• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16665
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:26 pm

747classic wrote:
Seen the history of 787 main battery issues It should have been SOP to report the main battery failure frequency to the FAA and the NTSB

And that's what happened: NTSB was informed.

Both NTSB and Boeing agreed that by NTSB rules ( ref: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... 9.7.830_15 ) this was not a "reportable" incident, but that is a very specific term to them.

For the rest of us, we should just say NTSB was informed, and move on.
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
747classic
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
747classic wrote:
Seen the history of 787 main battery issues It should have been SOP to report the main battery failure frequency to the FAA and the NTSB

And that's what happened: NTSB was informed.

Both NTSB and Boeing agreed that by NTSB rules ( ref: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... 9.7.830_15 ) this was not a "reportable" incident, but that is a very specific term to them.

For the rest of us, we should just say NTSB was informed, and move on.


That's not what I wrote down.
In this particular occurance the NTSB was informed.
SOP means : report every 787main battery failure to the authorities to establish a failure rate (or are both the FAA and the NTSB not interested ?).
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16665
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:03 pm

747classic wrote:
Revelation wrote:
747classic wrote:
Seen the history of 787 main battery issues It should have been SOP to report the main battery failure frequency to the FAA and the NTSB

And that's what happened: NTSB was informed.

Both NTSB and Boeing agreed that by NTSB rules ( ref: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... 9.7.830_15 ) this was not a "reportable" incident, but that is a very specific term to them.

For the rest of us, we should just say NTSB was informed, and move on.


That's not what I wrote down.
In this particular occurance the NTSB was informed.
SOP means : report every 787main battery failure to establish a failure rate to the authorities (or are both the FAA and the NTSB not interested ?).

In this context, "reporting" is what is used to decide to trigger an official investigation or not.
In this case both Boeing and NTSB has told us that this event did not meet that criteria.
As for less official reporting methods, we've been told they are in use.

As for gathering failure rate data, I'm not sure of what the requirements are.
Does government regulators gather failure rate data on other things (let's say, tire blowouts) to establish a baseline?
Do we know if such monitoring is or is not happening for batteries?
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
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:38 pm

747classic wrote:
The main battery provides backup power for critical systems during flight in the extremely unlikely event of a total electrical power failure.(e.g.all six generators unable to provide electrical pwr), it's a certification requirement.

Firstly, there are TWO main batteries; one at the front, one at the rear.
I'm guessing (or I have read it somewhere) that the one at the front backs-up the cockpit critical systems.
The one at the rear primarily starts up the APU. It probably also covers some critical systems. But it seems sensible if there is also a connection between the two batteries.
Except DC voltage doesn't travel too well, and low DC voltages fare even worse. (just ask Thomas Edison). There are tricks to get around this problem; I don't know if they have them on-board a 787.

As for "six generators"; that is another bit of publicity speak. It's technically correct, but two of them are on each engine, and two driven by the APU. So it's three pairs.
If you have a double-engine failure, you have lost four generators.
You then need a fully functioning battery to start the APU, in order that the other two generators can re-charge the battery. This is a bit of a Catch-22.
It's at this point you are suddenly 100% relying on the RAT (Ram Air Turbine)

And that is exactly why we have these back-up systems. :D
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
747classic
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:38 pm

Revelation wrote:

As for gathering failure rate data, I'm not sure of what the requirements are.
Does government regulators gather failure rate data on other things (let's say, tire blowouts) to establish a baseline?
Do we know if such monitoring is or is not happening for batteries?


I would welcome a more open attitude of both the FAA and NTSB in this case, seen the history of this type of main battery.
LI-ION has a bad name in aviation, after the "high profile"delayed 787 certification and numereous incidents with smaller (laptop) batteries, especially when carried in large quantities as cargo..

Publication of the actual 787 main battery failure rate, the required failure rate and a comparison with other main battery failure rates at other aircraft types would restore the convidence in this important "back up system".
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:54 pm

747classic wrote:
Revelation wrote:
747classic wrote:
Seen the history of 787 main battery issues It should have been SOP to report the main battery failure frequency to the FAA and the NTSB
And that's what happened: NTSB was informed.

For the rest of us, we should just say NTSB was informed, and move on.

That's not what I wrote down.
In this particular occurance the NTSB was informed.
SOP means : report every 787main battery failure to the authorities to establish a failure rate (or are both the FAA and the NTSB not interested ?).

Don't worry about it; I've had exactly the same problem myself. :lol:
If it helps, earlier Rev wrote
It should {end the argument}, but this is a.net, so we're going to revisit 2013 and earlier time and time again.

Some of us here want to examine the big picture; some of us want to focus on this failure in isolation.
To be fair; the thread title is quite specific....

Meh; everybody has their own agenda.

ps; I've also got a small wager with myself running on this - more on that later.
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
Revelation
Posts: 16665
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:52 pm

747classic wrote:
I would welcome a more open attitude of both the FAA and NTSB in this case, seen the history of this type of main battery.
LI-ION has a bad name in aviation, after the "high profile"delayed 787 certification and numereous incidents with smaller (laptop) batteries, especially when carried in large quantities as cargo..

