Problems with the Dreamliner battery

[jim hardy]

No, I don't fly.

I don't even ride in Prius'es .

Probably in a year or two somebody will come up with a non-pyrotechnic replacement.
That'll be the penny stock to buy.

 

[AlephZero]

3 hour ETOPS certification remains in effect. The long distance money-making qualities of this amazing airplane remain untouched.

From the airlines point of view, the real money making qualities come from 5 hour ETOPS, not 3.

Getting that will depend on demonstrating actual reliability in operation.

This may be a bit of a novelty for an aircraft manufacturer. Historically civil aviation has mostly been pretty low tech, and the main risk factors to a plane are at takeoff and landing, so whether you cruise at 35,000 feet for 3 hours or 13 hours doesn't change the reliability numbers by much. And (obviously) you are not 3 hours away from an airfield when you are taking off or landing, so the higher risk factors involved are irrelevant for ETOPS.

Historically the engine manufacturers have been the ones who have to jump through hoops for ETOPS certification, not the plane manufacturers.

 

[nsaspook]

NTSB
April 11, 2013
Public Forum:
Lithium Ion Batteries in Transportation

April 23, 2013
Investigative Hearing:
Boeing 787 Battery

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

(Reuters) - Ethiopian Airlines on Saturday became the world's first carrier to resume flying Boeing Co's 787 Dreamliner passenger jets, landing the first commercial flight since the global fleet was grounded three months ago following incidents of overheating in the batteries providing auxiliary power

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/27/us-boeing-dreamliner-ethiopianairlines-idUSBRE93Q02A20130427

Yay!

 

[AlephZero]

Yay!

They are hedging their bets - they have orders for 10 more dreamliners and 12 A350s

Still, Ethoipian have a good safety record compared with most African airlines - only 60 accidents/incidents in the last 40 years

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They are hedging their bets - they have orders for 10 more dreamliners and 12 A350s

It was about five years past the original deadline for the maiden flight when the first one took off from Everett. They must have planned well because I don't think cash flow every became a critical issue. I was a little worried how long this would go on and how much cash they have in reserve. But I didn't hear any serious rumblings... not yet.

Time for the sales people to make up for lost time! Boeing is the number one exporter for the US.

Too bad about that clunky, old, heavy airframe that Airbus still uses.

 

[AlephZero]

Too bad about that clunky, old, heavy airframe that Airbus still uses.

Engine makers take a different view - more like selling shovels to gold miners.

We don't really care whether airlines buy Trent 700s on A330s, Trent 800s on 777s, Trent 900s on A380s, or Trent 1000s on 787s

(But it can be quite amusing watching Airbus and Boeing sales people slugging it out, when it's heads you win, and tails you also win)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We have yet to see how the new design holds up over the long term. Hopefully there won't be any big surprises. There is no doubt that the 787 is a bold move for Boeing. But we like bold around here!

From what I understand, it isn't just the 20% better mileage [or whatever it works out to be], but also the ability to land on shorter runways that makes it appealing in certain markets, including for use at some regional airports.

I believe it is also the first commercial, passenger aircraft with only two engines, approved for transoceanic flights. I had a video on the making of the RR engines for these that was quite interesting but don't seem to have it handy. Very impressive technology!

A lot of firsts in there. Hopefully this will be the last of the wringing out.

I hope you guys are ready to compete with a flying wing. They're getting serious about that too. They've been doing scale model testing.

 

[AlephZero]

I believe it is also the first commercial, passenger aircraft with only two engines, approved for transoceanic flights. I had a video on the making of the RR engines for these that was quite interesting but don't seem to have it handy. Very impressive technology!

Not true. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS for a history lesson.

You may be getting confused by Boeing's advertising over two sub-issues:
(1) ETOPS ratings at entry into service for a new aircraft type (i.e. without any "grandfather rights" or service experience to read across from an earlier design)
(2) ETOPS ratings of more than 180 minutes (and it's quite possible the FAA and the rest of the world will end up with different regulations over that issue)

Actually the engine reliability issues aren't quite as simple as "more engines = better". Each engines on a twin has to be able to deliver twice its "normal usage" max power output, to handle the case of engine failure on takeoff. For a 4-engine plane the margin is less. So in normal usage the twin's engines have a bigger design safety margin. And with twice as many engines, you are twice as likely to have one engine fail per hour of flying time!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not true. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS for a history lesson.

