Print 24 comment(s) - last by Keeir.. on Jan 21 at 12:40 PM

The 787 Dreamliner's charred battery  (Source:
The battery will be sent to Tokyo for a deeper inspection

An opening investigation into the safety of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner is complete, and with the focus primarily on the 787's battery, more safety checks are on the way.

Boeing, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Japanese officials have completed their initial investigation into the 787's battery problems in recent weeks. A battery that was involved in this week's incident will be sent to Tokyo for further investigation.

A Japanese safety official mentioned that the battery associated with this week's incident was charred, and that excessive electricity could be the reason it overheated. The battery looked like a burnt metal box that had liquid spilling from the inside.

Boeing uses rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for its main electrical system. GS Yuasa Corp., which makes the lithium-ion batteries used in the 787s, said the problem could be the battery, the power source or the electronics system.

Just this week, a 787, which was an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight to Tokyo, had an issue with its main battery only 15 minutes into a 90-minute flight. After 40 minutes, a burning smell made its way into the cabin and cockpit, and the plane made an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport on the southern island of Shikoku. This issue caused all 787s to be grounded in Japan, the U.S. and India until a safety investigation was conducted and the problems were corrected.

Unfortunately, this incident isn't where the 787's problems started. Early last week, a 787 operated by Japan Airlines had experienced an electrical fire at Boston's Logan International Airport after coming in from Tokyo. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, a battery in the auxiliary power unit suffered severe fire damage.

Just one day later, a Boeing 787 operated by the same airline at the same airport suffered a fuel leak. The fuel leak was discovered at 12:25 p.m. ET right after the 787 left the gate for a trip to Tokyo. The flight was cancelled, and the plane was towed back to the gate where passengers were instructed to exit and stay in the airport. No one was injured.

As it turns out, about 40 gallons of fuel had leaked from the 787. The plane ended up being delayed four hours before leaving for Tokyo.

On Friday of last week, two more issues occurred.
It was discovered that a 787 Dreamliner with All Nippon Airways (ANA), which had arrived at the Matsuyama airport in western Japan from Tokyo on Friday, developed a web-like crack in the cockpit window. The pilot found it about 70 minutes into the flight, but no one was injured. In a separate incident on Friday, but also with ANA, another 787 Dreamliner had an oil leak after traveling to the Miyazaki airport in southern Japan. It is unclear how much oil had leaked.

Source: Reuters

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Excessive Electricity
By eBob on 1/18/2013 1:38:44 PM , Rating: 4
What does that even mean?

RE: Excessive Electricity
By kleinma on 1/18/2013 1:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
That the amount of electricity is excessive to what the battery casing can handle, resulting in overheating and meltdown?

RE: Excessive Electricity
By othercents on 1/18/2013 2:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
Excessive power being drawn from the battery or excessive power being charged back (overcharging). My understanding on how these batteries are built is that they are supposed to self regulate the electrical output, however there are also systems in place to keep airplane from wanting too much power. I suspect that the pilot decided to start all 4 engines at the same time causing excessive power draw.

I don't see why they are using lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery since they don't have as many issues with overheating as the Lithium ions.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By SublimeSimplicity on 1/18/2013 2:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
I would guess that the 787 has been in design for longer than LiFePO4 cells have been available or their benefits in these types of applications fully understood.

I'm sure we'll see them switching to them to solve the problem though.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By DennisB on 1/18/2013 2:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect that the pilot decided to start all 4 engines at the same time causing excessive power draw.

Pilots always work down their check & procedure lists even in an emergency. After all their lives depend on correct actions.
I doubt anyone would just decide to do something not in the manual outside an emergency.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By GulWestfale on 1/18/2013 9:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
the 787 has two engines, not four; and normal procedure is to switch them on one by one.

the FAA has now grounded all 787s, and i just read on a news site that boeing has suspended construction of new planes until a solution can be found.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By Keeir on 1/20/2013 5:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt anyone would just decide to do something not in the manual outside an emergency.


Flight Safety is an agreement between the OEMs, the FAA, and the Airlines. Its possible the "manual" is never followed entirely. Or, as the case can often be, an airline feels a change in a manual is entirely upto them. Even for hard structural issues, let alone things such as on/off issues.

Southwest did it.
Ansett Airlines did it.
China Airlines did it.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By drycrust3 on 1/21/2013 1:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
Not being an airline pilot, as I see it if something goes wrong and the pilot follows the manual and the plane crashes, then the pilot is less likely to have ALL the blame dumped on him than if he didn't follow the manual.
If he (or she) doesn't follow the manual and the plane crashes, then the pilot (or their family) have an almost impossible task of trying to prove whatever decisions they did make were better than the ones in the manual.
Conversely, if they do follow the manual, and the plane crashes, the crash investigators are more likely to put at least some of the blame on the aircraft or the manual.
So, as I see it, if the pilot believes the chances of a crash are almost certain no matter what he does, then he should follow the manual so the plane and the manual and not himself gets blamed.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By Keeir on 1/21/2013 12:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
Not being an airline pilot

There are hundreds upon hundreds of things to know about an aircraft. There is a gigantic list of this to do in the "Standard Procedures".

