• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

787 electrical fires, they keep cropping up.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-Boeings-hi-tech-Dreamliner-jets-world.html

article-2263126-16FBC95B000005DC-344_634x394.jpg
 
I saw two ANA 787's grounded side by side at Narita yesterday. I'll bet one of them is the one that battery came from. That picture looks nuts.

In other news, I hadn't done a lot of research on the 787 because I figured it would be awhile before I ever had a chance to fly in one. That interior lighting looks pretty crazy. Anyone know how it is supposed to actually help with jet lag?
 
Fingolfin269 said:
I saw two ANA 787's grounded side by side at Narita yesterday. I'll bet one of them is the one that battery came from. That picture looks nuts.

In other news, I hadn't done a lot of research on the 787 because I figured it would be awhile before I ever had a chance to fly in one. That interior lighting looks pretty crazy. Anyone know how it is supposed to actually help with jet lag?
Click to expand...

I guess it's supposed to mimic natural light, but it's not new for the 787.

It's been on newer 737's for a long time now.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...is-outsourcing-to-blame-for-boeings-787-woes/

These concerns aren’t new. Back in 2011, Michael Hiltzik published a long investigation for the Los Angeles Times that questioned Boeing’s overreliance on foreign suppliers for the 787. “The drawbacks of this approach emerged early,” he wrote. “Some of the pieces manufactured by far-flung suppliers didn’t fit together. Some subcontractors couldn’t meet their output quotas, creating huge production logjams when critical parts weren’t available in the necessary sequence.” The end result: delays and cost overruns.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I doubt only one mfg was trying to win the battery contract. There would have been more than one making a battery to the same specs.

Batteries in the 787 don't power anything unless there is a failure of mains/generator power as far as I know. The APU is not started with it's battery unless mains/generator power is not available to start it as far as I know.

The batteries in the 787 are emergency power, just as they are in older planes.
Click to expand...

It's obvious you have no clue about commercial a/c, please stop. Your entire post is wrong.
As I said before, There are TWO main batteries, the aux for the apu and primary for an essential system elec bus for things like nav displays and comms. The Primary is ALWAYS ON.
 
looks like the box designer did an excellent job :awe:

will the effect (not much at all) of this be similar to rolls royce having to fix engine gearboxes ?
 
They are both back up/auxiliary power only.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_21_2013_p22-537845.xml

In the case of the 787, two 32-volt lithium-ion primary batteries provide power as key elements of the aircraft's more-electric architecture. The main battery, located forward in the electric/electronic (E/E) equipment bay below the cabin floor by the front passenger doors, provides power for aircraft start-up, ground operations such as refueling and towing, and acts as backup power for the electrically actuated brake system. It can also assist the second battery, located in the aft E/E bay, in starting up the auxiliary power unit (APU) and, in the event of a power failure, energizes essential flight instruments in the flight deck until the drop-down ram air turbine spools up.

The battery that caught fire on the Japan Airlines 787 in Boston was the second main battery. This unit's primary purpose is to electrically start the APU when neither of the engines is running and the aircraft is not connected to external ground power. In this case, the battery energizes the righthand of the two starter/generators connected to the APU. The aft battery also provides another minor role, namely to power navigation lights during battery-only towing operations.
Click to expand...
 
Boeing halts deliveries of 787 Dreamliners; production continues


"U.S. and Japanese aviation safety officials finished an initial investigation of a badly damaged battery from a Boeing Co. 787 Dreamliner jet on Friday as Boeing said it was halting deliveries until the battery concerns were resolved."

"A person at the company, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue, said: “Our company’s battery has been vilified for now, but it only functions as part of a whole system. So we’re trying to find out exactly where there was a problem within the system.”"
 
Last edited:
Fingolfin269 said:
I saw two ANA 787's grounded side by side at Narita yesterday. I'll bet one of them is the one that battery came from. That picture looks nuts.

In other news, I hadn't done a lot of research on the 787 because I figured it would be awhile before I ever had a chance to fly in one. That interior lighting looks pretty crazy. Anyone know how it is supposed to actually help with jet lag?
Click to expand...

I am supposed to fly a 787 United from Houston to LAX within a month or two. I guess I won't be able to unless they can trouble shoot the problem(s).
 
Last edited:
Hugo Drax said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-Boeings-hi-tech-Dreamliner-jets-world.html

article-2263126-16FBC95B000005DC-344_634x394.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow after seeing videos of laptop batteries exploding I can just imagine what a battery that size did.

Mind you I imagine these are fairly enclosed in a cubby hole somewhere so it probably did not get as much air for combustion, but obviously still enough to be a big problem!

I imagine VRLA is too heavy to consider on a plane as well. To match the power output of that battery you'd probably need a multiple lead acid batteries of that size. Then again it's not like a couple extra 100kg (to be generous) is much when you consider the size of those planes. the root of the issue is probably not the battery but what is causing the battery to get unstable. Perhaps a dead short somewhere, heat, etc
 
LTC8K6 said:
They are both back up/auxiliary power only.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_01_21_2013_p22-537845.xml
Click to expand...

You keep trying to make excuses for Boeing but quotes from the same article are frightening:

"While the full fallout from the grounding of the Boeing 787 fleet following two separate battery failures remains as yet unknown, there is at least one aspect over which there can be little argument.