You may be getting confused by Boeing's advertising over two sub-issues:
(1) ETOPS ratings at entry into service for a new aircraft type (i.e. without any "grandfather rights" or service experience to read across from an earlier design)
(2) ETOPS ratings of more than 180 minutes (and it's quite possible the FAA and the rest of the world will end up with different regulations over that issue)

Actually the engine reliability issues aren't quite as simple as "more engines = better". Each engines on a twin has to be able to deliver twice its "normal usage" max power output, to handle the case of engine failure on takeoff. For a 4-engine plane the margin is less. So in normal usage the twin's engines have a bigger design safety margin. And with twice as many engines, you are twice as likely to have one engine fail per hour of flying time!

The reliability issue I get, but I understood this to be more an issue of thrust and the ability of an aircraft this size to operate safely on only one engine, esp including takeoffs.

So are there any two-engine commercial passenger crafts certified for transatlantic or transpacific flights - LA to Tokyo or NY to London, for example?

 

[Richard Sneed]

But no one has suggested whether or not isolating the cells would reduce risk. And why a sensor and shut-down system wouldn't solve the problem. I understand that the fires won't go out. Where are the ideas for preventing ignition in the first place? Has anyone found any papers on these two questions?

I found one half of a roach in a Twinky in 1959. No need to guess where the other half was. Crunchy.

 

[AlephZero]

Oops! http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/uk-japan-dreamliner-idUKBRE94F0C220130516

 

[AlephZero]

So are there any two-engine commercial passenger crafts certified for transatlantic or transpacific flights - LA to Tokyo or NY to London, for example?

Sorry, I mussed that question - but yes, for example the B777 and A330.

 

[techtribes]

from memory I remember the airbus had big problems with the power system. generators overheating in the engines caused fire. hmm. how do we know it wasn't sabotage.

 

[Ptero]

Friday, May 10, 2013
"Boeing has put forth a superior containment so that a fire won't spread to the rest of the plane," says MIT materials chemistry professor Donald Sadoway in a statement for the FlyersRights petition. "The question is this: How long are you willing to fly without full backup power on an aircraft that is 'fly by wire'?"

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT), FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) AND NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD (NTSB) RE SAFETY OF BOEING 787 BATTERIES OF FLYERSRIGHTS.ORG & AVIATION CONSUMER ACTION PROJECT
BY PAUL S. HUDSON, PRESIDENT OF FLYERSRIGHTS.ORG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AVIATION CONSUMER ACTION PROJECT, MEMBER OF FAA AVIATION RULEMAKING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
http://strandedpassengers.blogspot.com/

May 8, 2013

In January 2013, all Boeing 787 airliners were grounded due to overheating leading to fires and subsequent failure of lithium ion batteries used on this aircraft. 1

On January 18th DOT Secretary Ray LaHood stated, “Those planes won’t fly until we’re 1,000% sure they are safe to fly.”

On April 19th, while the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was still investigating the Boeing 787 battery fires, the FAA approved a Boeing proposed 787 battery fix, but indicated it was reviewing the three (3) hour distance from the nearest landing site that this aircraft is approved for. 2

FlyersRights.org, the largest airline passenger organization calls on DOT Secretary LaHood and the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta to require Boeing 787 be limited to no more that two hour(s) (ETOPS 120) from the nearest emergency landing site, unless its lithium ion batteries are replaced with a failsafe electrical power system proven to meet current FAA safety standards or until this aircraft has proven itself with at least 24 months of trouble free service. This is the standard used by the Joint Aviation Authorities in the 1990s to even consider allowing twin engine aircraft to be certified to fly up 3 hours from the nearest airport. 3

Lithium ion batteries have a long history of overheating, catching fire, exploding, and spewing molten metal. The two batteries used on the Boeing are large, over 60 lbs. Should they overheat and catch fire they could easily bring down the airliner, especially if it was not within easy reach of an airport available for an emergency landing. Moreover, industry wide certification standards for lithium ion batteries that are permanently installed do not currently exist. See Exhibit 1.

According to independent experts, the proposed Boeing battery fix that has received preliminary approval by the FAA is wholly inadequate to ensure the safety of the traveling public.

See Exhibit 2 (opinion of battery safety expert David Zuckerbrod);

Exhibit 3 (opinion of MIT materials professor Donald Sadoway;

Exhibit 4 (comments of former DOT Inspector General Mary Schiavo).

