Boeing Dreamliner Battery Fire

[dnmun]

but whose corporate management?

i cannot believe this did not come up during the boeing test flight program if it was as chronic a problem as implied by the reliability numbers from the initial 50 fleet.

two planes, both japanese corporations perhaps they share the same maintenance facility at several airports in japan.

i had read that when boeing went to mulally at ford and got some of their battery people to review the yuasa battery run in data that the engineers wondered why there were so little run in and lifetime failures in the data. as though the qualification data may have been cooked. so if they discover there were trashcans with batteries and no serial numbers that regularly exited the run in section of the plant. there will be one bankrupt company. i know some engineers who are gonna be getting subpoenas.

if it turns out that this was present during the test flight program and boeing covered it up they will be in trouble, but i think it would be out there already if it was boeing. the unions woulda leaked it all over. they got negotiations to support.

the engineers at morton thiokol did not recommend launch that day. the engineers knew exactly what was gonna happen and got over ruled by the NASA bureaucracy to insure reagan could yak at them in space while giving the state of the union speech. if it wasn't so evil it would be just a risk the engineers did not feel justified in taking.

there was no reason the bean counters at NASA had to block the ground telescope inspection of the columbia when it was recommended by the engineering staff. there was no reason not to ok that little bit of money and time for the shuttle to be inspected from the ground as it flew over. the hole woulda been obvious.

 

[Chalo]

When the boss demands "results" instead of actual results, and is more interested in keeping the schedule on track than in keeping the product safe, then the "unforeseen" accidents that happen are in fact the work of poor management.

You know, management-- the ones who get paid more because they are better people, or something. Why don't they get fired for minor screwups the way regular productive workers do, so they don't go on to commit stupendous screwups? I thought they were supposed to bear greater responsibility to justify their princely salaries.

 

[Punx0r]

We here know that lifePO4 is orders of magnitude safer and much more suitable for aircraft. The FAA with their ignorance with respect to battery chemistries hurts the entire EV industry here.

Do you have any references to support this statement?

It feels like we're going around in circles with people suggesting the use of lifepo4, but being unable to suggest a suitable, commercially available cell...

 

[ebent]

PunxOr,

The web is littered with articles on the subject. Just ask google. It is widely known the weakness of LIPO is thermal runaway. Yes, there are systems to control that, but why introduce it to begin with when LiFePO4 can get the job done without thermal runaway. Most Lithium battery makers could provide the needed batteries. LiFePO4 did not just get invented. There is manufacturing capability and capacity. Can a LiCO system be built for the dreamliner and never fail? Certainly. But if you build a thousand units then the probability of a problem increases. If there is a non thermal runaway solution with high quality attributions it needs to be used.

The question should never be does batteries cause fires. All batteries can. I start my grill with a aa battery. All batteries are capable of a spark. And sparks can create a fire. My question is why not use LiFePO4?

 

[Punx0r]

I've just done a few google searches and got very little on the suitability of lifepo4 for aircraft auxiliary batteries. Certainly nothing saying they're more suitable and orders of magnitude safer.

This is still coming back to the question I asked weeks ago - can anyone suggest *one* lifepo4 cell from *any* manufacturer that might meet the required spec for the dreamliner battery? Nothing yet, just lots of statements about the clear superiority of lifepo4.

I'm not denying that lifepo4 might be theoretically better, but if you can't buy such cells then the discussion is moot.

If we want to make it more realistic (and harder), then we're going to need to identify a suitable cell that was available not now, but when the dreamliner battery was spec'ed several years ago...

I'm not here to score points, if someone comes up with a suitable cell then fair enough. I started down this path by asking if one was available.

 

[wesnewell]

http://stores.headway-headquarters.com/-strse-109/lifepo4-Headway-batteries%2C-40160s/Detail.bok?category=BATTERIES
Built as 9s4p would provide 12C continuous and 40C peak. But I don't think the batteries are the problem. More likely the LVC of the bms and/or the charger circuit.

 

[Dauntless]

The plane is supposed to already be in the air as I write this. The tested fix is isolating each of 8 cells in their own airtight insulated compartment. If one gets hot it's not supposed to burn. No matter how hot it gets there's not to be a
"Runaway Thermal Incident." Sometime around 1pmPDT the plane would land, there'll be a press conference where all they really know is that there obviously wasn't a fire, etc. I'm out of here, I expet tonight I'll be reading the 'So far so good' announcement.

The prediction is that regular flights will return in a few weeks.

