• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 25819
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:49 pm

Looks like the venting system has done its job nicely:

A United Airlines Boeing 787 experienced a lithium-ion battery failure on approach to Charles de Gaulle Airport on November 13. United Flight 915 was at the end of a seven-hour flight from Washington's Dulles Airport when pilots received a warning that the main battery was overheating. United spokesman Charles Hobart confirmed the event, which was first reported by the Aviation Herald.

On landing, technicians discovered the battery “venting fluid,” with fluid dripping from the forward vent relief system, the titanium box and pipes Boeing installed after the airplane was grounded in 2013.


Article
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinen ... -to-paris/
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:07 pm

This should alleviate at least some of the concerns regarding the fix Boeing made a few years ago. It seems that everything worked as intended.
 
StTim
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:08 pm

Proving that:

a) the initial risk assessment on the battery was deeply flawed
b) the heavy venting system implemented does work.

I wonder how may other failures there have been.
 
Q
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 10:29 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:10 pm

Let's hope not all over again and grounding. Maybe just one detective battery. Let's 787 keep flying.

Q
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6124
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:19 pm

I do not see any reason for a grounding, as the containment system moves such a failure to the contained category. But I assume Boeing to spend some more effort on finding a battery that does not combust.
 
neomax
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:20 pm

This is an incredibly naive question, but if these new Lithium batteries are such a problem, why did Boeing switch to them and what did they use before?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6124
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:21 pm

neomax wrote:
This is an incredibly naive question, but if these new Lithium batteries are such a problem, why did Boeing switch to them and what did they use before?

They provide a higher power density at a lower weight. Other types of batteries have other problems.
 
ual763
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:22 pm

neomax wrote:
This is an incredibly naive question, but if these new Lithium batteries are such a problem, why did Boeing switch to them and what did they use before?


Nicad batteries. Nickel Cadmium. Would have to dig up the correct reasoning why when I get home.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4675
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:32 pm

"On Nov 30th 2017 the NTSB reported the occurrence was rated a non-reportable incident, the NTSB had thus not been informed, however, as a courtesy received information from Boeing confirming the occurrence. No investigation has been opened."
as reported on http://avherald.com/h?article=4b1bd122&opt=0
Murphy is an optimist
 
scotron11
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:58 pm

last quote from the Forbes article:

Now that Dreamliner battery failures have been deemed "non-reportable" by aviation safety authorities, it is impossible gauge the size or the scope of the problem and that's how some folks seem to want it. The question is "why?"
 
Bricktop
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:03 pm

I don't understand why the downstream of a major issue is considered "non-reportable"?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 14844
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:23 pm

scotron11 wrote:
last quote from the Forbes article:

Now that Dreamliner battery failures have been deemed "non-reportable" by aviation safety authorities, it is impossible gauge the size or the scope of the problem and that's how some folks seem to want it. The question is "why?"


As long as the containment system is doing its job, why would a battery failure need to be reportable?

It would be an entirely different situation if the containment failed.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:28 pm

A contained battery fire ( or chemical reaction) is still a fire on board. If the same happened during an ocean crossing flight, it's "land at nearest airport". (I suspect also non reportable to the NTSB !!!)
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
BREECH
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:46 pm

On landing, technicians discovered the battery “venting fluid,” with fluid dripping from the forward vent relief system, the titanium box and pipes Boeing installed after the airplane was grounded in 2013.


All that aside... They installed a TITANIUM box to contain an overheating li-ion battery!? The question I have is... ARE THEY NUTS!? Have they seen a titanium fire? Nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING can suppress that until all titanium burns out. How high titanium burns? 2500C? 3500C? Am I the only one who thinks that an overheating li-ion battery can start a fire which will then ignite the "titanium box" and that will be the end?

On a totally different note, maybe a silly question. Is fire suppression system on an airplane affects its ETOPS ratings in any way? I mean, ETOPS is all about engine reliability, but if you have fire onboard, you kind of need to land fast.
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
2175301
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:59 pm

Lets see. Failure of a component with backup redundancies; and failed in a planned safe manner. Why would that be reportable? Many other things fail on an aircraft and are not reportable either.