These known dangers have led the FAA to impose severe restrictions and outright bans on the use and carrying of lithium batteries much smaller than the 787 batteries on US airliners. 4.

Smoke and fire in US airliners is not unusual and causes about 250 emergency landings per year, and has resulted in 100% fatal crashes in the recent past . 5

The Boeing 787 is different from other airliners in that it requires five times the electric power of the present Boeing 777 to operate, has only two instead of four engines, and uses a battery known for its volatility and overheating.

Without robust testing that has yet to be done and without operational experience this fix is unproven as safe and should result at most in limited re-certification of the 787 for use only within 120 minutes of emergency landing facilities. Two hours would allow the Boeing 787 to fly transatlantic, nearly all overland routes, and many Pacific routes but not over the North Pole or trans Pacific or south Atlantic routes over 1,000 miles from a landing site.

From the limited information available, the Boeing fix does not appear to include:

a) any battery cooling apparatus at least in the rear section of the plane,

b) temperature gauges to warn pilots and ground monitoring of battery overheating or trigger cooling of overheating batteries, See Exhibit 2, 3.

Moreover, contrary to the Boeing assertions, battery fires would not necessarily be prevented by its venting system, and Boeing does not even contend that battery failure would be prevented by its band aid fix involving a containment vessel and insulation between cells.

The steel case that it claims will suppress a fire weighs 150 pounds thereby largely negating a principal advantage for using the lighter but highly volatile over older but safer cadmium batteries. See Exhibit 2, Zuckerbrod

Finally, a review of the NTSB April forum and investigative hearing transcripts and podcasts indicates:

a) the FAA has not done battery testing of the 787 battery at its tech center, but only on commonly shipped batteries in air cargo.

b) the FAA gave Boeing an extremely broad, if not unprecedented, Delegation of Authority (DOA) for the design, testing protocols, actual testing for the 787 battery certification without direct FAA supervision. Such broad based self regulation is problematic.

It raises a host of conflict of interest questions, possible self dealing and exposes the Boeing employees charged with testing and approving their employer’s products for safety to undue pressures.

It is particularly dangerous here given the known dangers of lithium ion batteries combined with the untested use of such large batteries to control the fly-by-wire Boeing 787 with five times the power requirements of its predecessor, the Boeing 777.

In March 2013 we asked the FAA and DOT Secretary LaHood to empanel a special advisory committee with outside battery experts and representatives of passenger and flight crews to review the battery fixes and testing proposed by Boeing and the certification procedures used, but received only silence from the DOT and FAA. See Exhibit 6.

NTSB Chair Hersman did respond and noted that a forum was scheduled and an investigative hearing was to be held on April 23-24 regarding the latest battery fire on a Boeing 787. But no passenger representatives were invited for participation. The Boeing fix has not been vetted by the battery technical community or the industry associations that normally recommend safety testing standards to government safety agencies. Nor have many of the technical details of the Boeing fix been publicly disclosed.

Accordingly, the lifting of the Boeing 787 grounding order to permit flights up to 3 hours from the nearest landing site is both premature while the NTSB is still investigating the cause of the 787 battery fires and does not meet the Secretary’s statement that the grounding will not be lifted until the aircraft is shown to be “1,000% ” safe.

Rather, the FAA should:

a) empanel an ad hoc advisory committee composed of battery safety experts not affiliated with Boeing or the FAA, together with stakeholder representatives of passengers and flight crews (those directly at risk), in addition to Boeing, airlines and aviation liability insurance carriers to make recommendations.

b) open a docket for public comment and post the full technical details of the Boeing proposed battery fix.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has been touted as a revolutionary 21st Century airliner with unmatched fuel efficiency, passenger comfort and the capacity to fly to nearly any destination on Earth nonstop. But to realize this potential Boeing must be required to meet or exceed modern aviation safety standards that it has thus far failed to do.1. FAA Emergency Air Worthiness Directive issued Jan. 16, 2013 after 787 battery fires on ground at Boston, and in air Jan. 14, 2013 in Japan, making four battery failures in one year or 52,000 hrs of operation vs Boeing’s prediction of one failure every 10 million hrs. of operation; Several other batteries replaced showing evidence of battery overheating, Aviation Herald Feb. 6, 2013; Boeing 787 had 5 incidents in 5 days .