I think people are jumping from "this is not a reportable incident according to NTSB rules" to "FAA and NTSB have the wrong attitude when it comes to Li-Ion batteries". Not sure why this is.

Publication of the actual 787 main battery failure rate, the required failure rate and a comparison with other main battery failure rates at other aircraft types would restore the confidence in this important "back up system".

The main failure rate to be tracked is that of the containment system, and so far the failure rate is 0%.
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
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:57 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
You then need a fully functioning battery to start the APU, in order that the other two generators can re-charge the battery. This is a bit of a Catch-22.
It's at this point you are suddenly 100% relying on the RAT (Ram Air Turbine)

And that is exactly why we have these back-up systems. :D


Case in point:
The Transat A330 out of fuel dead stick landing at Lajes air base
replicated with a 787 could probably have been done
but would require the working battery to not kill all aboard from overshooting the runway ( see, no brake!)

As the APU battery can be MEL it seem to play no role in supplying juice to the electric brake.

Question is if the failure rate of these batteries is sufficiently low to show the emergency provisions to be valid.
immediate endangering the plane from failure uncontained or not does not play into this question.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24750
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:54 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Has the failure rate calculations changed from when the 787 was certified? Or are they still predicting the failures at the rate as before the 2013 problems?


I don't know, but I would not be surprised if it is less conservative (predictive of a higher failure rate) than before. There have been over one million revenue flights so they should be generating more accurate models for the MTBF.


dtw2hyd wrote:
What good is a toasted main battery in a box?


Failure analysis via post-mortem.


WIederling wrote:
Case in point: The Transat A330 out of fuel dead stick landing at Lajes air base replicated with a 787 could probably have been done but would require the working battery to not kill all aboard from overshooting the runway ( see, no brake!)


LN002 successfully landed at Laredo International on the RAT and their runways are between 650m and 1500m shorter than Lajes Field where TS236 landed.


WIederling wrote:
Question is if the failure rate of these batteries is sufficiently low to show the emergency provisions to be valid. Immediate endangering the plane from failure uncontained or not does not play into this question.


The certification program would have taken into account a RAT-only landing, just as certification takes into account landing in an airframe with hydraulically-actuated brakes where the hydraulics have failed.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:09 pm

Stitch wrote:
LN002 successfully landed at Laredo International on the RAT and their runways are between 650m and 1500m shorter than Lajes Field where TS236 landed.

with running engines. the RAT dropped out from the short circuit. We actually don't know on which path brake energy was sourced.
Anyway, they hadn't lost the battery.

Stitch wrote:
The certification program would have taken into account a RAT-only landing, just as certification takes into account landing in an airframe with hydraulically-actuated brakes where the hydraulics have failed.


and the battery is integral to this certification.
just like the hydraulic backup pressure storage on the Airbus A380.. (LEHGS)

if the battery availability turns out to be below expectations in scope of the certification ..
That again is why I think cell failure (incidence and mechanism) is of interest well beyond this being contained or not.

in context this might be of interest ( not read yet ):
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/s ... per20a.pdf
http://www.icas.org/media/pdf/Workshops ... ublish.pdf
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scho ... ngGear.pdf
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24750
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:29 pm

WIederling wrote:
Stitch wrote:
LN002 successfully landed at Laredo International on the RAT and their runways are between 650m and 1500m shorter than Lajes Field where TS236 landed.


with running engines. the RAT dropped out from the short circuit. We actually don't know on which path brake energy was sourced.
Anyway, they hadn't lost the battery.


No but they had lost the power distribution panels so that electricity produced by the engines and the APU, as well as that stored in the battery, wasn't going to a fair number of systems including at least some flight and engine controls that are electrically-operated. Hence why the RAT deployed. That being said, since the engines were running, reverse thrust likely would have been available (unless it was disabled by the electrical faults).
 
trex8
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
Publication of the actual 787 main battery failure rate, the required failure rate and a comparison with other main battery failure rates at other aircraft types would restore the confidence in this important "back up system".

The main failure rate to be tracked is that of the containment system, and so far the failure rate is 0%.


Isnt that like saying if the engine nacelle casing has no penetration from the blades coming off we dont care what caused the blades to come off as the failure rate for the casing is zero????
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24750
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:56 pm

trex8 wrote:
Isnt that like saying if the engine nacelle casing has no penetration from the blades coming off we dont care what caused the blades to come off as the failure rate for the casing is zero????


From a flight-safety standpoint, you could argue "yes" since the nacelle casing has contained the blade-off as designed and the airframe continued on and landed safely.

However, the airline is not going to be pleased with the downtime of swapping the failed engine and nacelle casing and the engine manufacturer is not going to be pleased with the costs of replacing said engine as well as any penalties owed for the aircraft being out of service during that period. So if nothing else, the engine manufacturer will care what caused the blade to come off to try and prevent it from happening again, but I also expect the airline will care as if the currently-operated engine family is more-likely to suffer a blade-out then another, that will influence their future engine selections to some extent which could be bad for the current provider.

Same with the battery. The Safety Authorities may be satisfied that the battery failure did not affect the safety of the flight, but UA won't be satisfied about having the plane out of service for the replacement and the battery unit vendor won't be satisfied having to replace it and compensate United. So the battery unit vendor will be reviewing the unit once it is returned to try and identify what caused the failure and remediate it going forward.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
747classic wrote:


Publication of the actual 787 main battery failure rate, the required failure rate and a comparison with other main battery failure rates at other aircraft types would restore the confidence in this important "back up system".