Statistically speaking; I'm not sure this is that far from the estimates for the original battery design. There have been a lot of 787 flights and flight hours. I may be wrong; but, I think I've heard of more engine shutdowns than battery failures. Of course, one of those batter failures was rather spectacular and showed that there were problems not anticipated in the original design; and my memory is that was in part a Mfr defect. Also, It's not like mis-design or Mfr. issues have never occurred with anything else on an aircraft...

Prominent related example is the July 2013 Honeywell ELT battery wiring issue - which totally destroyed a new 787 (fortunately with no injuries or loss of life).

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ery-wiring

The reality is that the Aviation Industry has a process in place to deal with such issues when they arise. That happened on the 787 and now these batteries are in a containment system to handle the occasional failure. The system worked. I also note that Honeywell is still manufacturing and selling ELTs with the same or a very similar battery. They changed how they did things too...

Have a great day,
 
747-600X
Posts: 2504
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:09 pm

It's not reportable because it doesn't satisfy any of the ICAO criteria for an aircraft incident or accident. Parts of planes break every day and are subsequently repaired.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4675
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:12 pm

BREECH wrote:
On a totally different note, maybe a silly question. Is fire suppression system on an airplane affects its ETOPS ratings in any way? I mean, ETOPS is all about engine reliability, but if you have fire onboard, you kind of need to land fast.


Fire suppresion ( cargo hold to pax level) for nn minutes is part of ETOPS requirements afaik.
Murphy is an optimist
 
itchief
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:13 pm

BREECH wrote:
On landing, technicians discovered the battery “venting fluid,” with fluid dripping from the forward vent relief system, the titanium box and pipes Boeing installed after the airplane was grounded in 2013.


All that aside... They installed a TITANIUM box to contain an overheating li-ion battery!? The question I have is... ARE THEY NUTS!? Have they seen a titanium fire? Nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING can suppress that until all titanium burns out. How high titanium burns? 2500C? 3500C? Am I the only one who thinks that an overheating li-ion battery can start a fire which will then ignite the "titanium box" and that will be the end?

On a totally different note, maybe a silly question. Is fire suppression system on an airplane affects its ETOPS ratings in any way? I mean, ETOPS is all about engine reliability, but if you have fire onboard, you kind of need to land fast.


Do you think the Boeing engineers are so incompetent that this design is that dangerous?

Using your logic all aircraft that have uncontained engine failures should be grounded.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4675
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:14 pm

itchief wrote:
Using your logic all aircraft that have uncontained engine failures should be grounded.


Which school of logic are you following here?
Murphy is an optimist
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9008
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:15 pm

BREECH wrote:
On landing, technicians discovered the battery “venting fluid,” with fluid dripping from the forward vent relief system, the titanium box and pipes Boeing installed after the airplane was grounded in 2013.


All that aside... They installed a TITANIUM box to contain an overheating li-ion battery!? The question I have is... ARE THEY NUTS!? Have they seen a titanium fire? Nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING can suppress that until all titanium burns out. How high titanium burns? 2500C? 3500C? Am I the only one who thinks that an overheating li-ion battery can start a fire which will then ignite the "titanium box" and that will be the end?.


Are you confusing titanium with magnesium? Titanium can certain burn, but usually in power form or in the presence of oxygen-rich atmosphere. Titanium is used for other fire-containing or heat-isolating applications.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
NameOmitted
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:16 pm

BREECH wrote:
They installed a TITANIUM box to contain an overheating li-ion battery!? The question I have is... ARE THEY NUTS!?


Lithium ion battery fires reach around 1,000 °F, titanium melts at around 3,000 °F.
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:18 pm

2175301 wrote:
July 2013 Honeywell ELT battery wiring issue - which totally destroyed a new 787 (fortunately with no injuries or loss of life).


Bit over dramatic aren't we? The aircraft wasn't totally destroyed... Its still flying today.
I'll wake from the dream, To keep and relive, Now life it is a dream, And dream's on a... BREAK!
 
KLDC10
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:25 pm

scbriml wrote:
scotron11 wrote:
last quote from the Forbes article:

Now that Dreamliner battery failures have been deemed "non-reportable" by aviation safety authorities, it is impossible gauge the size or the scope of the problem and that's how some folks seem to want it. The question is "why?"


As long as the containment system is doing its job, why would a battery failure need to be reportable?

It would be an entirely different situation if the containment failed.