2. www.faa.gov/mobile/index.cfm=news.read&release=14554 3. ETOPS stands for extended operations for two engine aircraft; the Joint Aviation Authorities represent European civil aviation authorities. Normally, two engine aircraft must show trouble free service for 24 months before an application to fly over 2 hours from the nearest airport will be considered. Prior to the January 2013 grounding, the Boeing 787 had ETOPS 180 certification and Boeing has sought to increase this to ETOPS 330 (5 ½ hours from the nearest airport). See ETOPS, Wikipedia showing that the Joint Aviation Authorities vetoed a Boeing attempt to certify an earlier aircraft without operational experience.4. Special conditions B787-8 airplane Lithium Ion battery installation FAA/Federal Register Oct. 11, 2007

5. E.g. Swissair Flight 111 (1998, Halifax fire due to flammable material in entertainment system caused crash killing 229 on board; UPS Flight 6 (Sept. 3, 2010 smoke in cockpit from cargo of Lithium Ion batteries crashed killing 2 person crew near Dubai, FAA then banned lithium Ion batteries on passenger jets as cargo and warned than Halon fire extinguishers ineffective for lithium ion battery fires. Other recent examples include American Airlines Eagle Flight 3773 July 20, 2012 emergency landing Peoria Ill., United 777-222 Nov. 2012 emergency landing at Gander Newfoundland; private jet carrying Ann Romney emergency landing in Denver Sept. 21, 2012 due to electrical fire; Sunway Airlines Mar. 13, 2013 in Ottawa. See gen. GAO report www.gao/atext/d0433.txt Oct. 2003.

 

[Ptero]

Consumer Group, Battery Expert Question FAA Dreamliner Decision
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/aviation/consumer-group-battery-expert-question-faa-dreamliner-decision

So part of Boeing's battery fix is to not just to try to eliminate battery fires but also contain any that might break out. This means, in part, thermally insulating every lithium cobalt oxide cell within the battery's stainless steel container.

Zuckerbrod says he's impressed with the batteries' heavy duty stainless steel housing, which would contain any fire and vent fumes directly outside the plane. (On the other hand, adding in a heavy stainless steel box also cuts back on the main appeal of the batteries in the first place: their high energy density.)

However, Zuckerbrod also notes that insulation between battery cells -- electrically and thermally insulating each cell from one another and the box itself -- could pose a problem during regular use.

"As the cells are used they have to cool off," he says. "If you get above about 90 C or so, if the heat's contained and can't leak out, the battery may begin to self-heat and undergo a thermal runaway."

 

[Ptero]

I believe we are witnessing the decline of American excellence in engineering. Or perhaps we are witnessing the decline of excellence in the American integration of engineering disiplines into complex products. Either way. the result will be the same.

 

[Ptero]

Oh, you mean people could die? Maybe we should investigate this "as soon as possible."

Computed Tomography Scans of Boeing 787 APU Batteries
Solicitation Number: PUR130245
Agency: National Transportation Safety Board
Office: National Transportation Safety Board
Location: Acquisition Division

Posted Date:
May 3, 2013
Response Date:
May 06, 2013 12:00 pm Eastern

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...df7d1ec&tab=core&tabmode=list&print_preview=1

...The NTSB is planning to conduct teardown examinations as soon as possible of several aircraft batteries similar to one involved in an aircraft incident. This urgent requirement is in support of accident investigation DCA13IA037 that occurred in Boston, MA. To facilitate those examinations, CT scans of these batteries and their subcomponents are required to non-destructively determine as much information as possible about those components. In addition, batteries and battery cells of the same type which have been subjected to known test conditions will also be scanned. These scans will be conducted both before and after the test conditions are applied. Since these batteries are of the lithium ion type and have substantial shipping restrictions (including a requirement for ground shipping only using specially qualified hazardous materials shippers which would cause a delay of several days to accommodate), these scans need to be conducted at a location close to Washington, D.C. to allow the NTSB to transport the battery to the contractor and thereby avoid shipping and other logistical complications. They must also be completed within the shortest timeframe possible to provide the fastest possible receipt of this information to avoid potential future accidents involving this type of aircraft battery. Since the FAA has recently approved a plan intended to result in the Boeing 787 being approved for a return to service, the information from these tests (and the CT scans required to support these tests) is needed as soon as possible. A scan report that documents items such as the x-ray source power used, x-ray focal spot size, detector used, integration time, number of views, image pixel size, slice thickness, total length scanned, number of slices, etc. is due no later than 10 days after the end of the scanning activity. The NTSB has a requirement for CT scanning services to begin on 5/6/2013. Therefore, this requirement is urgent.

