerney. "We appreciate the diligence, expertise and professionalism of the FAA's technical team and the leadership of FAA Administrator Michael Huerta and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood throughout this process. Our shared commitment with global regulators and our customers to safe, efficient and reliable airplanes has helped make air travel the safest form of transportation in the world today."
Boeing, in collaboration with its supplier partners and in support of the investigations of the National Transportation Safety Board and the Japan Transport Safety Board, conducted extensive engineering analysis and testing to develop a thorough understanding of the factors that could have caused the 787's batteries to fail and overheat in two incidents last January. The team spent more than 100,000 hours developing test plans, building test rigs, conducting tests and analyzing the results to ensure the proposed solutions met all requirements.
"Our team has worked tirelessly to develop a comprehensive solution that fully satisfies the FAA and its global counterparts, our customers and our own high standards for safety and reliability," said Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Ray Conner. "Through the skill and dedication of the Boeing team and our partners, we achieved that objective and made a great airplane even better."
Boeing also engaged a team of more than a dozen battery experts from across multiple industries, government, academia and consumer safety to review and validate the company's assumptions, findings, proposed solution and test plan.
The improved battery system includes design changes to both prevent and isolate a fault should it occur. In addition, improved production, operating and testing processes have been implemented. The new steel enclosure system is designed to keep any level of battery overheating from affecting the airplane or even being noticed by passengers.
"This is a comprehensive and permanent solution with multiple layers of protection," said Conner. "The ultimate layer of protection is the new enclosure, which will ensure that even if a battery fails, there is no impact to the airplane and no possibility of fire. We have the right solution in hand, and we are ready to go.
"We are all very grateful to our customers for their patience during the past several months," said Conner. "We know it hasn't been easy on them to have their 787s out of service and their deliveries delayed. We look forward to helping them get back into service as quickly as possible."
Boeing has deployed teams to locations around the world to begin installing improved battery systems on 787s. Kits with the parts needed for the new battery systems are staged for shipment and new batteries also will be shipped immediately. Teams have been assigned to customer locations to install the new systems. Airplanes will be modified in approximately the order they were delivered.
"The Boeing team is ready to help get our customers' 787s back in the air where they belong," said Conner.
Boeing will also begin installing the changes on new airplanes at the company's two 787 final-assembly plants, with deliveries expected to resume in the weeks ahead. Despite the disruption in deliveries that began in January, Boeing expects to complete all planned 2013 deliveries by the end of the year. Boeing further expects that the 787 battery issue will have no significant impact to its 2013 financial guidance.
More information is available on our special 787 website.
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this release may be "forward-looking" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as "expects," "forecasts," "plans," "projects," "believes," "estimates," "targets," "anticipates," and similar expressions are used to identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and assumptions, which may not prove to be accurate. These statements are not guarantees and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in these forward-looking statements. As a result, these statements speak to events only as of the date they are made and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement, except as required by federal securities laws. Specific factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the effect of economic conditions in the United States and globally, and general industry conditions as they may impact us or our customers, as well as the other important factors disclosed previously and from time to time in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Contact:
Marc Birtel
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Media Relations
+1 425 266 5822
marc.r.birtel@boeing.com
SOURCE Boeing
________________________

Michael Leon is adamant about his fear about the use of lithium-ion batteries on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner...

"My BCU wasn't running and this lithium-ion battery just decided to explode," said Leon. "The magnitude of energy that came out of this battery, I cannot quantify it. I ran out of there and armed myself with 30 pounds of Halon and I ran back into the inferno. By then all the walls were on fire."

The fire at Securaplane in 2006 was well documented at the time. Boeing said it was the result of a test set up improperly, and it was not a case where a lithium-ion battery simply exploded for no reason.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100406310
__________________________

A 2006 Battery Fire Destroyed Boeing 787 Supplier's Facility
http://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tec...estroyed-boeing-787-suppliers-facility/60809/
 
Last edited:
  • #103
Okay, you guys, here's a claim that lithium burns with aluminum. Can someone enlighten me to the chemistry? I have a rerun of Alien playing in my mind where the crew cuts off the leg of a "face-hugger" and the blood that squirts out starts burning holes between decks on its way to the hull.
________________

Battery Burns
by dean adams
Thursday, April 18, 2013
http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2013/Apr/130418mnsa11.htm

The fire in the Tech 3 Yamaha garage last night was caused by a lithium battery in a remote engine starting unit, either left on the charger or in an "on" position over night.
See http://www.motomatters.com/news/2013/04/18/fire_in_yamaha_garage_gets_austin_motogp.html

If you've flown commercial recently--I just got off a Delta flight--then no doubt you have heard the new warning messages that some airlines are making pre-flight, that passengers are not to bring lithium batteries on the plane, have them in chargers or in a device that is turned on (the message varies between airlines).

Lithium batteries are super-light, charge quickly and are very powerful for their size. But they also can be a huge and dangerous fire hazard. Boeing's new 787 "Dreamliner" plane was grounded over fears that its lithium-ion batteries were a major fire hazard.

corser.jpg


In motorcycle racing it's well known that BMW lost an entire WSBK factory bike last season when a lithium-ion battery burst into flames. When it all goes pear-shaped, lithium-ion batteries burn very hot and love to use aluminum frames for fuel. At least twice now a race bike fire caused by a lithium-ion battery went from 'Hey, is that thing smoking?' to GET IT OUTSIDE! NOW! PUSH IT OUTSIDE!' in a very short time. The batteries cause a fire so hot that water is only a short-term answer for extinguishing the flames.

The battery in Tech 3's starter was probably larger than what is normally used in a motorcycle application. While three garages were left under water, Tech 3 is very lucky that the situation was not much worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #104
Am I reading this right?

Wall Street Journal, April 21. 2013
...Boeing's new stainless-steel containment box prevented heat from damaging surrounding aircraft parts and should prevent pilots from having to make emergency landings.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324235304578436781345776410.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

Are they saying that now that they have this new battery box, if the lithium battery catches on fire, they will just continue on their merry way through the sky with part of their aircraft on fire and not declare an emergency landing? That's not what it says, is it? Come on, they're not really saying that, are they?
 
  • #105
Ptero said:
Am I reading this right?

Wall Street Journal, April 21. 2013
...Boeing's new stainless-steel containment box prevented heat from damaging surrounding aircraft parts and should prevent pilots from having to make emergency landings.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324235304578436781345776410.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

Are they saying that now that they have this new battery box, if the lithium battery catches on fire, they will just continue on their merry way through the sky with part of their aircraft on fire and not declare an emergency landing? That's not what it says, is it? Come on, they're not really saying that, are they?

Yes, even with a battery "event", they will not have to divert. 3 hour ETOPS certification remains in effect. The long distance money-making qualities of this amazing airplane remain untouched. Once they arrive at the destination, I suppose all they'll need to do is hose out the box and drop in a new battery. The NTSB still wants to know why the fires occur in the first place, and presumably someday they will know, but the 787 program is now on the flightpath to financial recovery, and investors and pensioners can rest easy. No, I don't fly.

Respectfully,
Steve
 

Similar threads

News Malaysia Airlines flight crashes in Ukraine
4
Replies
108
Views
17K
News Abuses growing in South Sudan conflict
Replies
2
Views
3K
Fuel tank explosions in aircrafts
Replies
10
Views
36K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top