Simply, because you don't need a containment system if something is working as it ought to.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146/Q400/737/738/739/744/752/763/772/A320/A321/A332/A333/E175/E190
 
itchief
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:34 pm

WIederling wrote:
itchief wrote:
Using your logic all aircraft that have uncontained engine failures should be grounded.


Which school of logic are you following here?


I am using the logic in the post from Breech.
 
2175301
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:40 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
scotron11 wrote:
last quote from the Forbes article:

Now that Dreamliner battery failures have been deemed "non-reportable" by aviation safety authorities, it is impossible gauge the size or the scope of the problem and that's how some folks seem to want it. The question is "why?"


As long as the containment system is doing its job, why would a battery failure need to be reportable?

It would be an entirely different situation if the containment failed.


Simply, because you don't need a containment system if something is working as it ought to.


Many things on many systems have some form of containment system to prevent an ordinary failure from causing unacceptable damage. Most people no longer recognize them as they have become so standard. As a very simple example: on of the earlier forms of house wiring was "nob and spool" which ran individual conductors on ceramic insulators... regardless of the amount of degree of a protective covering on the conductor. Now house wiring is double contained with not just one layer of insulation; but by having the wires in some form of conduit to protect the insulation from damage (even if that conduit is plastic). So you went from literally bare wires in open air - to double protected wires to ensure proper containment.

There are vastly more examples. Within the USA there is an Underwriters Laboratory (UL) certification on virtually all consumer and many commercial items (there is an alternate certification that shows up more frequently in commercial items). That entire certification is to verify that the item will fail safely and not start a house or building fire when it shorts out or has other internal failures - that things are "Adequately Contained." I understand that Europe requires similar certifications; although I am not familiar with the European Certification Agencies.

So, you often need an adequate containment system - and it's part of standard design practices and legal safety codes - in order for something to be considered acceptable for use. Boeing's mistake here was not recognizing the need for this containment system up front as part of the initial aircraft design. Had they done so - no one would have even noticed.

Have a great day,
 
WIederling
Posts: 4675
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:46 pm

itchief wrote:
WIederling wrote:
itchief wrote:
Using your logic all aircraft that have uncontained engine failures should be grounded.


Which school of logic are you following here?


I am using the logic in the post from Breech.


ah, a logic breach. :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:54 pm

scbriml wrote:
scotron11 wrote:
last quote from the Forbes article:

Now that Dreamliner battery failures have been deemed "non-reportable" by aviation safety authorities, it is impossible gauge the size or the scope of the problem and that's how some folks seem to want it. The question is "why?"


As long as the containment system is doing its job, why would a battery failure need to be reportable?

It would be an entirely different situation if the containment failed.



I completely agree with the comments above. Most mechanical and electrical systems will eventually fail. Hence the reason so many critical systems aboard aircraft are made redundant (i.e. flight controls come most readily to mind).

It appears as if the safeguards Boeing put into place worked properly and there was no aircraft or passenger safety issue. As long as the fail safes are working properly this sounds like a non-issue.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
NameOmitted
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:02 pm

What ate these batteries actually used for?
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:31 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
neomax wrote:
This is an incredibly naive question, but if these new Lithium batteries are such a problem, why did Boeing switch to them and what did they use before?

They provide a higher power density at a lower weight. Other types of batteries have other problems.

Just for the benefit of those who don't know about rechargeable batteries, it goes something like this

Lead-acid (car battery) >> Ni-Cd >> Ni-MH >> Li-Ion >> Li-Ion polymer >> (?? - next generation)

From left to right you get more capacity for less weight. You also get increasing cost.

Up until 2008 Ni-Cd was the go to solution for torches, radios, electric drills, etc.
ICOM wrote:
Since 26th September 2008 an EU directive has banned ALL manufacturers/distributors from importing Ni-Cd batteries into Europe.

Alternative types of battery for current Icom equipment have been available for some time, so there should be no problem in finding a substitute.

Of course China/eBay are not necessarily bothered by such things, and you can still buy Ni-Cds and import them yourself.