The NTSB has a requirement for CT scans of eight (8) Boeing 787 batteries cells. In addition, the NTSB has a requirement for additional scanning work for up to 40 additional battery cells or their equivalent scanning effort to be used as needed at the discretion of the NTSB. The scanning work for the "up to 40 additional battery cells" will be conducted in two installments. The cells will first be scanned in a "before testing" configuration, and then scanned again after testing has been completed with the cells. Finally, the NTSB requires at least 2 digital radiographs per component (90 degrees apart)...

------------------
This is not a fresh solicitation but rather a continuation of a contract that was insufficiently funded.

 

[Ptero]

Aviation Week comments on the NTSB solicitation:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.a...bdbbPost:34a11981-5320-414b-9285-a2aaf560aa01

Highlighting the continued concern in the aviation industry about lithium-ion battery technology, the NTSB mandated that the contract be issued to a local company, as the cells cannot be shipped via air cargo.

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

I feel my sense of reality slipping away. Everything is becoming a gray area, delegated to more or less of some accountless bureaucrat's distorted judgment of sufficiency. Engineering is now an opinion, not a science. I fear, if I open my eyes, aircraft will fall from the sky in flames, buildings will collapse and bridges on interstate highways will fall into rivers.

 

[Ptero]

Japanese pilots voice concerns:
The association is “concerned about whether there will really be no adverse impact on other systems of the airplane if the battery goes wrong,” said Koichi Takamoto, the technical adviser of the group. Given Boeing’s claims about the minor role played by the batteries, the association called on the plane maker to conduct test flights without the lithium-ion batteries to prove its solutions are effective.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...sclose-more-on-dreamliner-cures/#.UaVgI8538Yw
-----------------
This is a serious deal. Japanese pilots aren't stupid and they obviously don't trust Boeing on this. I still haven't heard the story from the flight crew that made the emergency landing in Japan with a Dreamliner full of (toxic) smoke. Anybody awake out there? Or do you think this story's over? I don't.

 

[Ptero]

Elton Cairns, a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the University of California Berkeley, calls for liquid cooling of 787 batteries. "We know for sure that the thermal management system needs to be changed, even if there was an externally caused short circuit." Cairns is a well-known expert in the battery community, having designed fuel cells for the Gemini space program, and having served at General Electric Research Laboratory, General Motors Research Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=260153

Analysis: Rethinking the lithium-ion battery revolution over cost, safety
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/10/us-boeing-battery-lithium-ion-idUSBRE93904420130410

 

[Ptero]

JAL said the pressure sensor of the battery container in the plane showed a difference in air pressure between inside and outside during a safety check before departure, according to the media reports. The airline added that there was no abnormality found in the battery itself, the reports said. JAL was forced to use another aircraft for a flight scheduled from Tokyo to Beijing after it found a fault with an air pressure sensor in the Dreamliner's battery container, Kyodo News and Jiji Press said. The incident comes only a day after JAL and All Nippon Airways (ANA), the single biggest operator of 787s, put their full fleet of Dreamliners back into service following a four-month suspension due to battery problems. ...The difference in air pressure was put down to Boeing Co.'s faulty maintenance as two small holes on the container -- necessary for air ventilation to prevent overheating -- were mistakenly sealed when it repaired the battery system, Kyodo said citing JAL.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/international/jal-finds-fault-on-modified-dreamliner-r/695644.html

How do you say "panic" in Japanese? The battery "fix" was to vent the flaming lithium fumes outside the aircraft. That in itself was perposterous and everybody knows it. Now we learn that Boeing has problems even in effectively implementing their embarrassing kludge. Who at Boeing will fall on their sword for this? And what's next?

 

[Ptero]

Japanese Pilots Worry About Repaired Boeing 787 Jets
By HIROKO TABUCHI and CHRISTOPHER DREW
New York Times

Akihiro Ota, the Japanese transport minister, rebuked Boeing and Japan Airlines on Tuesday for the latest blunder. That the companies “failed to take all possible safety measures is deplorable,” Mr. Ota told reporters.

“Boeing says that any battery fire will now go out on its own, so there’s no safety issue,” Mr. Nagasawa, the Japanese pilots’ union leader, said in an interview. “But that’s on paper. No pilot would ever want to keep flying with a fire on board, whether it’s in a metal box or not.”

