787 fire at Boston Logan

Isn't this what Musk said, ie:

As I reported on this post: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/142078457-post188.html. IMO the designer of the Boeing batteries did not do their homework. If I ran the company they would be moved.

Musk 1, Boeing 0
Pete

 

PUBLIC DOMAIN SOURCE

Japan probe finds miswiring of Boeing 787 battery | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

A probe into the overheating of a lithium ion battery in an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 that made an emergency landing found it was improperly wired , Japan's Transport Ministry said Wednesday.

The Transport Safety Board said in a report that the battery for the aircraft's auxiliary power unit was incorrectly connected to the main battery that overheated, although a protective valve would have prevented power from the auxiliary unit from causing damage.

Flickering of the plane's tail and wing lights after it landed and the fact the main battery was switched off led the investigators to conclude there was an abnormal current traveling from the auxiliary power unit due to miswiring.

The agency said more analysis was needed to determine what caused the main battery to overheat and emit the smoke that prompted the Jan. 16 emergency landing of the ANA domestic flight and the worldwide grounding of Boeing 787 jets. They said they are consulting Boeing about the issue.

The Federal Aviation Administration and aviation authorities in other countries grounded 787 fleets because of the ANA incident, which followed a battery fire earlier in January in a 787 parked in Boston.

The 787, dubbed the Dreamliner by Boeing, is the first airliner to make extensive use of lithium ion batteries, which are lighter in weight, charge faster and contain more energy than conventional batteries similar in size. However, the batteries also are more prone to overheating and catching fire.

 

One thing it didn't say was who did the miswiring? Boeing? ANA? A contractor? If these batteries have to be replaced as often as I've heard, it could be any one of these.

 

I cannot say who's wiring was at fault.
For various reasons I am inclined to say that the mis-wiring in this case is more of an isolated issue than a chronic condition.
I have not heard a definitive cause for the overheating yet.
Be sure to listen to the news on Friday. There may be some more answers then.

 

I despise AOL...

They have a headline: "Airline Ditches Dreamliner due to battery"

So, I thought that an airline had cancelled their order!

After you open the article, and watch a commercial, it turns out that:

United is only DELAYING reintroducing the Dreamliner for several months.



It's gotten much worse since Huffington Post has taken over AOL's 'fake news'.

FWIW...

 

Todays (thurs) headline; Seattle Times says Boeing is going with the "specially machined boxes" solution to the problem......sounds a bit like fixing the symptom rather than the problem?

But, it's a newspaper; selling papers; I'm not expecting much accuracy, or truthfulness....
film@11 I guess........

 

Believe me, Boeing is not waltzing around on this one. They are dead serious about getting a good enough fix to get the airplane back in the air. This company has allowed some stupid decisions from some stupid people but they are back on the game now and they are going to get the job done.

 

They don't exactly have a choice.

 

PUBLIC DOMAIN SOURCE

Originally published Friday, February 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM
FAA to ‘closely’ examine Boeing’s proposed 787 fix | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times


FAA to ‘closely’ examine Boeing’s proposed 787 fix

Boeing and the FAA said little about their Friday meeting, while analysts predicted that testing and approval of the company’s fixes for the 787 won’t be simple.

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said Friday it received a formal proposal from Boeing to fix the lithium-ion battery problems in the 787 Dreamliners and “will analyze it closely.”

But the agency indicated it won’t rush to get the Dreamliners back in the air despite the crisis the grounding of the planes has brought to Boeing and its customers.

“The safety of the flying public is our top priority, and we won’t allow the 787 to return to commercial service until we’re confident that any proposed solution has addressed the battery failure risks,” said an FAA statement.

The Dreamliners have been grounded since mid-January after two battery failures caused a battery fire in a jet on the ground in Boston and then a smoldering battery on a flight in Japan.

Though no one was seriously hurt in either incident, the 787 grounding has already lasted a day longer than the 1979 grounding of the DC-10 fleet, which was prompted by an air crash that killed 273 people.

A Boeing team led by Commercial Airplanes chief Ray Conner presented the company’s proposed fix in Washington, D.C., on Friday to FAA head Michael Huerta, deputy Transportation Secretary John Porcari and other FAA officials.