Li-ion are most probably what you will find in your laptop, and mobile phone. Indeed, some of you may remember a bit of an issue with Samsung Galaxy Note 7.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_G ... ntinuation

And I have a Li_ion cell in a fairly high-powered torch I carry around in my pocket 24/7. It hasn't killed me...... yet. :lol:
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 14844
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:31 pm

BREECH wrote:
All that aside... They installed a TITANIUM box to contain an overheating li-ion battery!? The question I have is... ARE THEY NUTS!? Have they seen a titanium fire? Nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING can suppress that until all titanium burns out. How high titanium burns? 2500C? 3500C? Am I the only one who thinks that an overheating li-ion battery can start a fire which will then ignite the "titanium box" and that will be the end?


You think Airbus and Boeing engineers and the certifying authorities are nuts?

A Li-ion battery burns at 1,000C. The melting point of solid Titanium is 1,686C. While molten Titanium can burn, it can also be treated during manufacture to reduce the risk of burning.

KLDC10 wrote:
Simply, because you don't need a containment system if something is working as it ought to.


Just about the entire electronics world has moved to Li-ion batteries. Any device with a rechargeable Li-ion battery has a risk of fire caused by a failure. I have personally seen a laptop and camera burst into flames because of failed batteries, both were completely destroyed. It seems the entire world has accepted the small risk when it comes to our personal devices. Until battery technology moves on and delivers either safer Li-ion units or another technology that beats Li-ion price/weight performance, we will carry on using them.

Both Airbus and Boeing have moved to Li-ion batteries for the A350 and 787. Both have implemented similar containment systems to cover failures of those batteries. So it seems we have a simple choice - use the preferred battery technology with certified mitigation solutions in place or don't allow their use in aviation. The certifying authorities have gone for the former.

I agree, in a perfect world Li-ion batteries would never fail. Unfortunately, we don't inhabit that world so the next best solution is to ensure a fire caused by a failed battery cannot fatally damage the plane. So far (and that's all you can ever say), it looks as though the solutions are working as designed.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
StrandedAtMKG
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:51 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:32 pm

WIederling wrote:
"On Nov 30th 2017 the NTSB reported the occurrence was rated a non-reportable incident, the NTSB had thus not been informed, however, as a courtesy received information from Boeing confirming the occurrence. No investigation has been opened."
as reported on http://avherald.com/h?article=4b1bd122&opt=0


The NTSB had not been informed, but the NTSB had been informed.

Quality reporting there, dudes.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16649
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:54 pm

StrandedAtMKG wrote:
WIederling wrote:
"On Nov 30th 2017 the NTSB reported the occurrence was rated a non-reportable incident, the NTSB had thus not been informed, however, as a courtesy received information from Boeing confirming the occurrence. No investigation has been opened."
as reported on http://avherald.com/h?article=4b1bd122&opt=0


The NTSB had not been informed, but the NTSB had been informed.

Quality reporting there, dudes.

Actually, if you knew aviation rules, it is quality reporting. There is a clear difference between informing the NTSB of an incident (there is specific paperwork for this) versus providing information as a courtesy (which can be done many different ways).
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7358
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:58 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
scotron11 wrote:
last quote from the Forbes article:

Now that Dreamliner battery failures have been deemed "non-reportable" by aviation safety authorities, it is impossible gauge the size or the scope of the problem and that's how some folks seem to want it. The question is "why?"


As long as the containment system is doing its job, why would a battery failure need to be reportable?

It would be an entirely different situation if the containment failed.


Simply, because you don't need a containment system if something is working as it ought to.

With that school of thought you don’t need any redundancies in aircraft design. Why have backups/multiple systems doing/computing the same thing? You don’t need them if something is working as it ought to. Why even have all those emergency exits? You don’t need them if everything. Is working as they ought to.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6124
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:09 pm

itchief wrote:
Do you think the Boeing engineers are so incompetent that this design is that dangerous?


I would not go there. Boeing engineers designed the first system, putting a potential fire hazard without containment, into the main electrical cabinet.
 
Indy
Posts: 4373
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:22 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
itchief wrote:
Do you think the Boeing engineers are so incompetent that this design is that dangerous?


I would not go there. Boeing engineers designed the first system, putting a potential fire hazard without containment, into the main electrical cabinet.


This is all the reason someone needs to avoid every taking the 787. Using these batteries just seems like asking for trouble. I think we need to take one step back when it comes to battery technology and rethink where we go from there. Lithium very unstable and probably not the best metal to use in an airplane.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16649
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:39 pm

Indy wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
itchief wrote:
Do you think the Boeing engineers are so incompetent that this design is that dangerous?