The main failure rate to be tracked is that of the containment system, and so far the failure rate is 0%.


If a battery fails , contained or not contained , this failure will be added to the battery failure rate.
The containment has only been installed because a violant battery runaway (failure) could cause an immediate emergency situation.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:58 pm

QueenoftheSkies wrote:
Umm maybe so that they don’t fail in the first place? I mean yea the containment works but that’s a bandaid to the real issue. They never really solved the problem. It’s not a safety issue? Potential for repeat incidents of what caused this containment “solution” are most definitely a safety issue.

Then you can’t have avation. Things fail all the time and in potentially big ways. The key is containing the failure. You will never solve the problem of failures anywhere.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2776
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:52 pm

Stitch wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Isnt that like saying if the engine nacelle casing has no penetration from the blades coming off we dont care what caused the blades to come off as the failure rate for the casing is zero????


From a flight-safety standpoint, you could argue "yes" since the nacelle casing has contained the blade-off as designed and the airframe continued on and landed safely.

However, the airline is not going to be pleased with the downtime of swapping the failed engine and nacelle casing and the engine manufacturer is not going to be pleased with the costs of replacing said engine as well as any penalties owed for the aircraft being out of service during that period. So if nothing else, the engine manufacturer will care what caused the blade to come off to try and prevent it from happening again, but I also expect the airline will care as if the currently-operated engine family is more-likely to suffer a blade-out then another, that will influence their future engine selections to some extent which could be bad for the current provider.

Same with the battery. The Safety Authorities may be satisfied that the battery failure did not affect the safety of the flight, but UA won't be satisfied about having the plane out of service for the replacement and the battery unit vendor won't be satisfied having to replace it and compensate United. So the battery unit vendor will be reviewing the unit once it is returned to try and identify what caused the failure and remediate it going forward.

Very well said, Stitch - this post sums up the whole situation - the thread should end here, and I am NOT being sarcastic.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 846
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:31 am

Stitch wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Isnt that like saying if the engine nacelle casing has no penetration from the blades coming off we dont care what caused the blades to come off as the failure rate for the casing is zero????


From a flight-safety standpoint, you could argue "yes" since the nacelle casing has contained the blade-off as designed and the airframe continued on and landed safely.

However, the airline is not going to be pleased with the downtime of swapping the failed engine and nacelle casing and the engine manufacturer is not going to be pleased with the costs of replacing said engine as well as any penalties owed for the aircraft being out of service during that period. So if nothing else, the engine manufacturer will care what caused the blade to come off to try and prevent it from happening again, but I also expect the airline will care as if the currently-operated engine family is more-likely to suffer a blade-out then another, that will influence their future engine selections to some extent which could be bad for the current provider.

Same with the battery. The Safety Authorities may be satisfied that the battery failure did not affect the safety of the flight, but UA won't be satisfied about having the plane out of service for the replacement and the battery unit vendor won't be satisfied having to replace it and compensate United. So the battery unit vendor will be reviewing the unit once it is returned to try and identify what caused the failure and remediate it going forward.


If the blade failure is required to be reportable, however, there is a difference. I'm not certain one way or the other, but I assumed it was.

Speaking mostly for trex8's sake, I presume the reason for this would be as I suggested earlier - a blade failure leads to a loss of flight performance and generates "contained" debris, both of which can potentially lead directly to worse consequences. A contained battery failure does not. In the close scrutiny that the grounding drew to this issue, they even went as far as analyzing whether there was a risk of re-ingestion of the vented gases by other systems (I assume the intakes for cabin air were one of those considered) and what the consequences of that could be.

Rather, a contained battery failure is, if WIederling is correct that the generator on the RAT can not power the brakes, and assuming the APU battery can not either, a reduction in redundancy, which could only lead indirectly to worse consequences.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24750
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:51 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
If the blade failure is required to be reportable, however, there is a difference. I'm not certain one way or the other, but I assumed it was.


I expect it is, as well.

But the crux is that if the NTSB viewed a battery venting event as something worth being reported, it would be. They make the rules (in conjunction with the FAA). Boeing doesn't get to decide. Nor Thales. Nor GS Yuasa. Boeing reported it as a "courtesy", but they might very well have a policy to report all such events even if not required to.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:30 am

Cheat sheet for reporting. Maybe slightly out of date but gives you the general idea of who is looking for what

F=FAA (Part 21.3)
N=NTSB SEct 830.5)

Aircraft accident F N
Fire/Inflight Fire F N
Smoke/Fumes Toxic Gases F
Flight Controls Interference F
Flight Controls Malfunction/Failure F N
Engine Failure F
Engine Structural Failure F N
Sustained Loss of Thrust N
Electrical Use of Backup System N
Electrical Loss of More Than One System F
Hydraulic failure/Reliance on Single System N
Hydraulic Loss of More Than One System F
Brake System Failure F
Loss of More Than One Primary Flight Instrument F
Flammable Fluid Leak F
Structural Defect/Failure F
Abnormal Vibration/Buffet F
Near Miss F
Inflight Collision F N
Emergency Evac N
Crewmember incapacitated N
Dropped Object F
Bird Strike F
Wake Turbulence in RVSM F
Laser Emcounter F
Property damage > $25,000 N
 
MatthewDB
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:10 am

prebennorholm wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
So, why is nobody mentioning Ni-MH? (apart from myself).