 

[Dauntless]

Guess it was routine.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57576245-76/boeing-flight-tests-redesigned-battery-for-787-dreamliner/

 

[ebent]

If this is the first configuration that eliminates thermal runaway then that is a step forward. If thermal runaway can be eliminated then LiCo may be the best battery. However with the history of LiCO there is no certainty that the new configuration is fail proof. This is not a college exam. 99.9% is not good enough. 0.1% will take a dreamliner down. 1 in a thousand. Until thermal runaway is eliminated with certainty then use LiFePo4.

 

[sixty_cycle_hum]

It sounds like the solution they have is going to make a failure even worse. Air tight enclosure for each cell? Um, are they trying to introduce shrapnel into the equation? If I'm not mistaken, these batteries make their own free oxygen during thermal runaway. Can anyone verify that?

 

[Hillhater]

Air tight enclosure for each cell?

I believe there is a pressure release vent to outside the fuselage.

 

[davec]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57574484-76/boeing-heres-our-plan-to-nix-787-battery-fire-risk/
this is a joke - lipo is a bomb
instead of switching over to safer nicad or lifepo4 chemistry
they are packaging the bomb inside a safe - i can't believe how thick these guys are
add to that they have no idea what the root cause is(all they've done is point fingers at each and the bms maker)- the problem hasn't been solved- it's only a matter of time

 

[dnmun]

bullshit. lipo is a not a bomb. just like stinnet said, this has been blown out of proportion to what actually happened. no aircraft was at risk and the current solution will eliminate the risk of one cell shorting igniting the adjacent cells. you guys need to go back to reading comics.

 

[Kingfish]

Boeing has "good" Dreamliner battery plan fix: official

Boeing Co (BA.N) has a "good plan" to fix the battery problem that has grounded its 787 Dreamliner jets since January, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said on Friday.

LaHood said he wants to ensure the Dreamliner is safe before allowing the planes back in the air, and no decision had been made on commercial flights.

"They're doing the tests now, and we've agreed with the tests that they're doing. And when they complete the tests, they'll give us the information and we'll make a decision," LaHood said at the U.S. Export-Import Bank's annual conference in Washington.

The statements came as Boeing was close to completing tests of a revamped lithium-ion battery system designed to prevent the overheating or fire that occurred on two jets in January, prompting regulators to ban all 50 of the jets in service from flying.

Boeing may make a test flight on Friday to gather data for the Federal Aviation Administration to show the new battery system is safe and performs as designed.

The certification flight is part of a series of tests to show whether measures Boeing has devised to fix the battery problems work as intended. A preparation flight on March 25 "went according to plan," Boeing said.

It's still unknown what caused the two batteries to overheat, and the National Transportation Safety Board is investigating. But Boeing came up with measures it says make the battery safe. It put more insulation in the battery, encased the battery in a steel box, changed the circuitry of the battery charger and added a titanium venting tube to expel heat and fumes outside the plane.

Once Boeing completes its testing, the Federal Aviation Administration and other global regulators will review the test data and decide whether to certify the fix and return the plane to service.

Airlines have been barred from using the plane since it was grounded in January, and Boeing has been barred from delivering 787s, though it continues to build the plane. The delay has been costing the company an estimated $50 million a week.

Also...

Boeing 787 testing more than half done

Boeing said it has finished more than half of the testing on its proposed battery fix for the 787, with the rest of the ground and flight tests coming in the next several days.

The test results so far have been in line with the testing Boeing did when it was developing the fix, spokesman Marc Birtel said on Wednesday.

Smoldering batteries - including one fire on the ground - prompted air safety authorities to ground the world's 787s in mid-January. Boeing has developed what it believes is a permanent fix, including more heat insulation and a system for venting battery gases outside of the plane.

The tests under way now are aimed at demonstrating that the fix worked. Ultimately, the Federal Aviation Administration will have to certify the changes before the planes fly again.

Ground testing is continuing at Boeing labs in Seattle. Boeing is giving results to the FAA as they are finished.

The testing has been taking longer than Boeing had originally suggested when it announced the fix for the 787's smoldering batteries on March 15.

"We are all working toward returning the 787 fleet to service in the most expeditious manner possible, but we are being thorough and won't shortcut the test and certification process," Birtel said in a written statement.

Boeing said a 787 test flight on Wednesday was unrelated to testing its battery fix. The flight was a "routine test flight designed to address some of the component reliability projects" it has been working on, the company said. A demonstration flight for the battery fix "will take place in the coming days," Boeing said.

Meanwhile new orders for the 787 had nearly dried up since the plane was grounded. On Wednesday, though, International Airlines Group said it would convert options for 18 787s into firm orders for its British Airways unit, according to a securities filing in Spain. The planes will replace 747-400s starting in 2017.