Mr. Nagasawa said the pilots were also dismayed that Boeing did not adjust its cockpit displays to provide more substantial alerts if the batteries started to overheat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/b...orry-about-repaired-boeing-787-jets.html?_r=0

 

[the_emi_guy]

Apologize in advance for jumping in here late and not necessarily reading every post in this interesting thread.

I saw the photo of the battery box and the equipment bay in the plane on Wikipedia ("Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems"). Sure seems like there is plenty of space in there. I have also read that the stainless steel containment box significantly increases the size and weight of the battery package.

So here is my question...

Why doesn't Boeing just punt the volatile lithium and put in NiMH or some other safer, but older, chemistry and get on with life?

They can replace the salt and pepper shakers in first class with the little bags if they need to get back a few pounds.

 

[Borg]

Oops. Reality check. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-dreamliner-catches-fire-britains-163353504.html

 

[Ptero]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ndn-video-page,0,3091608.htmlstory?freewheel=90921&sitesection=sechicagotribune&VID=24944521

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/12/fire-ethiopian-dreamliner-heathrow-video

If you examine that "singed" area ahead of the tail, you may come to the conclusion, as I have, that the fire must have been burning very intensely inside the plane to do that and the integrity of the carbon composite was fatally compromised. This means the plane is no longer airworthy and will not be able to leave Heathrow. I also suspect it will never leave Heathrow because there may well be no way to repair a plane of this composite design in the UK. This means it will have to be cut up and barged back to Washington state.

One more thing. This fire was much, much more serious than either of the previous battery fires which were responded to almost immediately. This fire, burning right through the roof of the fuselage, would have been a killer at altitude. It would have brought down the plane in flames. No question in my mind. I am also convinced that Boeing is no longer playing with a full deck, for whatever reason (which is a story in itself) and that the NTSB needs to bring the hammer down. No more Mr. Nice Guy. We have been very lucky so far but the luck is running out.

Boeing Flight 182, San Diego

 

[Ptero]

Analysts said every new plane industrywide has had a minor electronic malfunction. But Tom Captain, aerospace analyst with the financial firm Deloitte, said those incidents are occurring less often. "Recent news about aircraft incidents draws attention partly due to the rarity of these types of events in recent times," he said.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing-dreamliner-fire-20130713,0,2944574.story

I heard somewhere that this was the first commercial flight of the Ethiopian Dreamliner or that it was the first Dreamliner delivered to a customer after the NTSB shutdown. I can't believe the spin at the end of this L.A. Times article. One thing that strikes me is that the rear door has zero smoke on it. How can that be? Did the fire start at some hot spot and climb upwards and back inside the double fuselage wall? That should reassure passengers about the battery...
________________________________________
The Heathrow fire appears to have been in “a very complicated area of the structure that ties together the fuselage barrel, the tail cone and vertical fin loads,” Robert Mann, an aviation consultant in Port Washington, New York, said in an e-mail. “It will be a complicated repair -- if it is repairable. I think every current and prospective operator will be looking at the outcome.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...e-at-heathrow-renews-787-safety-concerns.html
_________________________________________
And where are the photos of the plane actually burning? They have to be out there.

 

[jim hardy]

It''s a bit early to speculate.

As much as I mistrust those batteries it does not appear they are involved in this one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/b...t-heathrow-in-london.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Air accident investigators in London said on Saturday that a fire inside a parked Boeing 787 Dreamliner on Friday did not appear to be caused by any problems with the plane’s lithium-ion batteries.

Who knows what started that fire - one might equally well speculate it was set by somebody mad at Ethiopia over their recent crackdown on radical islam. http://news.yahoo.com/ethiopia-jails-10-terrorists-plotting-attacks-125144004.html

 

[Ptero]

We may be seeing something developing that is even worse than the batteries.

 

[Ptero]

Jim, I may have been too hard on Boeing. Although batteries were invented by Alessandro Volta at the end of the 1700s - and one may have reasonable expectations of competence - Freon air conditioning has only been around since 1928, so perhaps a few minor teething problems may yet be encountered, such as total immolation. However, I remain confused by a newspaper report claiming that all systems had been turned off. That kind of narrows down the list of suspects.