Ni-MH is pretty good for most household applications. But they perform poorly at low temperature.

All battery types perform less well as temperature drops well below freezing. But in this respect Ni-MH is pretty much inferior to Ni-Cd and Lead-Acid. And of course also Li-Ion.

Ni-NH never replaced Ni-Cd on planes because when parked overnight on a cold winter night the Ni-Cd battery vastly outperforms Ni-MH.


Thank you, I was curious about that myself. NiMH dominated the first decade of hybrid vehicles. The batteries in that application fared very well, with battery failures being very rare. Of course, one of the advantages of a hybrid vehicle is that the engine can be started at any time if the battery isn't keeping up.
 
MatthewDB
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:27 am

WIederling wrote:
They'd have some difficulty. Battery capacity is needed for an engine out landing as braking is fully electric actuation.
Below where the RAT is effective braking to a standstill requires most of the "very short term" available battery capacity.
( much less then nominal (1/5th 1/10th C discharge) capacity.

Engine start puts similar loads on the battery. After that you need to fast charge the batpack to be able to brake in an emergency.
incompatibility with ground power units aggravated this use case. Instead of starting from ground power crews started from bat power.


Why is engine start on the 787 any harder than any other aircraft? Boeing's page says that the main engines start on APU power, ground power and / or the other engine:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... _02_4.html

The power source for engine starting may be the APU generators, engine-driven generators on the opposite side engine, or two forward 115 VAC ground power sources. The aft external power receptacles may be used for a faster start, if desired.
.

The batteries are used to start the APU, just like any other aircraft. Only the method of starting (permanent magnet alternator used as a synchronous motor vs. a DC starter motor) is different.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:31 am

MatthewDB wrote:
Why is engine start on the 787 any harder than any other aircraft? Boeing's page says that the main engines start on APU power, ground power and / or the other engine:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... _02_4.html


As far as I understood this:
due to the high electric power but no air power demand a single GPU unit was not sufficient to start an engine.
syncing two GPU units and the solid state 3ph AC infrastructure on board was problematic ( killing GPU units ).

"Simple" solution was : Start APU from battery, Start one engine from APU ...
( afair both battery nonfires started about 30..45 minutes after the APU was started/used ).
Murphy is an optimist
 
MatthewDB
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:35 pm

WIederling wrote:

As far as I understood this:
due to the high electric power but no air power demand a single GPU unit was not sufficient to start an engine.
syncing two GPU units and the solid state 3ph AC infrastructure on board was problematic ( killing GPU units ).

"Simple" solution was : Start APU from battery, Start one engine from APU ...
( afair both battery nonfires started about 30..45 minutes after the APU was started/used ).


So I'm not getting how that makes a 787 unique in the battery demand. AFAIK, ground air start is rare, most of the time all large aircraft use APU start. All that is unique is that the 787 APU generator is the motor instead of a DC start motor and the APU generator has to power the engine start vs. the conventional pnumatic bleed from the APU.

Either way, battery starts APU, APU starts engine.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16665
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:48 pm

MatthewDB wrote:
WIederling wrote:

As far as I understood this:
due to the high electric power but no air power demand a single GPU unit was not sufficient to start an engine.
syncing two GPU units and the solid state 3ph AC infrastructure on board was problematic ( killing GPU units ).

"Simple" solution was : Start APU from battery, Start one engine from APU ...
( afair both battery nonfires started about 30..45 minutes after the APU was started/used ).


So I'm not getting how that makes a 787 unique in the battery demand. AFAIK, ground air start is rare, most of the time all large aircraft use APU start. All that is unique is that the 787 APU generator is the motor instead of a DC start motor and the APU generator has to power the engine start vs. the conventional pnumatic bleed from the APU.

Either way, battery starts APU, APU starts engine.

Yes, that is the primary case, but it seems the secondary case of ground start using GPU (due to APU unserviceable which is allowed on MEL) occurs frequently enough to be an issue. Not sure if there is actual data available on this or not.
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
 
MatthewDB
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
MatthewDB wrote:
So I'm not getting how that makes a 787 unique in the battery demand. AFAIK, ground air start is rare, most of the time all large aircraft use APU start. All that is unique is that the 787 APU generator is the motor instead of a DC start motor and the APU generator has to power the engine start vs. the conventional pnumatic bleed from the APU.

Either way, battery starts APU, APU starts engine.

Yes, that is the primary case, but it seems the secondary case of ground start using GPU (due to APU unserviceable which is allowed on MEL) occurs frequently enough to be an issue. Not sure if there is actual data available on this or not.


Does anyone know if the battery assists the GPU in getting the engine started? If that was the case, it would make sense that starting the first of the two engines would be hard on the batteries too.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:05 pm

MatthewDB wrote:

Does anyone know if the battery assists the GPU in getting the engine started? If that was the case, it would make sense that starting the first of the two engines would be hard on the batteries too.