Boeing issued only a short statement saying the two sides had “a productive meeting,” providing no further detail.

Boeing remains tight-lipped about its proposed fix, but according to multiple sources, it includes:

• A stronger, sealed containment box enclosing the eight battery cells

• A system of venting tubes that in case of an incident would channel any flammable vapors or liquids directly out of the airplane

• Continuous monitoring of temperature and voltage of individual cells within the battery

• Better thermal separation of the cells, with some barrier such as high-temperature glass inserted between them

Battery experts suggest these could all be part of a good engineering solution to try to prevent what the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) says happened in Boston: an internal short circuit in one cell caused overheating that spread to adjoining cells and led to uncontrolled thermal runaway and fire.

Brian Barnett, a battery specialist with technology-development company TIAX in Lexington, Mass., said battery-cell overheating can be contained.

“You can calculate the energy released and understand the kinetics for the release of that energy, then you should be able to build a containment,” Barnett said.

What’s unclear is how much testing the FAA will require to validate the safety of the revamped battery.

Barnett said the tests conducted on the batteries by Boeing during the original certification process — baking the battery in an oven, puncturing it with a nail, crushing it, and overcharging it — are standard industry tests but don’t reflect what typically happens when a battery fails due to an internal short circuit.

He said TIAX researchers have perfected a way to implant a tiny metal particle inside a cell and artificially trigger such a short circuit — “it’s very difficult to do” — allowing them to study how the heat can cascade from cell to cell and cause thermal runaway.

To prove the new battery setup performs as promised, Boeing may have to do similar testing. Such tests would have to be done in a controlled lab environment not on a flight test, Barnett said.

The FAA will likely demand flight tests will be needed, however, to prove the new venting system works, putting it through multiple pressurization cycles as the jet takes off and lands.

How fast could all the testing be completed?

In January, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who oversees the FAA, said the 787 wouldn’t be allowed to fly again until authorities are “1,000 percent sure” it is safe.

Boeing indicated in private meetings with key members of Congress on Wednesday that it hopes to get permission for the 787s to fly passengers again by April.

Issaquah-based aviation analyst Scott Hamilton, of Leeham.net, said that schedule is “aggressive.”

He points out that the NTSB’s preliminary report of its investigation into the 787 fire in Boston isn’t expected until early March.

And the FAA will want thorough testing of Boeing’s fix, he said.

“The last thing the FAA can stand is to fast-track this and then have something else go wrong,” Hamilton said.

After the fire in Boston, and before the second battery incident, the FAA promised a sweeping review of the 787’s certification process to find out why the original certification missed this battery vulnerability, despite the extensive battery testing by Boeing to prove it met the agency’s stringent requirements.

“They cannot afford to get it wrong this time,” Hamilton said.

A further uncertainty, he said, is that 24 of the 50 Dreamliners that are grounded worldwide are operated by just two Japanese airlines.

Whatever the FAA decides, the Japan Transport Safety Board is expected to be conservative in allowing those jets to fly.

 

Going to put a road draft tube in a 787 huh?


Ought to plumb it into the compressor section. Be more like a PCV system then.

 

Note to Boeing management. The Seattle ACO, located in Renton, is responsible for review and certification of the 787. The guys you spoke to in DC know very little about the problem and even less about aircraft certification.

 

The proposed fix they are offering reminds me of some of the Engineering on the two British cars I had. (Can't stop the fire so we'll just box it and vent it.) Classic.

Unfortunately they did away with the main engine by-pass air system on this A/P. I think they could still could plumb it to the APU by-pass I suppose.

 

LOL!

 

As I've said before, I am no aviation expert. But, to me at least, not one of the above line items is a "solution" but rather a "disaster mitigation" exercise. Not at all impressed - "Err, we kinda know our batteries are gonna blow up, we'll just try and make sure they don't catch the plane alight!"

Really?

*Prevent*!? Again, from what I'm reading, there's no "prevention" here, just CYA for *when* one goes tits up. Hardly a "good engineering solution" IMESHO.

"That should cover it!"......... At least the Prince of Darkness was only doing cars! The smoke comes out, you stop and you walk (generally in the rain of course). Difficult at 30K feet.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I haven't seen "Cause and Resolution" yet.
I won't fly on one until that is known and corrected.