Those of you, like me, with too much time on their hands may find this interesting:

FLAMMABILITY PROPERTIES OF AIRCRAFT CARBON-FIBER STRUCTURAL COMPOSITE
James G. Quintiere, Richard N. Walters, and Sean Crowley
Federal Aviation Administration
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/07-57.pdf

In light of last week's 777 crash at SFO, this July 04, 2010 article from the Chicago Trib has an interesting, and disturbing, comparison between the 777 and 787:
________________________
In 2005, as design of the Dreamliner advanced, a Boeing analysis showed a crash that is survivable in a largely metal 777 would be deadly in a 787: The impact would shatter the bottom of the 787 fuselage and deliver a jolt severe enough to kill all the passengers. A Boeing engineering manager called the outcome a "potential showstopper" for the Dreamliner. Chicago-based Boeing says a key design change and subsequent physical tests prove the final Dreamliner design is now as safe as a metal airplane.

...A computer-generated drawing from the internal report shows that in a simulated crash, the 777's metal lower fuselage crumples. But the rest of the airframe, including the floor of the passenger cabin, is intact.
In the composite-plastic 787, by contrast, the lower fuselage is shattered, with multiple holes. And the passenger floor has broken away from the fuselage and collapsed, leaving passengers with little chance of reaching an exit. In addition, the Boeing study projected that the impact on passengers would be much more severe in a 787. The highest survivable impact in a crash landing is considered to be about 20g, meaning a nearly instantaneous deceleration equal to 20 times the acceleration caused by gravity. The study projected that at a vertical descent rate of about 15 miles per hour, the average peak impact on a passenger's spine would be 15g in the 777. In the 787, though, that impact would be 25g, the study concluded. In March 2005, Phantom Works project manager Vince Weldon sent an e-mail to Boeing's chief technology officer, Jim Jamieson, flagging the simulation as "very dire." An aeronautical engineer, Weldon worked for 46 years in aerospace, half of those at Boeing. At Phantom Works, he assessed the use of advanced composites for future airplanes, though he had no direct role on the 787 program. Weldon's concerns were examined by a panel of Boeing technical experts chosen from outside the 787 program. Its review endorsed the jet's composite-material design. "He raised questions. They were investigated," said Boeing spokeswoman Lori Gunter. "We did not proceed with the design until we were sure it was safe." In 2006, Boeing fired Weldon after an allegation that he used a racist remark about a superior in the course of pushing his concerns internally. Weldon, 72, denies that and says the accusation was a way to discredit and get rid of him.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-04/business/ct-biz-0704-boeing--20100703_1_dreamliner-chicago-based-boeing-crash-landing
___________________________

When I read this, I thought there seemed to be some similarities between the firing of Weldon and the politics surrounding the battery fires Boeing's contractors had experienced, as well as the early FAA/NTSB over-reliance on company evaluations. Scary. But like they say, the fat lady hasn't sung, yet.

 

[jim hardy]

I think it's too early to call them "Firebirds"
but it bears watching.

Aluminum too wants to oxidize. Fortunately one must almost powder it to get a fire.

We'll have to wait and see what this fire was about. Just like in a boat - it's not the fibers that burn but the resin.
The report you linked confirms, like in a boat, the carbon fiber doesn't burn well but smolders on its surface. Fortunately to keep down weight in a plane there's less resin used than in boat construction.

From the Times article you linked:

Boeing made structural changes after the 2005 analysis that dramatically improved the jet's crash safety, said Mark Jenks, a vice president on the 787 program.

It redesigned rows of short wedge-shaped support posts beneath the cargo floor so they progressively collapse on impact, absorbing energy and reducing the impact felt in the passenger cabin.

That's a valid mechanical engineering approach to handling shock loads. Our power plant's reactor vessel internals had something similar underneath the reactor core to stop it gently in case of a huge vertical acceleration from an earthquake. Automobiles have energy absorbing "crumple zones".

Their design seems to have worked okay in San Francisco last week. Do you suppose that's why there was such interest in seeing the inside of the airplane shortly after the crash? Remember those photos of seats all crunched forward? I'd wager somebody was verifying design expectations.

Computer simulations have become quite good.

old jim

 

[Ptero]

As I understand it, the floor and the empennage of the 777 are older, heavier composite structures while the fuselage is aluminum. The floor seemed reasonably intact although, of course, the empennage shattered. I am impressed but unconvinced that a 787 would look the same and have the same survivability under those circumstances with its plastic-carbon mix. I remain gun-shy of reassurances from unaccountable Boeing executives based on speculation, and tend to lean toward engineers (such as Weldon) to find the truth. BTW, this was the second hard landing where an in-service 777 was totalled. In that accident, everyone survived and the worst injury was to someone's leg or legs.