No, it doesn't
 
BREECH
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:44 am

B737900ER wrote:
The arguments on this tread are getting silly. How about we just don’t fly, stop improving technology, and stay in our padded rooms with no windows where we know it’s 100% safe.

How about we kindly ask American aircraft manufacturers to test a technology before using it and build planes that don't catch fire instead? Like, I don't know, European manufacturers? Maybe think less about "bottomline" and a bit more about passengers safety? And maybe not allow the management of the companies they buy to take over and turn their own into a lying, deceitful, irresponsible, greedy ghoul? Without any undue respect, Boeing is now run by the same people who lied to FAA about fixing the DC-10 cargo door leading to deaths of hundreds of people on at least two flights.
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred towards something.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:23 am

BREECH wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
The arguments on this tread are getting silly. How about we just don’t fly, stop improving technology, and stay in our padded rooms with no windows where we know it’s 100% safe.

How about we kindly ask American aircraft manufacturers to test a technology before using it and build planes that don't catch fire instead? Like, I don't know, European manufacturers? Maybe think less about "bottomline" and a bit more about passengers safety? And maybe not allow the management of the companies they buy to take over and turn their own into a lying, deceitful, irresponsible, greedy ghoul? Without any undue respect, Boeing is now run by the same people who lied to FAA about fixing the DC-10 cargo door leading to deaths of hundreds of people on at least two flights.

I think you are going a bit OTT there, although the DC-10 reference has peaked my interest just for curiosity sake.

Meanwhile, if you push the "European design is safer" angle, it's bound to bite you in the ass one day soon.

A more moderate line would perhaps be more appropriate. Just my two drachma.
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
Balerit
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:40 am

This thread is getting a bit tedious. What would you do if your cars' battery kept blowing up? Would you ask for your money back or would you rather buy a different make of car? Or would you insist that they install another battery in the boot or tell them to just fix the bloody problem? But they way people are arguing here it sounds like you'll just accept the situation and keep replacing the battery every time it blows up. The reality is that the car manufacturer would recall every single car and have them fixed.

Trying to compare this to engine failures is totally irrelevant, engines packed up from the early days, so more engines were fitted just in case. If this must be treated equaly to engine failures then Boeing must double up on the batteries - maybe even have triple redundancy, knowing that this aircraft relies more on electrics than hydraulics, which would defeat the object in the first place. I think the problem is the FAA don't know how to handle this and by making it non reportable is akin to them burying their heads in the sand and hoping this doesn't come up again.

This whole battery saga to me is exactly the same as the fatigue cracks that downed the Comet airliner. If they don't want to fix this properly then I think the airlines should say in the small print on your ticket: There is a possibility that the battery may explode and there are no parachutes under your seat. 'sarcasm off.'
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16665
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:04 pm

Balerit wrote:
This thread is getting a bit tedious. What would you do if your cars' battery kept blowing up? Would you ask for your money back or would you rather buy a different make of car? Or would you insist that they install another battery in the boot or tell them to just fix the bloody problem? But they way people are arguing here it sounds like you'll just accept the situation and keep replacing the battery every time it blows up. The reality is that the car manufacturer would recall every single car and have them fixed.

Trying to compare this to engine failures is totally irrelevant, engines packed up from the early days, so more engines were fitted just in case. If this must be treated equaly to engine failures then Boeing must double up on the batteries - maybe even have triple redundancy, knowing that this aircraft relies more on electrics than hydraulics, which would defeat the object in the first place. I think the problem is the FAA don't know how to handle this and by making it non reportable is akin to them burying their heads in the sand and hoping this doesn't come up again.

This whole battery saga to me is exactly the same as the fatigue cracks that downed the Comet airliner. If they don't want to fix this properly then I think the airlines should say in the small print on your ticket: There is a possibility that the battery may explode and there are no parachutes under your seat. 'sarcasm off.'

We should not compare the battery issue to an engine failure, we should instead compare it to a structural failure?

Really?

You do realize the Comet crashes killed everyone on board, twice, and the uncontained battery failures killed no one, and there now is containment that has just been shown to be effective, no?
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
Revelation
Posts: 16665
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:16 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
BREECH wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
The arguments on this tread are getting silly. How about we just don’t fly, stop improving technology, and stay in our padded rooms with no windows where we know it’s 100% safe.

How about we kindly ask American aircraft manufacturers to test a technology before using it and build planes that don't catch fire instead? Like, I don't know, European manufacturers? Maybe think less about "bottomline" and a bit more about passengers safety? And maybe not allow the management of the companies they buy to take over and turn their own into a lying, deceitful, irresponsible, greedy ghoul? Without any undue respect, Boeing is now run by the same people who lied to FAA about fixing the DC-10 cargo door leading to deaths of hundreds of people on at least two flights.

I think you are going a bit OTT there, although the DC-10 reference has peaked my interest just for curiosity sake.

Meanwhile, if you push the "European design is safer" angle, it's bound to bite you in the ass one day soon.

A more moderate line would perhaps be more appropriate. Just my two drachma.

Indeed.

One post mentions the superiority of European design and manufacture, then the next talks about Comet structural failures.

At the same time the Trent engines are ejecting turbine parts at an alarming rate, I guess someone should kindly ask them to test their technology a bit before deploying it.