The company also said it has agreed to terms that could lead to an additional 787 order for its Spanish airline, Iberia. The deal won't turn into a firm order until Iberia restructures and reduces expenses "and is in a position to grow profitably," IAG said.

The only other 787 order Boeing has booked this year is for 42 planes for American Airlines. That deal was reached in 2011 but needed bankruptcy court approval.

Before the announcement Wednesday, Boeing had a backlog of orders for 841 of the planes. It is continuing to build them, even though it can't deliver them now. With planes still rolling off production lines, 15 have been added to its inventory, on top of about 41 planes in inventory at the end of last year, UBS analyst David Strauss wrote on Monday.

The National Transportation Safety Board plans a hearing into the battery problems on April 23 and 24th.

~KF

 

[fechter]

Hmm.... kinda makes you wonder sometimes.

They don't know (or won't admit) what the actual cause of the fire was.

The "fix" doesn't actualy fix the problem, it simply mitigates some of the results of failure. Venting the stinky smoke to outside the aircraft will make the flight more pleasant and the passengers may never know if a battery burned. They better stick a smoke detector in there or the pilot may never know the battery is on fire until it loses power.

Apparently there is enough redundancy in the electrical system that a single pack failure doesn't cause the plane to crash, at least right away.

 

[Kingfish]

Lithium batteries called capable of being safe for plane use

Lithium-ion batteries like the ones that overheated on two Boeing 787 Dreamliners can be made safe enough for even the most critical transportation uses, according to experts who spoke at a forum Thursday.

"Safety is improving year on year for this technology," said Dan Doughty, of Battery Safety Consulting in Albuquerque, N.M.

The question is whether safeguards, such as extensive testing and building in protective circuitry, are too costly, Vince Visco, senior vice president of strategy and business development at Quallion, said in an interview. Los Angeles-based Quallion makes batteries for use in space and medical devices. He and Doughty spoke Thursday at a U.S. National Transportation Safety Board forum in Washington, D.C.

Boeing is proposing protections that include some of those Visco described in its redesigned battery, including titanium vents to draw smoke and fumes outside if a fire starts, as a way to get its grounded planes airborne. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration hasn't said when it will act on Boeing's proposed fix.

The safety board, as part of an investigation into a 787 battery fire Jan. 7 in Boston, scheduled the forum Thursday and Friday to hear from academic, industry and government officials on how to make cells safer. It will hold a separate hearing April 23-24 to examine the Dreamliner's battery design and how it was certified by the FAA.

Rechargeable lithium cells, which power devices ranging from Apple's iPad to power tools, are increasingly being used in transportation equipment because they are lighter and hold more power than other battery technologies, NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said in her opening statement.

"Yet, lithium-ion batteries, like other power sources, such as the gasoline that powers so many personal vehicles, come with risks," Hersman said. "These batteries are designed to produce energy - it is their very nature that poses the greatest risk."

When they catch fire, lithium-based batteries may burn violently, spewing flammable gas and molten metal. However, batteries much larger than those on the 787 have proved themselves in recent years in uses that include hybrid buses and in power grids, said Yet-Ming Chiang, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who also spoke at Thursday's forum.

The industry increasingly understands the ways that batteries fail, which include internal short-circuits, overheating, manufacturing defects and damage during use, Chiang said.

"All of the major manufacturers try to test and plan for those failure modes," he said in an interview.

NASA, which has used lithium-based batteries on manned space missions since 1999, performs extensive testing on each cell and takes steps to limit the chances of fire, said Judith Jeevarajan, the agency lead for battery safety.

Other steps, such as never fully charging a battery, limit the amount of heat discharged if a battery fails, she said.

"There is no reason to say that lithium-ion won't have a place in high-consequence applications, such as passenger airplanes," said Doughty, a former head of battery testing at Sandia National Laboratories.

The FAA has recorded 33 cases of batteries brought aboard commercial planes by passengers or as cargo catching fire since 2009. Of those cases, 26, or 79 percent, involved lithium-based batteries, according to the agency.

Since 2006, three cargo jets have been destroyed in fires where lithium batteries were present, according to the safety board. Those cells were being shipped and weren't part of the aircraft. The United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization on Jan. 1 imposed new rules on air shipments of lithium batteries.
Manufacturers made 4.4 billion lithium-ion batteries in 2012, up from 800 million in 2002, George Kerchner, executive director of the D.C.-based Rechargeable Battery Association trade group, told the NTSB.

Airlines have told the FAA that on some cargo flights as much as 85 percent of shipments are hazardous because of lithium batteries, Janet McLaughlin, deputy director of the agency's hazardous-materials program, said.

Boeing got U.S. regulators' permission to install lithium-ion batteries on the Dreamliner in 2007, three years after passenger airlines were barred from carrying nonrechargeable types as cargo.

~KF

 

[dnmun]

as if they did not have enuff problems:

Source: Wikimedia Commons
Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) 737 aircraft need to go through an inspection process. That process includes about 1,000 planes. And the problem is serious, which means the aerospace company faces another black eye due to what appears to be design problems. This time, the issue is very serious. It is time for a change in management at Boeing to show that the company wants to solve its manufacturing problems and regain something of its reputation.
According to the Federal Register, the FAA reported:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of an incorrect procedure used to apply the wear and corrosion protective surface coating to attach pins of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar. This AD requires inspecting to determine the part number of the attach pins of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar, and replacing certain attach pins with new, improved attach pins. We are issuing this AD to prevent premature failure of the attach pins, which could cause reduced structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer to fuselage attachment, resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

“Loss of control” is a phrase that will cause anxiety among both carriers and passengers. Boeing’s reputation with both those groups already has been undermined by widely reported battery problems in the company’s brand new 787 Dreamliner.

Boeing has lost control of its production and quality control functions, as the problems with the two planes show. In some ways, the 737 issue is the greater of the two because so many hundreds of the planes are already in service.

The news about the 737 will place even more pressure on the Boeing board to question the tenure of chairman and CEO W. James (Jim) McNerney Jr. While Boeing’s planes cause more and more trouble to the airline industry, the company’s corporate public relations reaction has not addressed the safety issue at all. Rather, the company has focused on it position as a global “innovator” and its role as a good “corporate citizen.” All the while, airlines have had to cope with the grounding of the 787, and now will need to go though the disruptions of 737 inspections, and whatever future problems that process could bring.

The problems with the 737 will once again erode the flying public’s confidence in the safety of Boeing planes.

Boeing’s core airplane manufacturing and design functions are appropriately under siege. Someone needs to take responsibility for the breakdowns. After years of being protected by his board, McNerney should be taken to task.

 

[-dg]

Source: Wikimedia Commons
Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) 737 aircraft need to go through an inspection process. That process includes about 1,000 planes. And the problem is serious, which means the aerospace company faces another black eye due to what appears to be design problems. This time, the issue is very serious. It is time for a change in management at Boeing to show that the company wants to solve its manufacturing problems and regain something of its reputation.
...
Boeing has lost control of its production and quality control functions, as the problems with the two planes show. In some ways, the 737 issue is the greater of the two because so many hundreds of the planes are already in service.

This article is really misleading and irresponsible. Perhaps the author is hoping to short Boeing stock, or has some other anti-Boeing motivation. I have no special love for Boeing, and management appear to be a bunch of corporate weasels, but the 737 is not one of their problems. To quote the fine Wikipedia article:

The 737 series is the best-selling jet airliner in the history of aviation. The 737 has been continuously manufactured by Boeing since 1967 with 7,457 aircraft delivered and 3,044 orders yet to be fulfilled as of January 2013. ... There are, on average, 1,250 Boeing 737s airborne at any given time, with two departing or landing somewhere every five seconds.

This AD is not exactly a big deal either. First, AD's happen all the time. They are the FAA's way of making sure problems get inspected or fixed. An EAD (Emergency Airworthyness Directive) is what they use to get a plane grounded or fixed immediately. In this particular 737 AD the requirement is:

For airplanes having line numbers 1 through 3534 inclusive: Before the accumulation of 56,000 total flight cycles, or within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, inspect to determine the part number of the attach pins of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the attach pin can be conclusively determined from that review. If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any horizontal stabilizer rear spar attach pin has P/N 180A1612-3 or 180A1612-4, prior to the accumulation of 56,000 total flight cycles on the pin, or within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace with a new attach pin having P/N 180A1612-7 or 180A1612-8, respectively, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-55-1093, dated April 9, 2012.

The typical life of an airliner is on the order of 75,000 cycles over about 20 years. So, sometime in the next couple of years they have to look at the pins on the planes that are over 12 years old and replace any ones that might have bad anti-corrosion coating. It doesn't look like the procedure is going to cause any bankruptcies either. According to the actual AD

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Action: Inspection and attach pin replacement
Labor cost: 39 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,315
Parts cost: Up to $6,312
Cost per product: $9,627

Does a not-particularly-urgent inspection directive that costs under 10k$ per aircraft due to "an incorrect procedure used to apply the wear and corrosion protective surface coating to attach pins" really justify hyperventilating about "another black eye due to what appears to be design problems" and "loss of control". Or is the author of this sensationalist tripe in need of a wedgie?

