Well that didnt take long... 787 Glich

[gustind]

FAA grounds the 787:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/faa-grounds ... -1.1116293

[Shadowfax]

Lithium ion batteries powering an airplane Funny that I can't ship Lithium polymer batteries by air anymore because of safety concerns. Remember the concern over laptop batteries in airplanes a while back. Li-ion are used in almost every mobile device - but they are single cell packs unlike the multi cell packs Boeing must be using. The problem comes from multi-cells - keeping them all in balance and not overcharging/discharging a single cell.

Li-ion chemistry is lightweight and great for fast discharge (high C) and not bad for fast charge, but if you get it wrong either way they quickly get into a thermal runaway scenario that quickly results in rapid combustion - commonly called explosive combustion. Once one cell in a pack goes, it normally takes the rest with it as lithium is not very stable - remember the high school lithium in water experiment!

Very odd they can't seem to get the protection circuits right - even a cheap $100 toy airplane using Li-po's has built in over/under protection - although F-1 used li-ion for their KERS (kinetic energy recovery system) and it took them a while to figure it all out before it was somewhat reliable - after a few rather large fires!

Hope they figure this out soon. Somewhat ironic the nose of the 787 looks alot like a Comet....

[goldeneagle]

Li+ is a technology that's going to see some teething over the next couple of years, but, it's here to stay. The energy density available is just to appealing to the engineers. The big bucks are definitely moving in this direction, you just have to look at electric cars, and the plug in hybrids, to see where the real development bucks are going to come from. The potential fire hazard, comes from the energy density, and the rate of discharge available. About the only thing that can pack more energy into such a small volume, would be a tank of gasoline, and they kinda figured out the issues with those, a very long time ago.

There will be hiccups, and a couple of them might be spectacular, but, the batteries are here to stay, and given time, they will be as common as gas tanks.

[iflyforpie]

How many Ni-Cad batteries have burned a hole in an aircraft after a thermal runaway.... even years after they were first introduced?

As for model airplanes and cell phones, they are usually single cell, and there have been several incidents with them as well. I got a free iPod because of that.

With any new technology there will be snags.

[Stephen Szikora]

There is more than one type of lithium battery. Here's a good explanation of the problem Boeing is having and an alternative - lithium ferro phosphate.

http://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/

Did you know that lithium batteries are in most new ELT's now? You're probably already flying with one now. TC approved the use of lithium batteries in ELTs in 2008.

[NeverBlue]

Exactly...Lithium Ion batteries have been approved for a while. There was a TCCA AMOC (Alternate means of compliance) issued back in 2008 that confirms this for use in ELTs I think.

Or as some like to believe a consequence of outsourcing critical assemblies to third party companies in countries that were until recently third world?

...this, of course, is obsurd.

We should all know that any electrical/electronic part put into a Transport Category aircraft must be TSO'd.
It makes no difference at all where it is made as long as it complies with the TSO.

I believe (just my opinion) that the problem is in the operating procedures used for the battery.

I've heard, but have been unable to confirm, that one of the batteries can be used to start an engine, which has been previously unheard of because of the "umf" that is required to start a big Turbine. Li-Ion batteries deliver way more current for their size than NiCad but still...

I tend to go along with the possibility that it is the charging procedure that is the problem. I've read recently that this is the direction the FAA is going in their investigation.
If the charging voltage is too high it could definately cause the cells to overheat and over time cause them to fail.

Not a huge deal at all...just a minor glich that can be fixed quit easily.
I've also read that there have been no fires and no damage, other than smoke damage, caused by these incidents.

To those that can't understand why we can't ship Li-Ion laptop batteries but can use them in the 787...again...because Laptop batteries are not TSO'd.
One of the reasons why there hasn't been a full on fire in the E-bay of the 787s is because of the container the cells are installed in are...part of the TSO.


Just my 2 cents...

[2R]

As soon as they switch from those old school lithium ion batteries to Di-lithium crystals the will be trekking at warp factor ten in ten.