Either that, or we should just go with the line that the Brits aren't Europeans anyways.

Personally I doubt any of the "same people" who were senior enough at MDD to be interviewed by the FAA in the 1970s are still of working age, they're retired or dead.

And so, this thread is worse than tedious, it's rubbish.
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
scbriml
Posts: 14870
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:41 pm

Balerit wrote:
What would you do if your cars' battery kept blowing up? Would you ask for your money back or would you rather buy a different make of car? Or would you insist that they install another battery in the boot or tell them to just fix the bloody problem? But they way people are arguing here it sounds like you'll just accept the situation and keep replacing the battery every time it blows up. The reality is that the car manufacturer would recall every single car and have them fixed.


All some of us have been arguing is that this isn't a flight safety issue, it's a reliability issue. And yes, if the airlines are unhappy with the rate of battery failures/replacements and the cost of interruptions to their schedules, they should be hammering Boeing for a solution.
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.
 
StTim
Posts: 2522
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:55 pm

Revelation wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
BREECH wrote:
How about we kindly ask American aircraft manufacturers to test a technology before using it and build planes that don't catch fire instead? Like, I don't know, European manufacturers? Maybe think less about "bottomline" and a bit more about passengers safety? And maybe not allow the management of the companies they buy to take over and turn their own into a lying, deceitful, irresponsible, greedy ghoul? Without any undue respect, Boeing is now run by the same people who lied to FAA about fixing the DC-10 cargo door leading to deaths of hundreds of people on at least two flights.

I think you are going a bit OTT there, although the DC-10 reference has peaked my interest just for curiosity sake.

Meanwhile, if you push the "European design is safer" angle, it's bound to bite you in the ass one day soon.

A more moderate line would perhaps be more appropriate. Just my two drachma.

Indeed.

One post mentions the superiority of European design and manufacture, then the next talks about Comet structural failures.

At the same time the Trent engines are ejecting turbine parts at an alarming rate, I guess someone should kindly ask them to test their technology a bit before deploying it.

Either that, or we should just go with the line that the Brits aren't Europeans anyways.

Personally I doubt any of the "same people" who were senior enough at MDD to be interviewed by the FAA in the 1970s are still of working age, they're retired or dead.

And so, this thread is worse than tedious, it's rubbish.


Yes when I read that I though people and glass houses. Even the mighty respectable pillars of quality being German and Japanese engineers have recently had their halos damaged somewhat (I am thinking the VW emissions scandal and the Japanese metal producer who has admitted falsifying test results).
 
User avatar
Balerit
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:16 pm

scbriml wrote:
All some of us have been arguing is that this isn't a flight safety issue, it's a reliability issue. And yes, if the airlines are unhappy with the rate of battery failures/replacements and the cost of interruptions to their schedules, they should be hammering Boeing for a solution.


Well I beg to differ, it is a serious flight safety issue considering that the whole concept of the B787 was the move towards electrics rather than hydraulics or pneumatics. Boeing put an aircraft into production using untried technology and so far we are lucky these incidents have occurred on the ground.
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:36 pm

https://gizmodo.com/faa-is-doing-nothin ... 1738751945

Looks like battery decompositions are less rare than thought ore presented.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:39 pm

Balerit wrote:
scbriml wrote:
All some of us have been arguing is that this isn't a flight safety issue, it's a reliability issue. And yes, if the airlines are unhappy with the rate of battery failures/replacements and the cost of interruptions to their schedules, they should be hammering Boeing for a solution.


Well I beg to differ, it is a serious flight safety issue considering that the whole concept of the B787 was the move towards electrics rather than hydraulics or pneumatics. Boeing put an aircraft into production using untried technology and so far we are lucky these incidents have occurred on the ground.
Yes, maybe, and no. In that order.

All the way back at the beginning, poster#1 wrote:
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 ....
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
Revelation
Posts: 16665
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:39 pm

Balerit wrote:
scbriml wrote:
All some of us have been arguing is that this isn't a flight safety issue, it's a reliability issue. And yes, if the airlines are unhappy with the rate of battery failures/replacements and the cost of interruptions to their schedules, they should be hammering Boeing for a solution.


Well I beg to differ, it is a serious flight safety issue considering that the whole concept of the B787 was the move towards electrics rather than hydraulics or pneumatics. Boeing put an aircraft into production using untried technology and so far we are lucky these incidents have occurred on the ground.

I guess you're not reading along.

The technology in the Boeing batteries is not "untried technology". It was in use in the Space Station before Boeing used it.

This incident occurred in the air, not "on the ground", and the containment system worked as designed, so no "serious flight safety issue" occurred.
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
scbriml
Posts: 14870
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:10 pm

Balerit wrote:
Well I beg to differ, it is a serious flight safety issue considering that the whole concept of the B787 was the move towards electrics rather than hydraulics or pneumatics.


OK, in what way is it a "serious" flight safety issue if the containment is working as designed?

WIederling wrote:
https://gizmodo.com/faa-is-doing-nothing-about-continued-boeing-dreamliner-1738751945

Looks like battery decompositions are less rare than thought ore presented.