I would not go there. Boeing engineers designed the first system, putting a potential fire hazard without containment, into the main electrical cabinet.


This is all the reason someone needs to avoid every taking the 787. Using these batteries just seems like asking for trouble. I think we need to take one step back when it comes to battery technology and rethink where we go from there. Lithium very unstable and probably not the best metal to use in an airplane.

Interesting statement to make after just being given proof that the battery containment system works.

If you want reasons to not fly, consider the engine case of any feasible jet engine is designed to deal with blade failure but not disc failure, yet we've had a few disc failures happen.

As bad as QF32 was, it was is lucky the disc failed exactly when it did. A few fractions of a second earlier or later and the bulk of the fragments would have gone through the fuselage filled with passengers.

Compared to such events, a battery venting overboard in a designed way doesn't bother me at all.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
KLDC10
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:16 pm

Polot wrote:
KLDC10 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

As long as the containment system is doing its job, why would a battery failure need to be reportable?

It would be an entirely different situation if the containment failed.


Simply, because you don't need a containment system if something is working as it ought to.

With that school of thought you don’t need any redundancies in aircraft design. Why have backups/multiple systems doing/computing the same thing? You don’t need them if something is working as it ought to. Why even have all those emergency exits? You don’t need them if everything. Is working as they ought to.


That's not a proper comparison. We're not talking about back-up and redundancy systems, we're discussing a specific, known problem, and we know that the risk of failure is high enough that a process has had to be implemented to prevent a battery failure from taking anything else out. We know that other batteries on commercial aircraft do not require such containment systems. It isn't unreasonable to highlight the fact that these Li-ion batteries a more prone to failure, with more serious consequences, than conventional batteries.

2175301 wrote:
Many things on many systems have some form of containment system to prevent an ordinary failure from causing unacceptable damage. Most people no longer recognize them as they have become so standard. As a very simple example: on of the earlier forms of house wiring was "nob and spool" which ran individual conductors on ceramic insulators... regardless of the amount of degree of a protective covering on the conductor. Now house wiring is double contained with not just one layer of insulation; but by having the wires in some form of conduit to protect the insulation from damage (even if that conduit is plastic). So you went from literally bare wires in open air - to double protected wires to ensure proper containment.

There are vastly more examples. Within the USA there is an Underwriters Laboratory (UL) certification on virtually all consumer and many commercial items (there is an alternate certification that shows up more frequently in commercial items). That entire certification is to verify that the item will fail safely and not start a house or building fire when it shorts out or has other internal failures - that things are "Adequately Contained." I understand that Europe requires similar certifications; although I am not familiar with the European Certification Agencies.

So, you often need an adequate containment system - and it's part of standard design practices and legal safety codes - in order for something to be considered acceptable for use. Boeing's mistake here was not recognizing the need for this containment system up front as part of the initial aircraft design. Had they done so - no one would have even noticed.

Have a great day,


Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful reply - much appreciated :)

scbriml wrote:
Just about the entire electronics world has moved to Li-ion batteries. Any device with a rechargeable Li-ion battery has a risk of fire caused by a failure. I have personally seen a laptop and camera burst into flames because of failed batteries, both were completely destroyed. It seems the entire world has accepted the small risk when it comes to our personal devices. Until battery technology moves on and delivers either safer Li-ion units or another technology that beats Li-ion price/weight performance, we will carry on using them.

Both Airbus and Boeing have moved to Li-ion batteries for the A350 and 787. Both have implemented similar containment systems to cover failures of those batteries. So it seems we have a simple choice - use the preferred battery technology with certified mitigation solutions in place or don't allow their use in aviation. The certifying authorities have gone for the former.

I agree, in a perfect world Li-ion batteries would never fail. Unfortunately, we don't inhabit that world so the next best solution is to ensure a fire caused by a failed battery cannot fatally damage the plane. So far (and that's all you can ever say), it looks as though the solutions are working as designed.


