Boeing 787 news

[RoMax]

the NTSB has reported that the battery did not exceed the maximum 32V design voltage. Initially it was thought that the fire was due to overcharge of the battery. I'm not sure that this is good news, because it would mean that the battery cannot cope with normal usage.

So the Japanese report the ANA battery was overcharged, the NTSB reports the JAL battery was not... Interesting to see the next developments.

Btw, I don't know if it's good news either. But if the battery was not overcharged that's probably good for Boeing's design or that of Thales Group or the company making the charger(which should be made in a way the batteries can not be overcharged). On the other hand, it's bad for the batteries itself and the design or manufactering of these batteries. The latest days there's a lot of speculation that the incidents could be the result of a bad batch of batteries from the Japanese company, but of course that's just speculation and it doesn't seem to fit into the story of the overcharged battery on the ANA aircraft.

[RoMax]

The NTSB is now focussing on the battery charger. They started an investigation towards Securaplane (the company that designed and builds the chargersystem). This company started the 787-battery project in 2004 and experienced a major setback in 2006. A faulty testing installation caused a lithium-ion battery to explode, causing fire bringing down a whole office building of Securaplane.

The NTSB already excluded a overcharged battery (in the JAL-incident) as the voltage never exceeded 32V (the design limit).

[sn26567]

Dreamliner Investigation Turns to Battery Maker

Investigators have turned their attention to the maker of the jets' batteries, a century-old Japanese company with a strong presence in the automotive industry but relatively unknown in the aviation world.

Officials from Japan's transport ministry and the FAA on Monday visited the headquarters of GS Yuasa Corp., the Kyoto-based battery maker that supplies the lithium-ion batteries for the 787 Dreamliner. The investigators are also scheduled this week to inspect the GS Yuasa factory where the Dreamliner batteries are made.

Regulators haven't yet indicated whether they think the cause of the Dreamliner problems lies with the battery itself or with another piece of the complex electrical system of which it is a part. A flaw within the batteries could save Boeing from a time-consuming and expensive redesign of the systems.

GS Yuasa's wares appear to be relatively untested in aircraft, which is in some respects a more demanding market than many others.

GS Yuasa declined to say whether it has supplied batteries for other airplanes; the Dreamliner is the only airplane contract cited on the company's website. The company said the Boeing jet would be the first passenger plane to use a lithium-ion battery.

More in The Wall Street Journal

[sn26567]

Diverging views between Japanese and US investigators

As the probe into the 787 problems intensifies, the effort led by experts from Tokyo appears to concentrate heavily on potential problems with the batteries themselves, while their counterparts in the U.S. seem more centred on possible hazards stemming from the manner in which the batteries interact with the plane's novel electric grid.

The Japanese experts also complain that it is difficult to get information or to access data from the U.S.

Furthermore, the Japanese investigators still consider a possible overcharge of the battery as the likely cause of the incident on the ANA Dreamliner on 16 January, whereas the Americans have said that the voltage of the battery of the JAL aircraft remained within the designed value of 32V on 9 December. Of course, the two incidents might turn out to have different root causes, which is not good news for Boeing.

Boeing officials expressed frustration that some data gathered by government investigators hadn't yet been provided to the company, a step that could assist the plane maker in developing potential interim safeguards needed to return the fleet to service.

More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Collection

[sn26567]

The first 787 for TUI (G-TUIA for Thomson) left the production line (not painted yet, mind the white color is a protective layer, to protect the composite material from UV-light and things like that, that's being painted before these parts arrive at Paine Field for final assembly):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabian404/ ... /lightbox/

It is painted now:

And the Dreamliner looks great in the new TUI livery.

[RoMax]

Very good looking in that new TUI-paint

About the ANA-incident. The Japanese now claim that the ANA-battery didn't overcharge as previously reported. More investigation revealed no firm evidence of overcharging.
http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-c ... charge-012

[sn26567]

News about NTSB’s investigation of the Jan. 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines (JAL) Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston.