Hmmm. That's a two year old article with no numbers or sources to back up the claims of "one failure per thousand". Poor journalism, frankly.
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.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:37 pm

Poor journalism, frankly.

What ever. Christine Negroni isn't really know for dilettante journalism.

It places some additional incidents into the timeframe 2014 .. 2017

certainly:
Failures in these batteries typically come at a rate of one in five million. But the Dreamliner lithium-ions are failing at a shockingly high rate of one in a thousand.
is a bit unspecific. failures per $what? item, hours.

"unreportable" is a rather insidious way of getting the issue out of sight.
Murphy is an optimist
 
2175301
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:07 pm

StTim wrote:
Revelation wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I think you are going a bit OTT there, although the DC-10 reference has peaked my interest just for curiosity sake.

Meanwhile, if you push the "European design is safer" angle, it's bound to bite you in the ass one day soon.

A more moderate line would perhaps be more appropriate. Just my two drachma.

Indeed.

One post mentions the superiority of European design and manufacture, then the next talks about Comet structural failures.

At the same time the Trent engines are ejecting turbine parts at an alarming rate, I guess someone should kindly ask them to test their technology a bit before deploying it.

Either that, or we should just go with the line that the Brits aren't Europeans anyways.

Personally I doubt any of the "same people" who were senior enough at MDD to be interviewed by the FAA in the 1970s are still of working age, they're retired or dead.

And so, this thread is worse than tedious, it's rubbish.


Yes when I read that I though people and glass houses. Even the mighty respectable pillars of quality being German and Japanese engineers have recently had their halos damaged somewhat (I am thinking the VW emissions scandal and the Japanese metal producer who has admitted falsifying test results).


Lets get the facts straight here: Thales Avionics - A highly respected FRENCH Aerospace electrical system supplier (which Airbus also uses), selects GS Yuasa - A highly respected JAPANESE Battery supplier with a history of supplying aerospace batteries (which I suspect that Airbus also uses) for use in the 787 electrical system that Thales is designing for the 787 (same as Thales designs electrical systems for Airbus). Then the end result for some is that this is all Boeing and American engineering and regulatory shortfalls.

Did I miss anything?

In my opinion: the real issues here lie with GS Yuasa and Thales (Japanese and French companies and engineers). I speak as one who sells professional design services to Nuclear Power Plants (I am a registered Professional Engineer). When a plant contracts with me - I'm both morally and legally responsible for getting the design and component selection right... Not the company that hired me to do that. It is me and my companie's "Errors and Omissions" insurance policy that is responsible for mistakes (and PE Errors and Omission Insurance is expensive for a reason). If I make a mistake - I may never be insurable again as a PE.

Similar to the Aircraft Certification by FAA, etc. A Nuclear Power Plant may have to submit my design to the NRC, etc. for approval as part of their operating license. NRC, etc. approval does not release me from my legal and moral responsibilities.

Have a great day,
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:25 pm

2175301 wrote:
Lets get the facts straight here: Thales Avionics - A highly respected FRENCH Aerospace electrical system supplier (which Airbus also uses), selects GS Yuasa - A highly respected JAPANESE Battery supplier with a history of supplying aerospace batteries (which I suspect that Airbus also uses) for use in the 787 electrical system that Thales is designing for the 787 (same as Thales designs electrical systems for Airbus). Then the end result for some is that this is all Boeing and American engineering and regulatory shortfalls.

Did I miss anything?


YES there is no indication
that Thales selected the Yuasa Japan cells,
that Thales sected Yuasa USA for the enclosure nor
that Thales selected a hobbyist outfit for designing the charger.

Proof: Historically: If Boeing has even a minimal chance of moving blame to another party they will do so.
What happened here is they upended the cesspot on Yuasa Japan.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16665
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:31 pm

WIederling wrote:
"unreportable" is a rather insidious way of getting the issue out of sight.

And yet Boeing DID report it to NTSB, so they're nefarious, but they're just not very good at being nefarious?

Seriously, maybe Boeing should have just filled in the damn NTSB forms so we could put all these wild-eyed accusations to rest.

Repeat after me: The NTSB knows about this incident. The NTSB knows about this incident. The NTSB knows about this incident.
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
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:42 pm

2175301 wrote:
Did I miss anything?

I speak as one who sells professional design services to Nuclear Power Plants (I am a registered Professional Engineer). When a plant contracts with me - I'm both morally and legally responsible for getting the design and component selection right... Not the company that hired me to do that. It is me and my companie's "Errors and Omissions" insurance policy that is responsible for mistakes (and PE Errors and Omission Insurance is expensive for a reason). If I make a mistake - I may never be insurable again as a PE.

.
You equate the Power Plant as Boeing, and you as Thales/Yuasa.
I'm seeing it differently
I equate the Power Plant as the operating airline, you are Boeing, and the components you select equate to Thales/Yuasa.
As you say; you/Boeing are "both morally & legally responsible for getting the design & component selection right"

Did I miss anything?
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
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:54 pm

Revelation wrote:
WIederling wrote:
"unreportable" is a rather insidious way of getting the issue out of sight.

Repeat after me: The NTSB knows about this incident. The NTSB knows about this incident. The NTSB knows about this incident.