A battery problem,not the big problem that i would have thought would ground those birds.
The electrical issue that i think will ground them, is the way carbon fibre reacts to high voltage and high amperage asscociated with lightening strikes.
Carbon fibre has been known to explode when lightening strikes it.
They should be fine as not many airplanes are struck by lightening or fly near thunderstorms ,so nothing really to worry about

[CID]

Neverblue, that's not correct. Not all parts on aircraft, not even the 787 are TSO'd. In many cases a TSO doesn't even exist for components. For example, the wires and terminals and interconnect devices are not typically TSO'd. They all must be "approved" and the Type Certificate takes care of that.

And you're using the AMOC term incorrectly as well. Maybe you're thinking of an "Equivalent Safety" finding.

[NeverBlue]

For example, the wires and terminals and interconnect devices are not typically TSO'd.

You are absolutely correct CID. I should have clarified.
I believe it is everything except hardware must be TSO'd. (from an avionics point of view)

If there are no TSO categories established for the part that the manufacturer wants to sell, the manufacturer can still get FAA approval by testing the part in the actual aircraft type where it is to be used. To accomplish this, the part must first be conformed to the design drawings by a FAA-designated inspector to insure it meets type design. Then it will be installed and tested in accordance with a FAA-approved test plan. Upon successful completion of the tests, submittal of the appropriate documentation, and verification of a FAA-approved manufacturing system for the part, the FAA will issue a letter identifying the part as eligible for installation under PMA for the specific airplane type in which it was tested. The PMA part may then be installed in the aircraft via STC or TC. If the part manufacturer wants to use the part in another aircraft type, additional documentation and testing may be required. In any case, a PMA part can only be installed in an aircraft type(s) where it has specifically been approved.

As to the AMOC this is what I was referring to:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca- ... 960618.pdf

...and it is not for lithium Ion batteries but for lithium sulfur dioxide batteries.

Also I just heard on CNN that the "overcharging" has been investigated and ruled out as the possible cause.

[NeverBlue]

Interesting thing,
I have yet to find a TSO for Lithium batteries.
I have found one for "Non-rechargeable lithium cells" and of course NiCad and Lead-Acid cells but don't see one for the re-chargeable cells.

RTCA/DO-31:2008 does cover the MOPS (Minimum operational performance standards)but as of yet no TSO has been issued.( I assume because they are so new)

[I WAS Birddog]

I just wrote to a buddy in Seattle that works for Boeing.

Told him if ever they start work on the B797 they should come on here and consult with avcanada members for planning as you folks are CLEARLY problem solving the 787 electrical issue with such passion...it's impressive.

[Beefitarian]

I hope you gave him a link so he can steal the solution and take credit for it.

[Indanao]

. AirBus is designed by corporate suits that have never turned a wrench and put together by the factory workers at LEGO. #Junk

What is it about the Internet that reduces people's IQ by 50 points.

What a ridiculous statement....why bother ?

Dogbird's actual I.Q. is probably about 90. Give the guy some credit.

[azimuthaviation]

I just wrote to a buddy in Seattle that works for Boeing.

Told him if ever they start work on the B797 they should come on here and consult with avcanada members for planning as you folks are CLEARLY problem solving the 787 electrical issue with such passion...it's impressive.

Yeah, it's not like some of us aren't paid to troubleshoot electrical faults in aircraft 40 hours a week, what do we know?

[NeverBlue]

I was only guessing

...based on my experience blowing up NiCads in the shop


It was only my opinion

[I WAS Birddog]

. AirBus is designed by corporate suits that have never turned a wrench and put together by the factory workers at LEGO. #Junk

What is it about the Internet that reduces people's IQ by 50 points.

What a ridiculous statement....why bother ?

Dogbird's actual I.Q. is probably about 90. Give the guy some credit.

Actually it's 56 in the winter....149 in the summer.
Thanks for your patience.

#TeamBoeing

[CID]

NeverBlue, TSO C179a is for "Permanently Installed Rechargeable Lithium Cells, Batteries and Battery Systems". It's a relatively new TSO that was initially released in 2011.

As for TSOs, it is just one way to approve equipment for installation on aircraft. There are plenty of non-TSO parts even not considering the EWIS. The vast majority of the IFE equipment is not TSOd. Many non-standard or novel parts are not TSO'd.

That AMOC was not for main batteries. It's to address an AD. Years ago, many ELTs used lithium batteries but they proved to be unstable (fires and explosions) and corrosive. It's been quite awhile and the technology has finally caught up.