 

[Ptero]

Can someone please explain this to me?

FAA: 787 Batteries OK to Fly with 'Burst Discs' for Dozens of Flights
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3A7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3Ab2842d39-5d4d-41d2-9c05-eb34c89a7d20

This is also interesting. The 787 was parked next to the Heathrow Airport Fire Station. In the closest space. There's confidence for you!
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3a7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3aa517b56d-78c7-4107-98d6-64b26316500d
________________
Frank, where are you now?

Come fry with me, let's fry, let's fry away
If you can use some exotic booze
There's a bar in far Bombay
Come on and fry with me, let's fry, let's fry away

Come fry with me, let's float down to Peru
In llama land there's a one-man band
And he'll toot his flute for you
Come on fry with me, let's take off in the blue

Once I get you up there where the air is rarifried
We'll just glide, starry-eyed
Once I get you up there I'll be holding you so near
You may hear all the angels cheer 'cause we're together

Weather-wise it's such a lovely day
Just say the words and we'll beat the birds
Down to Acapulco Bay
It's perfect for a frying honeymoon, they say
Come fry with me, let's fry, let's fry away

Once I get you up there where the air is rarifried
We'll just glide, starry-eyed
Once I get you up there I'll be holding you so very near
You may even hear a whole gang cheer 'cause we're together

Weather-wise it's such a cool cool day
You just say those words and we'll beat the birds
Down to Acapulco Bay
It's so perfect for a frying honeymoon, oh babe
Come fry with me, let's fry, let's fry
Pack up, let's fry away!
And don´t tell your mamma!

 

[Darryl]

FS/FO. Fail Safe / Fail Operational, has always been the mantra in aviation as far as I know. This problem appears to be the total opposite to those principles. This appears to be fail / fail more, or if you like Fail/Fire !

Is there not a chemical solution (excuse the pun) to this problem, a plug that melts at a certain temperature that releases a chemical that neutralizes the reaction ?

 

[Ptero]

"...a chemical that neutralizes the reaction ?"
No. There have been 3 lithium battery fires on the small fleet of 787s since January. The first in Boston, in the cockpit. The second in the air over Japan, in the aft battery compartment. These were lithium cobalt. Crew and firefighters fought to put these out but as soon as they stopped hitting them with the fire extinguishers, the batteries reignited. This is because the combustion process creates all the necessary elements to sustain combustion. We are, however, told by NASA that they are safe to use in vacuum on the space station...
This latest incident at Heathrow involved a lithium manganese battery, which were banned as cargo by the FAA ten years ago and is the same formulation used in the Chevy Volt. I doubt we are getting the real story on that one but the truth eventually will come out.
In two days, the NTSB report on the deadly Dubai crash, where a flaming pallet of lithium batteries brought down a UPS cargo transport, comes out.
Have you seen all the positive press NTSB Chairman Debroah Hersman has been getting? That will come to a screeching halt with the first mass fatality accident due to a lithium battery fire. If there was one thing I would say to her, it would be that I don't care if the airlines have to change out conventional batteries from their beacons more than once in ten years and I don't care if the Dreamliner loses a passenger fare on every flight because it had to substitute safer but heavier batteries in place of the lithium cobalts. Corporate profit cannot be a consideration of the NTSB for any longer. Lithium battery technology is not safe or mature enough for use in aircraft - and may never be. The fact that no one could say WHY the lithium cobalt fires initiated is reason enough.
It should also be noted by Boeing - as it has been well noted by Airbus - that the use of lithium batteries has proven a massive negative ROI (return on investment) in light of the grounding of the fleet for months and now with the possible loss of a Dreamliner body. It's time to give the bean counters a seat in these engineering discussions to move the level of conversation from wishful thinking and Rube Goldberg tricks back to the hard reality of the bottom line.
Of course, once we get past the safety and accounting issues, we are faced with the fact that Boeing is too big to fail. They make military hardware at extraordinary profitability levels that can easily cover little problems such as Dreamliner teething or NTSB hissy-fits. They can't end up like, say, Fisker, who, with $660,000 invested per car, finally went bankrupt, because we taxpayers will ultimately foot the bill.

http://updates.jalopnik.com/post/34669789863/more-than-a-dozen-fisker-karma-hybrids-caught-fire-and
More
http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/article/109475/electric-hybrid-fizzles-burns-before-going-bankrupt