Boeing Dreamliners are grounded.

[Dartzap]

Beeb

Dreamliner: Boeing 787 planes grounded on safety fears

All of Boeing's 50 flagship 787 Dreamliners have been temporarily taken out of service amid safety concerns.
The US and European aviation agencies said planes should be grounded while safety checks are carried out on their lithium ion batteries.
They are worried that the batteries could leak, corroding vital equipment and potentially causing fires.

Boeing said it stood by the integrity of the Dreamliner, which has been in service since October 2011.
Grounding aircraft on this scale over safety concerns is rare. The last time the FAA ordered a general grounding of an aircraft model was in 1979, when McDonnell Douglas DC-10s were grounded following a fatal crash.

A string of issues in recent weeks have raised questions about the 787.

Dreamliners have suffered incidents including fuel leaks, a cracked cockpit window, brake problems and an electrical fire. However, it is the battery problems that have caused the most concern.
On Wednesday, an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight made an emergency landing because of a battery fault and fire smoke in one of the electrical compartments.
ANA said the battery in the forward cargo hold was the same type as the one involved in a fire on a Japan Airlines Dreamliner at a US airport last week.
Airlines complying

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said that airlines must demonstrate battery safety before flights can resume.
The authority added that it had alerted the international aviation community of its airworthiness directive, so that other authorities could take parallel action to cover the fleets operating in their countries.

The European Aviation Safety Agency endorsed the directive early on Thursday.
All eight airlines currently flying Boeing 787s have grounded the planes.

All Nippon Airways and Japan Airways have grounded their combined fleet of 24 787s
United Airlines, the only US airline currently operating Dreamliners, said it would immediately comply with the FAA's directive and would begin re-accommodating customers on alternative aircraft
Chile's LAN announced it would suspend its three Dreamliners from service in co-ordination with the Chilean Aeronautical Authority

Indian aviation regulators ordered Air India to stop operating its 787s

Poland's Lot Airlines, the only European airline currently flying 787s, was due to launch its 787 transatlantic service this week, but cancelled a return flight from Chicago to Warsaw on Wednesday
Qatar Airways, which currently operates five Dreamliners, said it had grounded the planes and was "actively working with Boeing and the regulators to restore full customer confidence in the 787"
Ethiopian Airlines said it was taking its 787s out of service as a precautionary measure

'Every necessary step'

Leithen Francis, from Aviation Week, said airlines had little choice but to take the aircraft out of service temporarily.
"When the FAA issues an airworthiness directive, civil aviation and airlines around the world have to follow [it], particularly in regards to the 787, because it is a US-designed and developed aircraft," he told the BBC.

Boeing said it supported the FAA but added it was confident the 787 was safe.
Chief executive Jim McNerney said: "We will be taking every necessary step in the coming days to assure our customers and the travelling public of the 787's safety and to return the airplanes to service.

"Boeing deeply regrets the impact that recent events have had on the operating schedules of our customers and the inconvenience to them and their passengers."
Mr Francis said the safety concerns could have an effect on airlines currently considering ordering 787s, causing them to choose rival Airbus' A330 instead, which is a comparable aircraft and a proven product.

Companies on the order books include UK holiday firm Thomson, which was due to take delivery of Dreamliners next month, followed by British Airways and Virgin.
Thomson said Boeing had reassured the airline that it was doing everything possible to get the planes back into service.

"We will await the outcome of the FAA investigation into the 787 Dreamliner. At this time we are still working to our original delivery dates," it said in a statement.
The FAA said it would work with the manufacturer and carriers on an action plan to allow the US 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 regulator said.
"The AD (airworthiness directive) is prompted by this second incident involving a lithium ion battery."

It said the battery failures resulted in the release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke, and the cause of the failures was 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," the FAA said.
Boeing is investing heavily in the 787 Dreamliner, and needs to sell 1,100 over the next decade to break even. Together with European rival Airbus it dominates the global airliner market.

I would imagine Airbus are laughing all the way to the bank (until they get grounded too)

[PeZook]

Radically new designs always have teething problems, the A380 was no different. Hell, some of the most succesful airplanes ever were absolute, horrifying crap when first rolled out

[tim31]

Yeah, the A380 has had a fair bit of bad press, but they're still being flown. Development continues beyond official rollout.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That would be true.

However, if the lithium batteries went boom, I suspect the aircraft might not survive the fall.

[Broomstick]

While lithium batteries do have boom potential, they don't always go boom even when they catch fire.

The two most serious incidents I've heard of so far was a Dreamliner on the ground in Boston where the batteries caught fire due to being overcharged by on-ground equipment. Serious, but no injuries. The other one was the Japanese plane in flight where high temperatures were recorded in the battery compartment and there was venting of gasses and maybe some battery contents into the compartment. Apparently fire did not actually break out and all problems were contained sufficiently for the airplane to make a safe landing.

Clearly, neither of those scenarios are good, but at least some safety measures worked properly and were adequate to prevent disaster. Some further tweaking is, of course, highly advisable but this doesn't look at all insurmountable. Grounding until the problems are addressed is not unreasonable. It's even possible that some batteries were damaged during installation or maintenance in which case it's a matter of proper procedures and training in mechanics being addressed.

[TheMuffinKing]

I would imagine Airbus are laughing all the way to the bank (until they get grounded too)

I'd imagine Airbus is paying close attention to whats going on, especially as the A350 supposedly uses similar lithium ion batteries. Every pain Boeing suffers is one less they have to.

[UnderAGreySky]

That would be true.

However, if the lithium batteries went boom, I suspect the aircraft might not survive the fall.

They would survive, because anything that can go "boom" and kill the aircraft is always contained and made triply redundant. I have no doubt that there are multiple banks of Li-Ion batteries so that if one fails the others kick in; assuming of course they are used much in flight at all. The 787 has some serious alternators in its engines since it is as close to all-electric as we've ever come.

It's intriguing how all the electrical/battery problems that have actually happened have (correct me if I'm wrong) have been with Japanese carriers (ANA and JAL). Something lost in translation? Locally-sourced charging leads being of the wrong ratings? Can't wait for the incident reports to come in.

[Broomstick]

How about "Japanese airliners were earliest adopters of new airframe". I also think the Japanese may have a majority of the Dreamliners currently in service. The more of them you have, and the longer you have had them, the more likely you are to be the first and/or most frequent to find the problems.

[UnderAGreySky]

Also quite likely, just speculation on my behalf. I think the two carriers have half the 787s in service. I didn't know there were 50 flying till these incidents! Sort of makes me wonder how (both Airbus and Boeing) seem to be using the early adopters as guinea pigs. I wonder if this was always the case.

[Broomstick]

Yes, it's always been the case. Aviation, particularly on the scale of an airliner, is a pretty complex business. We do not (yet) have the ability to fully simulated real-world conditions over any significant length of time. The De Haviland Comet was notorious for "early adopter" problems, including a distressing ability to self-disassemble in mid-flight. We learned a lot about metal fatigue from that one and no one has repeated those unintentional mistakes since. New airliners are very, very carefully watched and now we have problems that mostly result in emergency landings and scares rather than dead people scattered over the landscape (or seascape).

It's difficult to say these sorts of problems are routine for a new airliner but... actually, they are routine for a new airliner. They'll get it fixed and the Dreamliner will get back to flying. Whatever follows will likewise have some new quirk that will need attention.

[Hawkwings]

When the 747 was in development and then when it was first launched, it had some serious teething problems as well. And then there was the slump in air travel during the 70s, the oil crisis, etc, which resulted in not many 747s being sold. 787 is in a bit of a different situation since it already has a big backlog, which makes for a lot more scrutiny by the customers and the media.

[aerius]

I've been keeping an eye on the story to see where the batteries were made and it turns out that what they were made of was the important part.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/50 ... erheating/

The short version is they used lithium cobalt oxide batteries which have a higher energy density than other types of lithium-ion batteries. Higher energy density means they can use smaller lighter batteries which is what you want in an airplane, all other things being equal. The problem is the lithium cobalt oxide version is less stable and more prone to overheating, and even worse, when it does go up in flames the cobalt oxide decomposes and produces oxygen which makes the fire a complete bitch to put out. It's actually even worse than that since the battery doesn't need to catch fire for that to happen, if you overheat or overcharge the battery, it will start producing oxygen which then reacts with the other chemicals in the battery and produce a ton of heat, the reaction runs away and pretty soon it goes up in flames.

This was a problem in the RC and portable lighting world when lithium batteries started becoming common. A whole bunch of battery packs went up in flames during charging or heavy use before the manufacturers figured out what was going on and ironed out the bugs. Turned out that some chargers weren't stopping when they should and some lights were sucking way too much current out of the batteries which overheated them and started the runaway reaction.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That would be true.

However, if the lithium batteries went boom, I suspect the aircraft might not survive the fall.

They would survive, because anything that can go "boom" and kill the aircraft is always contained and made triply redundant. I have no doubt that there are multiple banks of Li-Ion batteries so that if one fails the others kick in; assuming of course they are used much in flight at all. The 787 has some serious alternators in its engines since it is as close to all-electric as we've ever come.

You are assuming the explosion would be contained and that one cell exploding doesn't trigger the others.

[UnderAGreySky]

You are assuming the explosion would be contained and that one cell exploding doesn't trigger the others.

Yes, I am making that assumption and it's a fair one. There are designs that involve ensuring what happens to one battery doesn't spill over to the next, and I expect Boeing to have used such designs.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You are assuming the explosion would be contained and that one cell exploding doesn't trigger the others.

Yes, I am making that assumption and it's a fair one. There are designs that involve ensuring what happens to one battery doesn't spill over to the next, and I expect Boeing to have used such designs.

Judging from the way the batteries are put together, that remains to be seen since a few cells caught fire together.

[PeZook]

Fire on an aircraft is always bad, though. It doesn't matter how many backups and redundancies and isolations and firewalls and extinguishers you have, if you know there is a chance of stuff catching fire on your airplane in flight, you are absolutely correct in grounding it until you resolve the issue.

[UnderAGreySky]

Oh, I'm not arguing against the grounding! This early in its operational use this was a relatively easy decision to take for the FAA (and all operators).

Judging from the way the batteries are put together, that remains to be seen since a few cells caught fire together.

Yet it didn't spread, so I'm hopeful.

[phongn]

The short version is they used lithium cobalt oxide batteries which have a higher energy density than other types of lithium-ion batteries. Higher energy density means they can use smaller lighter batteries which is what you want in an airplane, all other things being equal. The problem is the lithium cobalt oxide version is less stable and more prone to overheating, and even worse, when it does go up in flames the cobalt oxide decomposes and produces oxygen which makes the fire a complete bitch to put out. It's actually even worse than that since the battery doesn't need to catch fire for that to happen, if you overheat or overcharge the battery, it will start producing oxygen which then reacts with the other chemicals in the battery and produce a ton of heat, the reaction runs away and pretty soon it goes up in flames.

There's been some speculation that LiCoO2 was the only battery with the necessary performance at the time; LiNiMnCoO2 wasn't yet production-ready (though more or less seems to be similar in performance). Boeing seems a bit baffled; they went through extreme testing with these batteries (something like a combined total of 1.3MM hours of testing and severe physical and electrical testing)

[Irbis]

In an update to this case, UN (ICAO) considers banning carrying lithium batteries on board of planes.

[AMX]

In an update to this case, UN (ICAO) considers banning carrying lithium batteries on board of planes.

Shipping them on combined cargo/passenger flights, actually.
Not a flat "no LiIons on planes."

[Irbis]

Yes, that's what I said. Sorry if I picked wrong phrase.

[Thanas]

I kinda find it interesting that the Boeing fan brigade, which was crowing all about Airbus doing a shitty job about the A380, is suddenly silent.

[aerius]

Someone wired the battery incorrectly, at least on the All Nippon Airlines plane.
http://business.time.com/2013/02/20/jap ... 7-battery/

Japan Probe Finds Miswiring of Boeing 787 Battery
By Associated PressFeb. 20, 2013


TOKYO — A probe into the overheating of a lithium ion battery in an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 that made an emergency landing found it was improperly wired, Japan’s Transport Ministry said Wednesday.

The Transport Safety Board said in a report that the battery for the aircraft’s auxiliary power unit was incorrectly connected to the main battery that overheated, although a protective valve would have prevented power from the auxiliary unit from causing damage.

Flickering of the plane’s tail and wing lights after it landed and the fact the main battery was switched off led the investigators to conclude there was an abnormal current traveling from the auxiliary power unit due to miswiring.

(MORE: Why Can’t People with Student Loans Refinance at Better Rates?)

The agency said more analysis was needed to determine what caused the main battery to overheat and emit the smoke that prompted the Jan. 16 emergency landing of the ANA domestic flight and the worldwide grounding of Boeing 787 jets. They said they are consulting Boeing about the issue.

The Federal Aviation Administration and aviation authorities in other countries grounded 787 fleets because of the ANA incident, which followed a battery fire earlier in January in a 787 parked in Boston.

The 787, dubbed the Dreamliner by Boeing, is the first airliner to make extensive use of lithium ion batteries, which are lighter in weight, charge faster and contain more energy than conventional batteries similar in size. However, the batteries also are more prone to overheating and catching fire.