Also, it has just been announced a Qatar 787 is grounded at Heathrow with hydraulics problems...boy, what a nightmare!

Ouch, I can imagine Al Bakar is going to have a stroke at this news. Bad day for the 787, first aircraft be grounded by emergency AD since the DC10 IIRC...

 

Regards,

Ró.

Does anyone know if Airbus' A350 was going to use an all electrical system with ion-lithium batteries also? If so they must be worried about this also.

From a few thousand cars and other aircraft which already involve those batteries, your question is misleading, Tom.

 

You are not concerned about the technology in general but about the current implementation on a 787. And I'd say that the FAA enforced grounding aims at doing one thing, investigate. By this, I'd give those folks some time to figure out the details on why such incidents happen. It's not like she's flying since yesterday and even the battery tech isn't that new.

 

What the A350 won't feature are the bleed-less engines. It comes with a conventional bleed-air setup for the pressurisation. But this, it can be as safe or unsafe as on any other plane.

 

And the in me has to state that one can either pick A380 wing cracks or 787 smoking avionic bays. What a choice! :lol:

From a few thousand cars and other aircraft which already involve those batteries, your question is misleading, Tom.

 

You are not concerned about the technology in general but about the current implementation on a 787. And I'd say that the FAA enforced grounding aims at doing one thing, investigate. By this, I'd give those folks some time to figure out the details on why such incidents happen. It's not like she's flying since yesterday and even the battery tech isn't that new.

 

What the A350 won't feature are the bleed-less engines. It comes with a conventional bleed-air setup for the pressurisation. But this, it can be as safe or unsafe as on any other plane.

 

And the in me has to state that one can either pick A380 wing cracks or 787 smoking avionic bays. What a choice! :lol:

 

Don't think it is that misleading, actually. No car or aircraft other than the 787 has the amount of rows of Lithium batteries tightly packed in 2 compartments. Boeing were warned about this, and I recall several online discussions about it. Lithium is known for its corrosive and volatile nature, just as the UPS 747 tragedy taught the aviation community.

 

The FAA has to investigate, not just because of the incidents in the past week but the collection of them, it's not like the incidents only began this week, not proven it is the battery. But the most urgent issues in the 787 point to this.

 

Still have wing cracks, fuel leaks and electric overload problems to contend with.

 

See this article

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2012-02-01/battery-fires-keeping-li-ion-caged

 

 

This is a small scale example, but I know that flying my RC helis which are not all that powerful have lithium batteries, and they are quite volatile. Especially if something like the over charging protection circuit doesnt work. If they are over used beyond the minimum safe voltage they will go bust, and charging poorly with a fault will cause a fire. There is all kinds of warnings about them in manuals. Thus I charge in a fire proof container.

 

Now take this scale 100 fold or even more, where bleedless engines or APU start is probably drawing a heck of alot of power.

Perhaps over time, maybe a tad more than all the safety check flights they did with the initial plane is too much for it. Im no expert in the least, but just an idea.

 

Thankfully everything has been safely averted for now. And you know what they say about refurbished products. They are a lot better than brand new and everything is more scrutinized than QA at an assembly line. Just that first impressions last, so the reputation of the 787 is scarred somewhat with all this bad press. Im sure Boeing will sort this out in due time that is amicable, efficient and safe.

Boeing were warned about this, and I recall several online discussions about it. Lithium is known for its corrosive and volatile nature, just as the UPS 747 tragedy taught the aviation community.

First things first. Boeing isn't the manufacturer of the batteries. They are, in conjunction with e.g. Thales, the designer of the electrical system. Yes, the power demand on the plane may be unique but this doesn't render it unsafe by design. And this design is already flying since years.

 

The investigation isn't over and has just started. We don't know if the batteries are to blame, if there are design errors, if a component of e.g. the charger has a problem ('bad batch') or if some mechanics had a suboptimal day. It may even be programming since e.g. the charging may follow some smart curves. Did I already mention that they are in the process of investigating the root problem? ^_^ If not, they are on it.

 

Besides, we shouldn't communicate the issue as if 'conventional' pilots were sitting on a magically stable and totally safe fluid combination. We saw battery fires with older tech and we may see those for some decades to go.

 

 

The UPS 747 carried a cargo load of batteries for electronic devices. This is not the same as a commercial application with power sets being able to run a car for 200+ kilometres, with the lights on and the ac on electrical power. Secure your cargo!

 

A fixed battery installation in any kind of passenger transport not only runs trough some lengthy tests but also through certification. Since they are selling and driving/flying them in different parts of the world, the certification stuff also gets repeated.

 

Your linked article describes the consumer sets of batteries and their danger when going off on a plane. Different setup and actually one pilots should be concerned about. This also includes devices like an ipad. If those go off, throw them away. If you can't throw them away.. you may be on a plane. :mellow:

 

Nice video on an older

going off. Nobody will touch that one and put it in a bag. And nobody will maintain or test the battery on those things after they are sold. There is no certified personnel and equipment looking for the status of those things.

 

 

In another thread (which may have gone due the Avsim forum update), I've linked to a proper article about commercial installations in the power ranges being needed on cars and planes. See here. http://www.ainonline...-misinformation It's called 'myths and misinformation' for a reason.

 

It also lists a few incidents and shows that battery fires in general aren't a firefighter's dream. More of a nightmare. Lithium adds to that nightmare, but, again, you may not like the NiCd set too.

We are saying the same thing but arguing semantics. The investigation is not over, but looking at the battery compartment fire (see photo in previous page) and the video which clearly shows smoke coming from a discharge of fluid from the batteries, this is where the investigation is focusing.

 

To clarify, the A380 also uses Lithium batteries, but it is a different kind of battery...they have had no issues for the past 6 years.

 

Now as for Boeing, read this article:

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-looks-to-boost-787-lithium-ion-battery-service-life-224663/

To clarify, the A380 also uses Lithium batteries, but it is a different kind of battery...they have had no issues for the past 6 years.

I can't confirm or confute that statement. How do we know?

 

As some other folks have pointed out, there's a difference between what's happening and what gets reported. The media lives from clicks and the viewer count. Not only on aviation topics by the way.

 

As for the focus of the investigation, I'll hand the mic over to the FAA. ^_^ http://www.faa.gov/n...fm?newsId=14233

As a result of an in-flight, Boeing 787 battery incident earlier today in Japan, the FAA will issue an emergency airworthiness directive (AD) to address a potential battery fire risk in the 787 and require operators to temporarily cease operations. Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe.

 

The FAA will work with the manufacturer and carriers to develop a corrective action plan to allow the U.S. 787 fleet to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.

 

The in-flight Japanese battery incident followed an earlier 787 battery incident that occurred on the ground in Boston on January 7, 2013. The AD is prompted by this second incident involving a lithium ion battery. The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes. The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment.

 

Last Friday, the FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787’s critical systems with the possibility of further action pending new data and information. In addition to the continuing review of the aircraft’s design, manufacture and assembly, the agency also will validate that 787 batteries and the battery system on the aircraft are in compliance with the special condition the agency issued as part of the aircraft’s certification.

 

United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes in service. When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive, it also alerts the international aviation community to the action so other civil aviation authorities can take parallel action to cover the fleets operating in their own countries.

 

Since I've responded to a general fears about lithium battery tech on commercial installations, I'm hoping that it becomes clear that even the FAA is just focusing on the 787 case.

 

If they had general concerns, certification would have been different. Not to mention the branches where the lithium tech already works.

 

On a side note. A very exciting tech would have been the fuel cell. I saw they had prototypes running that one. Not on the 787 though.