Your optomism that a Pilot/Airline never tries to use a shortcut to increase on-time percentage, or get home quicker, or just "this it the 10,000 time I done this, lets get it over" mentality is amazing.

At this point, its still entirely possible for the 787 that Operators are doing something not in the "manual" for the 787. It may have been in the manual for early planes, or just not specifically outlawed.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By sixteenornumber on 1/19/2013 3:23:10 AM , Rating: 4
Li-ion batteries have a much greater energy density but LiFe batteries have nearly 2 times the charge cycle durability that li-ion does.

Because of its low cost, non-toxicity, the high abundance of iron, its excellent thermal stability, safety characteristics, electrochemical performance, and specific capacity (170 mA·h/g, or 610 C/g) it gained some market acceptance

RE: Excessive Electricity
By Samus on 1/19/2013 12:11:43 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Excessive Electricity
By m51 on 1/18/2013 1:52:29 PM , Rating: 3
It's misstatement, misquote, or mistranslation.
It should be excessive electrical current.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By drycrust3 on 1/18/2013 4:11:36 PM , Rating: 1
You are right, but do you know how much is "excessive current"? 5 Amps! True ... well if what Yuasa say is true. Yes, I know, that's barely enough for a light bulb, but I am not kidding.

I found the spec sheet for the cell Yuasa claim ... sorry, PROUDLY claim is the cell used to make the Dreamliner battery. You can download it from this website:

When you down load it, look at the maximum discharge rate. The spec sheet claims the maximum discharge rate for each one is just 5 amps . If that is correct, and I would say it is (because this is a spec sheet), then there is no way a battery composed of this type of cell, even if several cells are "paralleled" together, would be suitable for an aircraft unless it was used purely as a backup for some low powered electronics.
From Yuasa's website:
GS Yuasa’s lithium ion cells will play a key role in on-board power, providing both Auxiliary Power Unit start and emergency power back-up capabilities.

Unless this Auxiliary Power Unit is some tinsy winsy motor, which I doubt, there is no way a battery made with these cells can be reliably expected to provide the current needed to start it and to provide an emergency power backup capability.
As I see it, if the Auxiliary Power Unit requires anything like your car engine does, a burst of several hundred amps, then it is only matter of time before battery composed of this type of cell will fail.
The remedy is simple: use some car batteries.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By SunLord on 1/18/2013 5:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
The battery if used to start the on board APU which is a small turbine engine in the rear of the jet. If you look at the rear of most if not all modern jets you'll notice a hole at the very rear tip of the jet that's where the APU exhausts from

RE: Excessive Electricity
By drycrust3 on 1/18/2013 6:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
So how much current does starting it draw? 5 amps?
The Auxiliary Power Unit on a Dreamliner is the Hamilton Sundstrand APS5000. Here is what the Hamilton Sundstrand website says about this little beauty:
The APS 5000 APU is rated at 1,100 shaft horsepower and is designed to start and function throughout the full range of the 787 operating envelope up to 43,000 feet. Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems, based in San Diego, currently has more than 13,000 APUs in commercial and military service.

Apparently some APU's use a compressed air system to start them, but I haven't been able to determine whether the APS5000 uses that method or not. If it did, then maybe 5 amps is all that is needed to start the APU.
It seems to me the compressed air starting system is the most likely way the APU is started, but even if so, I still think this is the wrong sort of cell to use within an airliner battery.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By Keeir on 1/18/2013 6:00:59 PM , Rating: 5

#1. Amps are not a measure of Power. Amp x Volt = Watt. Watt is a measure of power. Not surprizingly the -same- electronics work just as well in Europe on 1/2 the Amps as they do in NA. Why? The Voltage is twice as much!

#2. Car batteries are linked to a system where Voltage is regulated to be very very low. ~12V in most cases. That means that a car battery needs to output 10 times the Amps compared to a wall socket and 20 times a European Wall socket.

#3. Having read the sheet. Your entirely wrong. CA does not stand for A! It really means that the maximum rate is X times the Capacity. This battery is 3.7 Volts with a maximum rate of 325 Amps. The sheet even showns 250 AMP results.

Each of these batteries is roughly capable of a short burst of 1.3 kW and wieght ~6 lbs each. A 60 lb car battery is capble of producing around ~8kW in short bursts. 60 lbs of these produce around 12 kW ... hmmm

RE: Excessive Electricity
By drycrust3 on 1/18/2013 7:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
The sheet even showns 250 AMP results.

Duh! It does too. Well, there you go, I got it all wrong.
My apologies to Yuasa.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By drycrust3 on 1/18/2013 8:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
... and apologies to Boeing.

RE: Excessive Electricity
By AntDX316 on 1/20/2013 4:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
boeings electrical engineers should be the best in business

surely there is a reason for an overlook

probably due to lack of adequate testing for the items they choose to use such as zero type failure of their battery selection at previous electrical rate

I'm saying they never could really test at that high rate for pro long period under every condition and assumed its checked ok but then again it could be but slight defect in that one battery is stereotyping everyone to say they are all bad

also other isolted incidents where its only one not all so they should realize not to fix and/or change great products for small defects out of production that really appear to be big

RE: Excessive Electricity
By sprockkets on 1/18/2013 6:24:04 PM , Rating: 3
It means read a different article from someone other than Tiffany Kaiser.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki