Posted on 03/07/2013 11:31:56 AM PST by jazusamo
Boston airport firefighters encountered sizzling liquid and a hissing, “exploding” battery when they entered the 787 at the center of a two-month-long National Transportation Safety Board investigation, according to documents released Thursday.
The NTSB said Thursday it plans two public hearings next month, one to explore lithium-ion battery technology in general and another to discuss the design and certification of the Boeing 787 battery system.
The safety agency announced the hearings as it released an interim factual report and 499 pages of related documents on its investigation of the Japan Airlines 787 fire at the Boston airport on January 7.
Among the findings in the documents released Thursday:
• On the day of the Boston fire, the battery did not behave as Boeing or subcontractor Thales predicted.
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,” according to the Airworthiness Group Chairman Report.
• Sitting on a rack above the battery that burned was a smaller lithium ion battery, also supplied by Japanese manufacturer GS Yuasa, that is used to provide emergency power for the jet’s flight controls “for a minimum of 10 minutes when no other electrical power is available.”
Investigators found the exterior of this battery had been “lightly scorched” by the fire below and noted that its case had openings at the corners.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.com ...
There’d be real “fun and flgames (not a typo) for the pledges” if that happened in flight. Since Li batteries are so muchmore compact and lighter than their lead scid counterparts and NMh counterparts, Boeing may have a serious redesign problem, the 787 having, at least in part, been designed around the new batteries.
I have a friend who is involved in the “fix” for the battery problem. He said it involves construction of a titanium box to surround the batteries. The idea is, if the batteries catch on fire, the fire will die because there won’t be any oxygen to sustain it. I asked him if there are any systems in the jet that will be lost if the batteries catch on fire, and he wasn’t sure. I said I’m not flying on that plane anytime soon.
Take your laptop computer, plug it in, and use it for an hour on your lap... it will get warm.
Pull the plug out and use it on battery. It will get HOT!
This is how batteries work. They need a different battery- but they can't... why? government regulations.
Those government officials who are so much more brilliant than you and me and mere airline electrical engineers deemed it so.
And they designed Obamacare too, which will burn equally as bad.
Already the $1T cost estimate has grown to $6Trillian, and i am certain they are not done yet.
Remember the “Government Rule of 10” that says every government program will cost ten times as much as originally projected and/or take 10 times as long.
We have been waiting since I was in high school for a second bridge to cross the river from Buffalo to Niagara Falls Canada- but they are still “studying” it
I am 55 now.
Agreed, they’ve got a major problem and I believe very fortunate they haven’t already lost a plane and lives.
Lithium batteries are so dangerous that when we carried lithium battery-powdered sonobouys aboard the P-3, NATOPS added special procedures of getting rid of them if they started to burn. If they burned we had no way to extinguish them.
Don’t blame you, I wouldn’t either.
It really is puzzling to me they went with these batteries when they have the track record they do. I’m sure you’re right about the cost of the fix and/or replacement of the system, Mr. K
“The idea is, if the batteries catch on fire, the fire will die because there won’t be any oxygen to sustain it.”
No disrespect to your friend, but this is not going to work. The battery contains all the chemicals necessary to hundreds of kilowatts of energy in the form of heat in a short period of time. Confine this in an airtight container and now you have a bomb instead of just a fire.
• Sitting on a rack above the battery that burned was a smaller lithium ion battery, also supplied by Japanese manufacturer GS Yuasa, that is used to provide emergency power for the jet’s flight controls “for a minimum of 10 minutes when no other electrical power is available.”
Those batteries should not even be in the same compartment of the plane. Stupid is as stupid does.
necessary to hundreds = necessary to supply hundreds
...Kind of like saying dynamite is safe if you put it in a strong box...
Correct, while also mostly incorrect.
They cannot just throw another battery type in and go flying. The aircraft was designed and certified for this particular battery; to use any other is to violate certification standards...this is a good thing.
However, they CAN install a different battery system and go flying, IF they re-certify that system. A long and costly process, to be sure, but critical to safety.
Not a government problem at all, the problem lies between Boeing and GS Yuasa.
I don't understand what you're getting at. What battery do they need? This Li-Ion/Cobalt has the highest energy density of any candidate chemistry. That's the mistake they made -- going for the bleeding edge, not just lithium but bleeding edge lithium. Going to Nimh or whatever will introduce a weight and footprint penalty that will impact the load carrying capacity and fuel usage. But this seems to be what is needed.
I for one will not fly in a 787 with the "separated plates" and/or titanium enclosure fix.
No other type of battery is going to work very well, imo. Boeing will likely stick with Lithium Ion batteries and get approval to fly. They will probably go with a slightly different type of Lithium Ion battery if they change at all. They will improve the containment system, improve the monitoring system and the charging system, and move on, I think.
You may correct. I understand that they’re currently using the cobalt type which is supposed to be the most reactive and dangerous type.
First of all the Lion plates produce their own oxygen
when they burn. (Just like magnesium).
Second the electrolyte is a hydrocarbon (like gasoline).
Gasoline, oxygen generator and a 5,000 Kilojoule fuse.
What could possibly go wrong????
Sealing the battery in a container will make an excellent bomb.
Boeing claims the battery saves 20 Lbs. on an aircraft that
flys 45,000 Lbs. of cargo plus 290 passengers.
What a joke.
Why not just STC another type of battery (non Lion)
and get on with it?
I am just describing what someone involved with the fix told me. I am not an engineer, nor do I play one on TV. Obviously, I have not described the entirety of what Boeing is doing, and I would assume that the people who put a humongous piece of steel in the air are aware of the notion that an enclosed fire might be dangerous. Yet this is what they are doing, designing a titanium box to enclose the batteries.
"According to Sinnett, the design of the battery has been changed, an enclosure was added and the charger has had its maximum charging levels reduced. "
Hydrocarbon electrolyte, oxygen generator and a 5,000 Kilojoule fuse.
It's still an accident waiting to happen.
You will note that the article says that Boeing was holding a question and answer session about the fix. You should provide your expertise to Boeing before the blow lots of people up with things they have not thought of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.