 

Indeed.

Will they allow 'em to fly again before both are known?

I thought the NTSB (?) were pretty good at getting the story; "this is what happened, and the reasons why. This is what we propose to ensure it never happens again."

Until then I agree, it's all Internet speculation. OTOH, some of the stuff you've posted is 'worrying'........

Cheers,
Ian

 

Just like the non-solution to the car throttle jamming issue a year or so ago. Now all cars have to close the throttle when the brake pedal is touched ... but what if a stone or some other foreign object has jammed the throttle open and the computer CANNOT close it.

The real solution was an OFF button that the driver simply pushes when the throttle jams or they otherwise loose control of the car.

These things are ALWAYS about us humans remaining in control. They have forgotten that and a plane that is on fire will eventually be uncontrollable, ie. wire is burnt or pilot affixiated.

It is a worry, who runs these "boards"?
Pete

 

Not true... Lucas did the electrics on a lot of planes, including the DC-10.

 

Yeah, but how many of their equipped planes had electronic failures? I suspect many.
They didn't get that nickname for nothing. Lot of people learned to hitch hike when operating their equipped vehicles.

Art

 

Lucas Western supplies plenty of electrical components for modern day aircraft, including 767, 777, 747, 737.

 

PUBLIC DOMAIN SOURCE
FAA chief: Extensive testing needed before Boeing 787 flies again | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

FAA chief: Extensive testing needed before Boeing 787 flies again

Michael Huerta says FAA will require extensive testing of proposed fix for 787’s lithium ion battery problem.

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times aerospace reporter


Federal Aviation Administration chief Michael Huerta said Wednesday that Boeing won’t get its 787 Dreamliners back in passenger service without extensive testing and recertification of its proposed fix for the jet’s lithium ion battery problem.

In testimony before a Congressional subcommittee, Huerta said he expects a report back from his technical staff next week that will offer an assessment of the fix that Boeing formally proposed last Friday.

But he said that FAA approval for Boeing to go ahead and implement its fix will only be the beginning of the process.

“Once we approve the plan, there will be a great deal of testing, a great deal of further analysis and re-engineering before these planes are back in the air,” Huerta said.

Huerta did not cite any potential time frame, but the requirement for extensive testing, analysis and re-engineering suggests at least weeks of work after Boeing gets the green light to proceed — which means it’s unlikely the 787s could be flying passengers again any sooner than late April or May.

Speaking to the U.S. House aviation subcommittee, Huerta spoke mostly on the impact of budget sequestration, but added remarks on the 787 in response to questions from ranking Democrat Rep. Rick Larsen, of Everett.

Huerta said that though GS Yuasa of Japan manufactured the battery to a design by French subcontractor Thales, that now “Boeing is stepping in and assuming responsibility for the design and testing” of a revamped battery system.

He said Boeing has proposed a “comprehensive plan” to cover “a handful of potential areas of probable cause,” all of which are within the battery.

He said Boeing’s proposed fixes provide mitigation of the impact of any overheating of the battery at three levels:
* Re-engineering of the design to reduce the possibility of a cell overheating;
* Other measures to stop any overheating in a single cell from spreading to adjacent cells;
* Design changes to contain any battery-wide incident so that the airplane is not endangered.

“Any re-engineering and how it gets built is still to be worked out,” Huerta said.

Huerta’s description of Boeing’s proposed fix is in line with the details provided by multiple sources, which include:
* Monitoring of voltage and temperature within individual cells;
* More thermal separation between cells;
* A stronger battery containment box;
* A better venting system to ensure flammable vapors go directly out of the airplane.

Earlier this month, the FAA granted Boeing permission to fly two flight tests to gather data needed for its proposed fix.

Huerta said Boeing hasn’t yet requested any further test flights.

 

The above statements in "bold" are what I am looking for.
As much as Boeing wants it to be, this is NOT going to be a quick fix.

 

No.. not at all. It was not an issue... Lucas was good stuff. Still is.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s and loss of reputation!
Pete

 

Mostly this will be stigma on the 787.

Aircraft like the 777 and 737 enjoy a very solid and enthusiastic customer base, (some of the same customers that are buying the 787).