You're right, just about the entire electronics world has indeed moved to Li-ion batteries. And although we're talking about a specific problem with the 787 battery, I would argue that the bigger risk to commercial aircraft (including the 787) is the improper transportation of Li-ion batteries, both in the hold and in the cabin. Traveling with Lufthansa last week, I was a little taken aback to hear a lengthy announcement about Li-ion batteries made by the crew shortly after takeoff. It mostly related to avoiding seat manipulation in the event of losing an electronic device, but they also asked passengers to be generally aware of their surroundings, and to let the crew know if anything seemed amiss. It seems to be a major issue for airlines at the moment.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146/Q400/737/738/739/744/752/763/772/A320/A321/A332/A333/E175/E190
 
iseeyyc
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:12 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:32 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
neomax wrote:
This is an incredibly naive question, but if these new Lithium batteries are such a problem, why did Boeing switch to them and what did they use before?

They provide a higher power density at a lower weight. Other types of batteries have other problems.


Is it safe to assume that the lithium batteries + containment system weighs as much as a lower power density, less risky battery? Seems like airbus did the right thing by going with a more proven battery tech for the a350.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16649
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:01 pm

iseeyyc wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
neomax wrote:
This is an incredibly naive question, but if these new Lithium batteries are such a problem, why did Boeing switch to them and what did they use before?

They provide a higher power density at a lower weight. Other types of batteries have other problems.


Is it safe to assume that the lithium batteries + containment system weighs as much as a lower power density, less risky battery? Seems like airbus did the right thing by going with a more proven battery tech for the a350.

Airbus A350 has been using the same battery tech since late 2015. Their battery system is smaller and uses a different containment design. They seem to have a "second mover" advantage.

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... 5-and-a350
Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 00-425894/
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6124
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:43 pm

Indy wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
itchief wrote:
Do you think the Boeing engineers are so incompetent that this design is that dangerous?


I would not go there. Boeing engineers designed the first system, putting a potential fire hazard without containment, into the main electrical cabinet.


This is all the reason someone needs to avoid every taking the 787. Using these batteries just seems like asking for trouble. I think we need to take one step back when it comes to battery technology and rethink where we go from there. Lithium very unstable and probably not the best metal to use in an airplane.


The containment is working. Older battery technologies provided different challenges. The Boeing lithium ion battery, including containment, is still lighter at the same capacity than older technologies.

If you do not want to take an airplane with a lithium ion battery you also have to avoid the A350, the C series and quite a few business jets. I assume lithium ion batteries will make it into most modern frames, until the next more efficient technology comes around

Putting the lithium ion battery in a containment, precedes the Boeing case. There were examples, quite a bit smaller, of lithium ion batteries with containment on the market.
It is still astonishing how Boeing's engineers imagined to use such a battery without containment and got it certified at that time. If that would have been done right the first time around, nobody would be talking about it today
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 14844
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:45 pm

iseeyyc wrote:
Is it safe to assume that the lithium batteries + containment system weighs as much as a lower power density, less risky battery? Seems like airbus did the right thing by going with a more proven battery tech for the a350.


Airbus temporarily switched to "old tech" batteries so as to not delay the A350 program while waiting to see what Boeing had to do with their batteries. AFAIK, all A350s delivered to airlines are fitted with contained Li-ion batteries.

There's obviously still an advantage to using contained Li-ion batteries since both Airbus and Boeing have taken that route rather than reverting to older battery tech for their respective new planes.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24745
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:52 pm

scotron11 wrote:
lNow that Dreamliner battery failures have been deemed "non-reportable" by aviation safety authorities, it is impossible gauge the size or the scope of the problem and that's how some folks seem to want it. The question is "why?"


Is it? We heard about this "non-reportable" one.

Just because it is not reported as an accident or incident to an Aviation Safety Authority, doesn't mean it's swept under a rug and never discussed. The OEM of the part is going to be informed and that will then be reported up the chain to the airframe OEM (as it was in this case). There are plenty of points for the information to leak even if the OEMs choose to not just disclose it themselves (as Boeing did in this case).


Revelation wrote:
Airbus A350 has been using the same battery tech since late 2015. Their battery system is smaller and uses a different containment design. They seem to have a "second mover" advantage.


That and the electrical needs of the A350 are a fair bit less than that of the 787 so they need less performance from their battery system.
Last edited by Stitch on Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 1936
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:54 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
scotron11 wrote:
last quote from the Forbes article:

Now that Dreamliner battery failures have been deemed "non-reportable" by aviation safety authorities, it is impossible gauge the size or the scope of the problem and that's how some folks seem to want it. The question is "why?"