The basic physics of the lithium-ion battery at the center of the 787 investigation cannot be changed, and the focus of the investigation has already shifted rapidly from whether the safety precautions in Boeing's design were sufficiently adequate, to more urgent questions over how quickly they can be modified.

Spurred on by the U.S. airworthiness authority's emergency directive, the NTSB probe and the broader FAA-led report will determine with Boeing what modifications are required to the battery-related aspects of the electrical system as well as whether the fire containment or protection system can—and should be—augmented. In the most extreme scenario for Boeing, this could conceivably lead to a change to alternate batteries, a new test effort, certification and modification program.

Until now, Boeing has remained unequivocal over the question of adopting or even studying different battery technology, saying simply: “We have no such plans at this time.” Outwardly, at least, the company remains confident in its choice of technology, which was driven by the lithium-ion battery's high power and energy density and its low maintenance requirements and low installed weight.

Yet the worldwide groundings, combined with NTSB images of the charred remains of the battery from the Boston incident, add to a growing litany of industry and public unease over the use of lithium-ion technology in aircraft. Even carrying lithium batteries as air cargo has proved lethal and prompted the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to issue stringent new rules governing their carriage as recently as Jan 1. Fires erupting in this type of battery, carried as cargo, were prime suspects in separate accidents involving two Boeing 747 freighters and a DC-8.

According to FAA figures, not counting the recent events, lithium batteries make up almost 80% of the 33 instances in which batteries have ignited on aircraft since 2009. Cessna, which introduced the CJ4 business jet in 2010 as the first aircraft to enter service with lithium-ion batteries, was forced to replace them with nickel-cadmium after a battery fire on an aircraft in 2011. As with the 787, the FAA had also allowed the CJ4 to be certificated under special conditions that included added safety precautions for use of the lithium-ion battery."
 
Number1 said:
You keep trying to make excuses for Boeing but quotes from the same article are frightening:

"While the full fallout from the grounding of the Boeing 787 fleet following two separate battery failures remains as yet unknown, there is at least one aspect over which there can be little argument.

The basic physics of the lithium-ion battery at the center of the 787 investigation cannot be changed, and the focus of the investigation has already shifted rapidly from whether the safety precautions in Boeing's design were sufficiently adequate, to more urgent questions over how quickly they can be modified.

Spurred on by the U.S. airworthiness authority's emergency directive, the NTSB probe and the broader FAA-led report will determine with Boeing what modifications are required to the battery-related aspects of the electrical system as well as whether the fire containment or protection system can—and should be—augmented. In the most extreme scenario for Boeing, this could conceivably lead to a change to alternate batteries, a new test effort, certification and modification program.

Until now, Boeing has remained unequivocal over the question of adopting or even studying different battery technology, saying simply: “We have no such plans at this time.” Outwardly, at least, the company remains confident in its choice of technology, which was driven by the lithium-ion battery's high power and energy density and its low maintenance requirements and low installed weight.

Yet the worldwide groundings, combined with NTSB images of the charred remains of the battery from the Boston incident, add to a growing litany of industry and public unease over the use of lithium-ion technology in aircraft. Even carrying lithium batteries as air cargo has proved lethal and prompted the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to issue stringent new rules governing their carriage as recently as Jan 1. Fires erupting in this type of battery, carried as cargo, were prime suspects in separate accidents involving two Boeing 747 freighters and a DC-8.

According to FAA figures, not counting the recent events, lithium batteries make up almost 80% of the 33 instances in which batteries have ignited on aircraft since 2009. Cessna, which introduced the CJ4 business jet in 2010 as the first aircraft to enter service with lithium-ion batteries, was forced to replace them with nickel-cadmium after a battery fire on an aircraft in 2011. As with the 787, the FAA had also allowed the CJ4 to be certificated under special conditions that included added safety precautions for use of the lithium-ion battery."
Click to expand...

Explaining what the batteries power is making excuses for Boeing?

The battery problem will be sorted out, one way or another.

Boeing may not have plans to change battery tech right now, but the investigation has barely started, and changing battery tech may be the only way to restore confidence.

Confidence is often a huge factor in deciding what course to take. Airlines/pax have to be confident that the problem is solved.

It looks like both batteries were new. One was in a new plane, and one had been replaced, iirc.

NiMh replacements would be heavier, but smaller. So they would probably fit, but have a weight penalty.
 
Number1 said:
A simple overvoltage issue? It sounds almost too good to be true. I hope they get to the bottom of this very soon.
Click to expand...

When it's all said and done no one will want to fly on one until the battery is changed to a ni-cad or lead-acid design, voltage-regulation circuitry has been around a long time, it's astonishing they could build one so bad it makes the battery a fire-risk, makes one wonder what other parts of the plane are poorly designed and potential hazards...
 
Boeing decides to outsource its production of parts to countries based on costs regardless of quality. What could possibly go wrong?

Apparently the term "capacitor plague" had not been heard at Boeing headquarters.
 
techs said:
Boeing decides to outsource its production of parts to countries based on costs regardless of quality. What could possibly go wrong?

Apparently the term "capacitor plague" had not been heard at Boeing headquarters.
Click to expand...

The charger is made in the US.
 
K1052 said:
IIRC, the cobalt oxide batteries have a higher capacity than the alternatives...which I assume is why they were selected for this application.
Click to expand...

They were selected in 2004/5 though I believe.

I'm thinking there are better options today, but maybe not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top