The following factual information has been developed about the battery: It consists of eight cells of 3.7 volts each. All eight cells had varying degrees of thermal damage. Six of eight cells have been CT scanned and have been disassembled to expose their electrodes. All electrode windings in the battery are in the process of being photo-documented and are undergoing microscopic examination. In the coming days, the remaining two cells will undergo the same examination. Additional information will be provided today (Jan. 24).

In addition to the activities detailed above at the NTSB lab in Washington, members of the investigative team have been conducting work in Arizona, Seattle and Japan. Details of their activities will be provided at today's briefing.

[sn26567]

Excerpts of today's press conference of NTSB about the battery incidents, and expert comments:

A useful clarification from NTSB: there were 2 battery events, of which JAL was a fire event, ANA was a smoke event and is not called a fire event. However, "we don't expect to see events like these on the 787. This aircraft has been in the air for less than 100 hours, we certainly would not expect 2 such events in 2 weeks. This is a very serious air safety concern." And further: "Those systems did not work as intended. we need to understand why".

No cause of fire has yet be determined. One hint? NTSB finds signs of short circuit and thermal runaway (i.e. an uncontrolled overheating that spreads from cell to cell) in the JAL 787 battery failure.

About the duration of the grounding of the aircraft: the NTSB says it does not expect the 787 issue to be solved overnight. One test alone, a so-called 'drawback' test, takes a full week. Some experts think that the 787 may be grounded for months!

No Flight Data Recorder data suggests 787 battery was overcharged beyond the 32.2 volt limit, but NTSB is still exploring exactly at what point the measurement was taken.

The JAL battery fire was "spewing molten electrolytes, very hot material around the APU," says the NTSB boss.

More embarrassing for the FAA: The probe of Dreamliner batteries “will certainly be looking at” the aircraft’s “Certification Process”.

NTSB has created a web page about the JAL battery investigation: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013 ... g_787.html

Full NTSB press release: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=49721

[earthman]

Maybe the battery was drained too far, rather than overcharged? That is also not what Tiggers, pardon, Li-Ion-batteries like best.

[regi]

I wonder which batteries there are on the A350.
A first Airbus article shows some caution ...

[Desert Rat]

Different manufacturer I think.

[RoMax]

Norwegian placed a picture of their first 787 (recently entered FAL) on their website:
http://media.norwegian.com/#/image/view ... ken-175476
This one is sheduled for an April delivery, ILFC (the owner of the aircraft) and Norwegian got 'confirmation' from Boeing they'll get their 787 on time and that Boeing will have sorted out the battery problems by then as they "have a plan".

Other news for the 787-program. The bankruptcy court approved the revised contract of AMR (American Airlines' mother company) with Boeing for the 737 and 787. This clears the way for AMR to firm the contract for 42 787's (20 -8's and 22 -9's) with deliveries as from late 2014 (that's quite early, but that's because AA had a contract with Boeing in which Boeing already reserved production slots despite AA not having placed a firm order)

[KriVa]

I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject, but would it be possible to swap the aircraft batteries for the "tried and proven" counterpart, aka the NiCad version? Not for the long term, of course, but could they use them as a temporary solution?
I know NiCad batteries are a lot heavier and larger for the same capacity, but is there a way to make it work? Both concerning physical limits and rules set up by the different legislators?
If this would be possible, Boeing would have a rather easy way (compared to the groundings) to get the 787 flying again, and have time to work on the battery issues in coordination with the producers.

[sn26567]

I see what you mean

787.jpg (54.6 KiB) Viewed 5973 times

[cnc]

if the 787's wouldn't have been grounded we would have had the first 787 operating from belgium (OST) already next month

[RoMax]

if the 787's wouldn't have been grounded we would have had the first 787 operating from belgium (OST) already next month

OST? Next month? 787? ...

[sn26567]

if the 787's wouldn't have been grounded we would have had the first 787 operating from belgium (OST) already next month

Could you please elaborate? Do you know things that we don't know?

[Tomskii]

If you're talking about JAF's 787 they' were never intended to operate flights from OST. Only from BRU and the first one is only due for delivery in Q4 of 2013

[Zorba]

Word is a B787 would do T&G at OST. But this is the first I hear about a scheduled flight.

[cnc]

it would have been the TOM 787 doing some test rotations with JAF