One thing you may be interested in checking is the latest version of FAA AC 25.1353-1A. You can find it on the FAA RGL library site. Same place you can find the TSOs. That AC addresses the use of lithium batteries.

[NeverBlue]

Thanks CID!
You are a wealth of information

I can remember removing many Lithium batteries from ELTs that came through the shop for recert. Magnesium as well.

[CID]

Yes, the old RESCU 88 and the ELT 10 were particularly affected. Those magnesium batteries were weird. There would always be a delay between flipping the switch and activation as the chemicals came to life.

[Siddley Hawker]

I believe the batteries on the 787 are manufactured by Thales. I wish them better luck with their batteries than they had with their pitot tubes.

[KK7]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 8554.story

Senate to scrutinize FAA's approval of battery for Dreamliner

Reuters

6:21 a.m. CST, January 23, 2013

A key U.S. Senate committee will hold a hearing in coming weeks to examine U.S. aviation safety oversight and the Federal Aviation Administration's decision to allow Boeing Co. to use highly flammable lithium-ion batteries on board its new 787 Dreamliner, a congressional aide said on Tuesday.

U.S., Japanese and French authorities are investigating two separate cases in which lithium-ion batteries on board the new airliner failed. One of the batteries sparked a fire in a parked plane in Boston, while the other forced an emergency landing in Japan.

As a result, authorities around the world last week grounded all 50 Boeing 787s.

The Dreamliner, with a list price of $207 million, is the world's newest airliner, a lightweight, advanced carbon-composite design that has more electrical power than any other aircraft and uses 20 percent less fuel.

"Certainly the issues of FAA certification will be a key component of the aviation safety oversight hearing we're planning," an aide to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee told Reuters in an email.

The aide, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said committee chairman Senator John Rockefeller was "following the situation surrounding the Dreamliner and FAA's task force closely and he thinks the FAA and (Department of Transportation)are examining the issue carefully."

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is also keeping a close eye on the 787 investigations and the issue of FAA oversight, congressional aides said, although no formal hearings were planned at this point.

Boeing officials have briefed both oversight committees and other key lawmakers about the matter, a Boeing spokesman said.

The Senate committee had already been planning to conduct "substantial and aggressive oversight" of aviation safety during the first quarter, but would now look closely at the 787 incidents and FAA oversight as part of that process, the committee aide said.

Problems with the 787's lithium-ion battery have sparked questions about why the FAA in 2007 granted Boeing a "special condition" to allow use of the batteries on the plane, despite the fact that they are highly flammable and hard to extinguish if they catch fire.

Boeing designed a special system that was supposed to contain any such fire and vent toxic gasses outside the plane, but the two recent incidents have raised questions about whether that was a good decision.

It remains unclear what caused the batteries to fail, but when it announced plans to ground U.S.-based 787s, the FAA said both battery failures released flammable chemicals, heat damage and smoke - all of which could affect critical systems on the plane and spark a fire in the electrical compartment.

The FAA has said it will keep the 787s grounded until airlines demonstrate that the battery system is safe and complies with safety regulations.

[CID]

The batteries in the incidents were made by a Japanese company, GS Yuasa. Thales specifies their batteries as part of the electrical system.

[NeverBlue]

...and apparently there's a BIG CONSPIRACY by the Japanese to sabotage the 787 cause they're still upset at the Americans for bombing them during the second world war.



...it's amazing what some people come up with...

[KK7]

U.S. NTSB reviewing whistleblower claims in 787 case
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ ... 8S20130124

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board is looking at issues raised by more than one whistleblower as it investigates battery failures that have grounded the global fleet of 50 Boeing Co (BA.N) 787 Dreamliners for a week.

...

FAA: No timetable for returning Boeing 787s to skies
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/faa-no- ... -1C8088357

[I WAS Birddog]

...and apparently there's a BIG CONSPIRACY by the Japanese to sabotage the 787 cause they're still upset at the Americans for bombing them during the second world war.



...it's amazing what some people come up with...

Dude......it's true. It's a deliberate slow tactic. First tracking/surveillance devices in their sushi. Then faulty Toyota gas pedals. Followed by gullible overweight white guys marrying Japanese women to divert their funds towards fabricating faulty batteries on our beloved Boeing 787's. THEM AND THE FRENCH are in on it.

"I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS!!!" -Alex Jones