As long as the containment system is doing its job, why would a battery failure need to be reportable?

It would be an entirely different situation if the containment failed.


Simply, because you don't need a containment system if something is working as it ought to.



Wow. If you worked for NASA we would have never made it into space.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24745
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:58 pm

rbavfan wrote:
Wow. If you worked for NASA we would have never made it into space.


On that angle, Boeing went with the specific battery technology they did on the 787 in part because of it's reliability in aerospace applications including the International Space Station.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6124
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:11 pm

scbriml wrote:
iseeyyc wrote:
Is it safe to assume that the lithium batteries + containment system weighs as much as a lower power density, less risky battery? Seems like airbus did the right thing by going with a more proven battery tech for the a350.


Airbus temporarily switched to "old tech" batteries so as to not delay the A350 program while waiting to see what Boeing had to do with their batteries. AFAIK, all A350s delivered to airlines are fitted with contained Li-ion batteries.

There's obviously still an advantage to using contained Li-ion batteries since both Airbus and Boeing have taken that route rather than reverting to older battery tech for their respective new planes.


Airbus had to wait on what the certification authorities would decide to do. Airbus had gone for a contained design from the start. They went for the safe path of being able to offer both the old and the new technology, so that a delay in battery certification would not delay the EIS of the A350-900. The first production frames were delivered with NiMH batteries until the lithium ion was certified. Part of the test frames had lithium ion.
Lithium ion batteries were introduced in business jets, after one burned out using an uncontained battery, on the ground and overcharging was the identified reason, contained batteries very fast entered the market there.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6124
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:16 pm

Stitch wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
Wow. If you worked for NASA we would have never made it into space.


On that angle, Boeing went with the specific battery technology they did on the 787 in part because of it's reliability in aerospace applications including the International Space Station.


The type and size of the battery Boeing used was a complete new design.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24745
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:33 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The type and size of the battery Boeing used was a complete new design.


Yet still leveraging technology GS Yuasa had been using in other aerospace applications, including the ISS.
 
Indy
Posts: 4373
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:44 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The containment is working. Older battery technologies provided different challenges. The Boeing lithium ion battery, including containment, is still lighter at the same capacity than older technologies.

If you do not want to take an airplane with a lithium ion battery you also have to avoid the A350, the C series and quite a few business jets. I assume lithium ion batteries will make it into most modern frames, until the next more efficient technology comes around

Putting the lithium ion battery in a containment, precedes the Boeing case. There were examples, quite a bit smaller, of lithium ion batteries with containment on the market.
It is still astonishing how Boeing's engineers imagined to use such a battery without containment and got it certified at that time. If that would have been done right the first time around, nobody would be talking about it today


What concerns me is that Boeing used something so unstable and dangerous that they had to create a titanium containment unit. Given the fact they initially built the plane without that safety feature, can we trust that this containment unit is 100% effective? It is easier to have more faith at ground level. But can you have the same level of faith in a company when you are at 33-34k feet? And what happens when a battery breaks containment?
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24745
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:53 am

Indy wrote:
Given the fact they initially built the plane without that safety feature, can we trust that this containment unit is 100% effective?


UA915 has shown it works as designed.
 
GoSharks
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:08 am

Indy wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The containment is working. Older battery technologies provided different challenges. The Boeing lithium ion battery, including containment, is still lighter at the same capacity than older technologies.

If you do not want to take an airplane with a lithium ion battery you also have to avoid the A350, the C series and quite a few business jets. I assume lithium ion batteries will make it into most modern frames, until the next more efficient technology comes around

Putting the lithium ion battery in a containment, precedes the Boeing case. There were examples, quite a bit smaller, of lithium ion batteries with containment on the market.
It is still astonishing how Boeing's engineers imagined to use such a battery without containment and got it certified at that time. If that would have been done right the first time around, nobody would be talking about it today


What concerns me is that Boeing used something so unstable and dangerous that they had to create a titanium containment unit. Given the fact they initially built the plane without that safety feature, can we trust that this containment unit is 100% effective? It is easier to have more faith at ground level. But can you have the same level of faith in a company when you are at 33-34k feet? And what happens when a battery breaks containment?

If you don't trust them to do that, then you better not fly any Boeing planes at all.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos