Boeing 787 Dreamliner Incidents Raise Safety Concerns

[Chicog]

Apparently, Oprah was busy with the Lance Armstrong interview, so they had to call in the 2nd string to do the investigating.

?

[cdnvic]

At least these days the incidents are relatively minor. The first year of 727 service resulted in four crashes and over 250 deaths.

[OMGImInPattaya]

That what happens when you outsource to China.

In this case, it's mostly Japan, so quick, come up with another China bash.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I have to get on one Monday. At least it's with ANA.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

Not anymore, both ANA and JAL have grounded their Dream Liner fleets for now.

[manarak]

Apparently, Oprah was busy with the Lance Armstrong interview, so they had to call in the 2nd string to do the investigating.

hah - it seems we had the same thoughts!

The recent news about Armstrong and Boeing will maybe counterbalance 2 of the most annoying groups of posters: the Lance Armstrong admirers and the Boeing fanboys. Welcome back to reality.

Edited January 16, 2013 by manarak

[Mosha]

FAA orders the grounding of the Dreamliner.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57564393-76/faa-grounds-boeings-787-dreamliner-after-battery-fires/

[Asiantravel]

FAA grounds Boeing 787 over battery concerns

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/16/us-boeing-dreamliner-idUSBRE90F1N820130116

[Tywais]

NTSB prepares to disassemble JAL 787 APU battery

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said it has moved materials from the Japan Airlines Boeing 787 that caught fire last week from Boston to Washington DC for detailed examination.

The board said it has transported the burned battery believed to have started last week’s fire at Boston Logan Airport to its labs. The 32-volt lithium-ion battery is used to start the 787’s auxiliary power unit (APU). “The battery is currently being examined by NTSB investigators, who plan to disassemble it this week,” the safety board said.

The NTSB did not provide further details on the fire or its cause.

It said radiographic examinations of the battery have been conducted, enabling investigators to “document the internal condition of the battery prior to disassembling it.” The 787 is the first Boeing aircraft to use a lithium-ion battery.

More here - Air Transport World

Burned APU battery from Japan Airlines (JAL) Boeing 787 that caught fire at Boston Logan Airport. Courtesy, NTSB

[Tywais]

Just in case you thought the all singing and dancing act put on by the FAA and Boeing when they announced a review into the 787 program after the 7 January ground fire in a Japan Airlines Dreamliner was cause to relax America’s independent safety investigator, the NTSB has come out with the ugly photos.

The image below is of a 24 kilogram 42 cms by 30 cms battery that took a fire unit trained to deal with 787 fires 40 minutes to extinguish when it caught fire shortly after a Japan Airlines flight from Narita arrived at Boston’s Logan airport.

The fire and other electrical and mechanical incidents reported in 787s in recent days lead to the Federal Aviation Administration announcing a detailed review of the program including the certification processes which it had followed before passing the 787 fit for passenger service.

However that announcement was turned into something of an embarrassment for the regulator and Boeing, at least according to US media reports, by being made into a testimonial by all present as to how outstandingly safe the 787 is.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) which is the safety investigator, has not lent its public credibility to such a stunt, instead issuing the photo as part of a second update into its inquiry into the incident.

WASHINGTON – The National Transportation Safety Board today released a second update on its investigation into the Jan. 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston.

The lithium-ion battery that powered the auxiliary power unit on the airplane was removed and transported back to the NTSB Materials Laboratory in Washington on Jan. 10. The battery is currently being examined by NTSB investigators, who plan to disassemble it this week.

Continued here - Crikey.com

[geriatrickid]

The response of the safety agencies is admirable. They have certainly learnt their lessons from past design issues. It took a few catastrophic de Havilland Comet crashes to initiate some action in the good old days. I think the battery issue will be resolved. The other equipment issues are to be expected.

Personally, I prefer the B777 to the Dreamliner. It is bigger and has been in service for enough time that the kinks have been worked out. Call me a Boeing fanboy but my favourite aircraft are the B777, B737 and the old reliable B767. I dislike the B747 and have yet to accept any booking on an AB380. Thankfully EVA is still all B777. TG's fleet of ancient Airbuses on the HKG-BKK route scare me and the B747 it uses on the HKG-HKT route terrifies me. I had to fly one of those old clunkers in September and August last year when I was doing the FCO-BKK and FRA-BKK routes. I drank alot to numb my terror. What I would give for a chance to fly on an Pan Am Clipper. They had real dining facilities and a mechanic on board. I envy some of you old timers that probably flew on those.

[David48]

Mesfin Tassew, chief operating officer at Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise, the company’s fleet of Boeing Co. 787 Dreamliners ... AOK ...

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Mesfin Tassew, chief operating officer at Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise, talks about the outlook for the company’s fleet of Boeing Co. 787 Dreamliners after Japanese airlines grounded the jets for at least two days following an emergency landing. Tassew speaks with Betty on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg)

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/ethiopian-airlines-coo-says-787-experience-

good-Qfq36qbYRgygC5W3GF1cUw.html

[Mosha]

There was a battery fire on one of the certification flights with a FAA inspector on board.

[lomatopo]

The image below is of a 24 kilogram 42 cms by 30 cms battery that took a fire unit trained to deal with 787 fires 40 minutes to extinguish when it caught fire shortly after a Japan Airlines flight from Narita arrived at Boston’s Logan airport.

I think this is a bit dramatic.

Local news reports make it sound a lot less alarming...

The FAA told WBZ-TV the Boeing 787 Dreamliner from Tokyo was at a gate at the international terminal when a cleaning crew discovered the smoke on the plane around 10:40 a.m.

The plane had landed a short time earlier and a mechanic was doing a walk through when he ”noticed a light smoke condition increasing from the underbelly of the plane,” BFD tweeted. The mechanic then notified Massport’s fire department.

There did not appear to be any major damage to the jet from the outside. Massport crews vented smoke from a door at the bottom of the plane.

Nothing like this TG 737 at DMK.

Edited January 17, 2013 by lomatopo

[Mosha]

Japan's aviation authority, Indian aviation authority, and the European aviation authority, have all officially grounded the 787s

[Chicog]

The CE of Airbus just gave a very evasive interview, avoid the Dreamliner completely and just talking about how the industry has got much safer and how it will listen to what the FAA has to say.

With the success of the A320Neo and this setback for the Dreamliner, I'm guessing EADS are feeling quite positive about the A350.

[Terry Newman]

If they are outsourcing you don't think their parts suppliers aren't too? I could quote you an example but it's veering too far off topic.

The Boeing manufacturing contracts do not allow unapproved outsourcing. If a component supplier outsources, then this must be declared to Boeing and the subcontractor must be vetted and is added to the manufacturers listing. Have you looked at the component manufacturer listing? Why make an allegation that you cannot substantiate?

Actually I did but it got deleted.

I wonder who makes the offending batteries?

http://eandt.theiet....ner-battery.jpg

It certainly seems to be turning into a major issue.

John Goglia, a former member of the NTSB who led public hearings after ValuJet Flight 592 crashed into the Florida Everglades in 1996, killing all 105 passengers and crew members, said that problems with lithium batteries catching fire in laptops, cellphones and electric cars were well documented and “should have raised a flag with the FAA.”

“We’ve had a long-running issue with lithium batteries,” he said. “They’re not allowed to be carried on passenger airplanes.”

Goglia said weight was the most likely reason Boeing went with the 63-pound lithium battery, which is lighter and more powerful than other types.

I appears that the batteries are actually ok, the problem is how they are managed and protected by the aircraft's systems that seem to be the issue here.

[lomatopo]

One would hope Li-ON batteries are relatively safe given that ~ a billion people hold one close to their heads, or reproductive parts, each day.

[lomatopo]

The CE of Airbus just gave a very evasive interview, avoid the Dreamliner completely and just talking about how the industry has got much safer and how it will listen to what the FAA has to say.

With the success of the A320Neo and this setback for the Dreamliner, I'm guessing EADS are feeling quite positive about the A350.

Airbus CEO: No reason to change A350 electric architecture

By Kurt Hofmann | January 17, 2013

Announcing that 2012 was a record year for aircraft orders and deliveries, Airbus executives steered clear of criticizing the grounded Boeing 787. They also said they remained satisfied with the electric architecture of the new Airbus A350 XWB. Briefing journalists in Toulouse on year-end results, Airbus CEO and president Fabrice Bregier said it was too early to analyze FAA’s decision, announced late Wednesday, to ground US-registered 787s and issue an emergency airworthiness directive regarding the aircraft’s lithium ion batteries. The batteries are the focus of two investigations into incidents earlier in January; a fire that broke out on a parked Japan Airlines 787and a battery leak on an All Nippon Airways aircraft that was forced to do an emergency landing.

“We like to say, in this industry, that both Boeing and Airbus give same priority to safety. This is paramount. There is a decision of FAA and this decision confirms that aviation is one of the safest transportation around the world,” Bregier said.

He said the electric architecture of the A350 and its use of lithium batteries has been through the certification process and both FAA and European regulatory authority EASA were “very happy” with the architecture. He said Airbus saw no reason at this stage to change the A350’s architecture and the manufacturer had full confidence in its robustness.

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/airbus-ceo-no-reason-change-a350-electric-architecture-0117

[Tywais]

One would hope Li-ON batteries are relatively safe given that ~ a billion people hold one close to their heads, or reproductive parts, each day.

Well, the USPS banned shipments of batteries and battery operated equipment that uses them internationally. Also below:

In January 2013, the International Civil Aviation Organization is set to introduce tighter regulations for the shipment of lithium ion batteries. The rules mean more batteries will be treated as fully regulated dangerous goods and included on pilot notification forms. They also provide for better training for shippers and better packaging.

<snipped>

Last month, the US Federal Aviation Administration published a list of 132 air incidents involving batteries since March 1991.

The list contains both incidents involving cargo and individual passengers. In the past year alone, crews reported burning batteries connected to an air purifier, laptops and a self-propelled surf board.

The list also notes two incidents at Vancouver International Airport last year: one where a Delta Airline passenger's camera batteries started smoking at the boarding gate and another involving checked baggage that started to smoulder during transfer at YVR, bursting into flames when an agent lifted the bag. Subsequent inspection revealed two large battery packs.

Source

Essentially the batteries and equipment containing them will/may be labeled hazardous material with the associated restrictions.

10.20.5 Primary Lithium (Non-Rechargeable) Cells and Batteries

[Revise 10.20.5 as follows:]

Small consumer-type primary lithium cells or batteries (lith­ium metal or lithium alloy) like those used to power cameras and flashlights are mailable domestically under the follow­ing conditions. Mailing batteries internationally, or to and from APO, FPO, or DPO destinations, is prohibited regard­less of mail class. See IMM 136 for details.

a. General. The following restrictions apply to the mail­ability of all primary lithium (nonrechargeable) cells and batteries:

1. Each cell must contain no more than 1.0 gram (g) of lithium content per cell.

2. Each battery must contain no more than 2.0 g aggregate lithium content per battery.

3. Each cell or battery must meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, and subsection 38.3 as referenced in DOT’s haz­ardous materials regulation at 49 CFR 171.7.

4. All outer packages must have a complete delivery and return address.

b. Installed In Equipment. The following additional re­strictions apply to the mailing of primary cells or bat­teries properly installed in the equipment they operate:

1. The batteries installed in the equipment must be protected from damage and short circuit.

2. The equipment must be equipped with an effec­tive means of preventing it from being turned on or activated.

3. The equipment must be cushioned to prevent movement or damage and be contained in a strong enough sealed package to prevent crush­ing of the package or exposure of the contents during normal handling in the mail.

4. The mailpiece must not exceed 11 pounds.

c. Mailed With Equipment. The following additional re­strictions apply to the mailing of primary cells or bat­teries shipped with (but not installed in) the device or equipment being mailed:

USPS

[jpinx]

I appears that the batteries are actually ok, the problem is how they are managed and protected by the aircraft's systems that seem to be the issue here.

Yea - Same problem some laptops had (sony viao maybe?). We used to have fun with thermal runaways on Ni-Cd batteries in helicopters years ago - to the extent that we fitted lead acid again for a while. Getting so much energy in and out of such a high capacity battery as these Li-On ones is major headache and not surprising that Boeing have a few teething problems. I have no doubt that they will solve it with battery management solutions rather than any major restructuring. Having said that - they were totally right to ground the fleet. The old Ni-Cad's could explode with really catastrophic consequences, given the corrosive liquids and vapours given off. I can only guess that these Li-On batteries would be even more spectacular when they pop.

Edited January 18, 2013 by jpinx

[Tywais]

The above now explains why when I ordered a Tablet from the US they gave me no option to send by USPS anymore where previously I could.

[lomatopo]

The above now explains why when I ordered a Tablet from the US they gave me no option to send by USPS anymore where previously I could.

It looks like this is just the USPS? And just for international shipments? Of course domestic shipments, or products with Li_ON batteries, via air or ground are allowed.

I just ordered a tablet in the U.S., for shipment within the U.S. - I will pick it up in a few weeks when I return for a brief trip and hand-carry it back to Thailand - it shipped via air, then vehicle.

On any trans-Pacific international flight I have been on I would venture to guess there are at least 500 Li-ON batteries on board, based solely on the number of iPads glowing in the cabin. I usually am carrying six, or so.

I guess my only point is that it may be a bit early in the cycle to proclaim some irrational fear of Li-ON batteries being part of the power units and systems in commercial aircraft. People were probably afraid of gas streetlamps, electricity, trains, automobiles early on, and we were able to overcome those fears, and the associated implementation problems.

[Mudcrab]

The Dreamliner, operated by Japan Airlines and carrying 181 passengers on board, was about to take off from Boston's Logan International Airport when a pilot from another aircraft advised air traffic control of a leakage from a wing. The control tower then informed the aircraft's crew.

They had to be told by a pilot from another aircraft? Shouldn't there be a little red light or alarm going off in the cockpit if there is a fuel leak? Yikes!

It isn't just the Dreamliner. Wasn't it a Phuket Air Boeing 747 that was spewing fuel as it taxied to the runway in Sharjah? The passengers actually alerted the flight deck to it, and it was only their actions in refusing to be seated that forced the captain to return to the gate and offload them.

Bit of a difference between an aging 747 and a brand spanking 787.

Really.....both aeroplanes...both leaking fuel...both Boeings.

A well maintained piece of older equipment, car, motobike or plane should be just a seviceable as a new one. in fact the older equipment has already stood the test of time.

[cdnvic]

Good thing these issues turned up now, not after 2-300 had been delivered.

[cdnvic]

This is the first time since 1979 that the US FAA has ordered the grounding of an entire aircraft type. The last being the DC-10s.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-history-of-grounded-planes-2013-1

[Ricardo]

People were probably afraid of gas streetlamps, electricity, trains, automobiles early on, and we were able to overcome those fears, and the associated implementation problems.

They were right to be afraid of automobiles, more than a million people are killed worldwide every year, in car-crashes ? (source : wikipedia)

[airconsult]

Edited January 19, 2013 by airconsult

[endure]

[Chicog]

(Reuters) - U.S. safety investigators on Sunday ruled out excess voltage as the cause of a battery fire last month on a Boeing Co 787 Dreamliner jet operated by Japan Airlines Co (JAL) and said they were expanding the probe to look at the battery's charger and the jet's auxiliary power unit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/20/us-boeing-ntsb-idUSBRE90J06I20130120

There does seem to be some subliminal finger-pointing going on though.

Brazilian planemaker Embraer SA declined comment when asked if it planned to rethink its use of lithium-ion batteries on its military transport plane and new business jets.

The Embraer programs use a battery made in the United States, unlike the Japanese one on the 787.

Lockheed Martin Corp, maker of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has said it does not see a problem since the lithium-ion batteries on the military plane are made by France's Saft Groupe, not Yuasa.

[oldsailor35]

That what happens when you outsource to China.

Really? The equipment and parts implicated are not of Chinese origin.

The Lithium battery supplier is GS Yuasa (Japan).

The fuel tank and valve suppliers are a mix of established US and EU firms with no Chinese companies involved.

For the record; AVIC Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group is the sole supplier of Boeing 787 rudder, and it is also the only supplier of 747-8 aileron and spoiler. Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) is the sole supplier of Boeing 787 vertical stabilizer leading edge. Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation is the supplier of Boeing 787 wing-body fairing panels. To date there are no problems reported with these components.

Don't you feel foolish blaming the Chinese for components that are sourced from non Chinese sources?

Think he was referring to "Maintenance" and not components.