 

[dnmun]

agreed, i would not be surprised to find the guy is short, and short big time.

 

[fechter]

Or is the author of this sensationalist tripe in need of a wedgie?

There are a lot of people that need a good wedgie.

 

[Kingfish]

Dilbert Search Terms "Wedgie Bob"

Go-waan, giv'r a rip!

Always liked this particular one...

MHahaha! KF

 

[Kingfish]

Exclusive: FAA nears decisive step in restoring 787 to flight

U.S. regulators are close to approving a key document that could start the process of returning Boeing Co's (BA.N) grounded 787 Dreamliner to service within weeks, according to several people familiar with the matter.

Approval of the document, known as a Project Statement of Compliance, would mark a decisive step towards ending the three-month grounding of Boeing's high-tech jet. It would kick off a series of procedural steps allowing airlines that ordered the $200 million plane to fly them for the first time since January.

The grounding has cost Boeing an estimated $600 million, halted deliveries and forced some airlines to lease alternative aircraft. Several airlines have said they will seek compensation from Boeing, potentially adding to the planemaker's losses.

Regulators grounded the worldwide fleet of 50 jets after lithium-ion batteries burned on two planes at the start of the year. Boeing redesigned the battery system and sent test results to the Federal Aviation Administration earlier this month.

The document could be approved as early as next week, said two of the sources, asking not to be identified because the discussions remain confidential.

The FAA declined to comment on whether Boeing had already submitted the document, the exact contents of which are unclear.

Boeing also declined to comment beyond saying that it stands ready to continue working with the FAA "to ensure we have met all of their expectations."

The timing has not been fixed and could still be delayed, the sources said. It's also possible that extra steps could be added to the approval process, resulting in further delays and prolonging the uncertainty around if and when the 787 can fly again.

Approval early next week would coincide with a two-day investigative hearing into the burnt batteries by the top U.S. safety regulator, the National Transportation Safety Board. The hearing is expected to call on officials from the FAA and Boeing.

NO TIMETABLE

The FAA has said it is considering Boeing's proposed battery fix, but has not indicated a specific timetable for approval. On Tuesday, FAA chief Michael Huerta said he expects to decide "very soon" whether to approve the new system.

However, Huerta also stressed to a congressional committee that the agency is reviewing tests and analysis submitted by Boeing and will approve it when "we are satisfied Boeing has shown the redesigned battery system meets FAA requirements."

After approval of the Project Statement, Boeing would draft a "Service Bulletin," formally telling airlines to retrofit the new batteries on the 50 planes already delivered worldwide. The FAA would have to approve the design change and the service bulletin, and then issue an "Airworthiness Directive" declaring the flight ban over.

Sources say Boeing has already assembled teams and battery kits to retrofit existing planes, and engineers would need around four to five days to fit each new battery, allowing for a progressive return to service, starting in Japan.

All Nippon Airways (9202.T) and Japan Airlines (9201.T) own nearly half of the current 787 fleet and would be retrofitted first. United Airlines (UAL.N) is the only U.S. carrier that has the jet currently. It was not immediately clear where United would fall in the order of repairs.

United and other airlines have been moving up the date when they will add the 787 to their flight schedules to May and June, a sign of growing confidence that FAA approval will come soon.

~KF

 

[Dauntless]

Or is the author of this sensationalist tripe in need of a wedgie?

There are a lot of people that need a good wedgie.

I think it's just more tabloid writing, plenty of people wanting to get mileage out of fear without having any money at stake.

 

[dnmun]

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration may lift its three-month grounding of Boeing Co.'s (NYSE:BA) 787 Dreamliner planes as early as Friday, according to a Wall Street Journal report late Thursday, citing unnamed sources. FAA chief Michael Huerta will say that Boeing's enhancements, including a new protective metal container, have made the planes batteries safe. The groundings had also prompted other foreign regulators to keep the Dreamliners from flying, and the move impacted Japan Airlines Co. (TYO:JP:9201) and fellow Japanese carrier All Nippon Airways Co. (TYO:JP:9202) (OTN:ALNPF) , among others. Shares of JAL rose 0.9% Friday morning in Tokyo, while those of ANA added 0.5%.

 

[Kingfish]

The Seattle Times this morning is reporting that...

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is expected to approve the Boeing 787 Dreamliner's return to passenger service as early as Friday afternoon.

However the Everett Herald - which typically has the closest ear to the subject - is repeating the WSJ story. Guess we'll know by the end of the day.

~KF
PS - The Seattle Times recently started charging to view news beyond the home page... so I won't be linking articles to them unless the policy changes.