Repeat after me: "...a very broad claim based on one incident"...... "a very broad claim based on one incident"........"a very broad claim based on one incident"

You do remember writing those exact words earlier in this thread, don't you Rev?
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: 14870
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:03 pm

WIederling wrote:
certainly:
Failures in these batteries typically come at a rate of one in five million. But the Dreamliner lithium-ions are failing at a shockingly high rate of one in a thousand.
is a bit unspecific. failures per $what? item, hours.


As I said, poor journalism.

WIederling wrote:
"unreportable" is a rather insidious way of getting the issue out of sight.


Yet the NTSB were notified and we all know about this incident, so it's hardly "out of sight", is it? What is your real issue with it?
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.
 
2175301
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:16 pm

WIederling wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Lets get the facts straight here: Thales Avionics - A highly respected FRENCH Aerospace electrical system supplier (which Airbus also uses), selects GS Yuasa - A highly respected JAPANESE Battery supplier with a history of supplying aerospace batteries (which I suspect that Airbus also uses) for use in the 787 electrical system that Thales is designing for the 787 (same as Thales designs electrical systems for Airbus). Then the end result for some is that this is all Boeing and American engineering and regulatory shortfalls.

Did I miss anything?


YES there is no indication
that Thales selected the Yuasa Japan cells,
that Thales sected Yuasa USA for the enclosure nor
that Thales selected a hobbyist outfit for designing the charger.

Proof: Historically: If Boeing has even a minimal chance of moving blame to another party they will do so.
What happened here is they upended the cesspot on Yuasa Japan.


See the link below for an indication of who selected who:

http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/content/thale ... dreamliner

You are correct that historically ALL companies shift responsibility (Airbus does the same). They hire recognized experts in specialized areas who then have the responsibility. This is standard business practice with appropriate legal separation of responsibilities. Boeing hired Thales to design the electrical system. Thales chose Yuasa and did the prototype testing and chose the final design working with Yuasa. Boeing (and other companies) has oversight; but, would rarely have the expertise to validate details of a design submitted by an expert who claims it meets the required criteria. The entire industry has found that it is far cheaper to have companies like Thales and Yuasa than for them to become experts and own production facilities for everything.

Have a great day,
 
2175301
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:26 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Did I miss anything?

I speak as one who sells professional design services to Nuclear Power Plants (I am a registered Professional Engineer). When a plant contracts with me - I'm both morally and legally responsible for getting the design and component selection right... Not the company that hired me to do that. It is me and my companie's "Errors and Omissions" insurance policy that is responsible for mistakes (and PE Errors and Omission Insurance is expensive for a reason). If I make a mistake - I may never be insurable again as a PE.

.
You equate the Power Plant as Boeing, and you as Thales/Yuasa.
I'm seeing it differently
I equate the Power Plant as the operating airline, you are Boeing, and the components you select equate to Thales/Yuasa.
As you say; you/Boeing are "both morally & legally responsible for getting the design & component selection right"

Did I miss anything?


Totally; my analogy on responsibility is correct and your's is not: Boeing, Airbus, and virtually all companies hire expert subcontractors to design and supply things... That is standard business practice as no company can afford to become experts and produce everything. Legal standards also reflect the division of responsibility. Boeing (Airbus, etc) have general oversight; but, is not expected to have the expertise to validate detailed design decisions by an expert. Boeing (or Airbus) would be expected to see things such as that the battery capacity was only 80% of what was needed (if that occurred). There are no indications to me in this situation of the kind of errors a company providing general oversight should have noticed.

We will probably never know the details: But, I am sure that both Thales and Yuasa took a solid financial hit with the initial problems, and if the batteries are failing at an unacceptable rate that Yuasa is still taking a financial hit.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16665
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:01 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Revelation wrote:
WIederling wrote:
"unreportable" is a rather insidious way of getting the issue out of sight.

Repeat after me: The NTSB knows about this incident. The NTSB knows about this incident. The NTSB knows about this incident.

Repeat after me: "...a very broad claim based on one incident"...... "a very broad claim based on one incident"........"a very broad claim based on one incident"

You do remember writing those exact words earlier in this thread, don't you Rev?

I don't see what my response to an asinine Nightmareliner comment three days ago has to do with how incidents are reported to the NTSB.

I see you've launched your entry into the "most obtuse comment in this thread" contest, but, sadly, it's not even a contender for the title.

I'd give it dishonorable mention, however.
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
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
I see you've launched your entry into the "most obtuse comment in this thread" contest, but, sadly, it's not even a contender for the title.

Isn't that the truth! ;)
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Lithium-ion battery fails on UA 787 flight

Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:49 am

If it was as simple as THE battery, it would have been fixed by changing the battery design.

Just like finance, insurance and processes, it's not black and white.

So it must be the thousands of permutations and algorithms that manage the battery. The battery management system (BMS), which handles temperature, voltage, reporting, healing, cell interaction, cycles, and increasingly can forecast problems.

The physical containment system recognises the current BMS database hasn't been developed yet to the point a physical fail-safe system is no longer required. Failure is a natural part of learning, as long as the risks of failure are mitigated.

I would have thought all parties are ticking the appropriate boxes.

Must have been paying attention at a meeting of aviation leasing & finance participants recently which included a presentation on IEC standards.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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