 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:09 pm Post subject: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
 |
|
As layers of the onion are being peeled back,
it seems that yes, the lithium battery within
the ELT was a source of the energy that started
this fire . . . but . . .
root cause may well have been a pinched wire
within the ELT. See:
http://tinyurl.com/mv7gohj
. . . watch this space.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:49 pm Post subject: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
|
|
The DreamLiner has had its share of glaring problems. If a pinched wire was the root cause of failure, then I attribute this to poor workmanship. This is a very bad attribute for a new, high tech airliner, possibly leading to other failures. What else lurks inside that carcass?
Last thing I need is the stench of dilithium crystals boiling under my butt.
Henador Titzoff
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:09 PM
Subject: Heathrow 787 lithium event
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)>
As layers of the onion are being peeled back,
it seems that yes, the lithium battery within
the ELT was a source of the energy that started
this fire . . . but . . .
root cause may well have been a pinched wire
within the ELT. See:
http://tinyurl.com/mv7gohj
. . .tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Lista href="http://forums.matronics.com/" target="_blank">http://forums.mat &nbs//www.matronics.com/contribution" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.co==================
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:57 pm Post subject: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
|
|
At 07:48 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote:
| Quote: | The DreamLiner has had its share of glaring problems. If a pinched wire was the root cause of failure, then I attribute this to poor workmanship. This is a very bad attribute for a new, high tech airliner, possibly leading to other failures. What else lurks inside that carcass?
Last thing I need is the stench of dilithium crystals boiling under my butt. |
Yes but . . . it seems this 'pinched wire' is INSIDE the
ELT. The FAA issued an AD against the airframe
http://tinyurl.com/mekmrzd
stating . . .
"We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire in the aft crown of the airplane, or to
detect and correct discrepancies within the ELT that could cause such a fire."
. . .which I find a little odd. If the suspected
root cause is located inside a TSO'ed appliance
then I would have thought the AD would have been
written against that appliance.
There are approximately 6000 of this ELT in
service but the AD only investigates those installed
on the 787 and then in very unspecific terms except
to
"Inspect the Honeywell fixed ELT for discrepancies, and do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD."
Not sure I understand how this works . . .
perhaps every ELT installed on a 787
receives proper 'corrective action', gets
re-installed and all is right with the
universe? Seems there's a few thousands
yet to be inspected/corrected. . . oh,
perhaps another AD, this time against the
ELT.
In the mean time, how would you like to
be Honeywell looking at financing the fixing
of a smoked 787 and doing inspect/repair/replace
on a boatload of ELTs?
Aren't you glad you fly an OBAM aircraft?
Bob . . . [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:53 am Post subject: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
|
|
Bob, I believe the FAA is requiring that all 787 ELTs be inspected as a sampling of a larger population in order to derive statistical data, then regroup and do what's in section Interim Action:
"This AD is considered to be interim action. Because the fire occurred on a
Model 787-8 airplane, required actions in this AD are focused on Honeywell
fixed ELTs installed on that model. However, we acknowledge that ELTs are
installed on various other aircraft; therefore, continued investigation is
required. Once final action has been identified, we might consider further
rulemaking."
It just seems odd that this particular model ELT decided to burn up on a DreamLiner and so far, two of its worse problems involve lithium batteries. Maybe the DreamLiner has more vibration at specific frequencies than other planes, and the ELT is spec'ed incorrected? All I know is it's easier to blame the little guy than the big guy, especially when it involves big corporations and/or government. It won't be long before this airplane is called the BadDreamLiner.
Yes, I'm glad I fly OBAM, but it's mostly because of the TSA and all the security hassles we're subjected to. I don't mind being frisked by a good looking babe, but most of them are Fugly! I asked one if the TSA paid all the bills, and she said "no, I also work nights at a masochist masseuse parlor. Here's my business card."
Henador Titzoff
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heathrow 787 lithium event
At 07:48 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote:
| Quote: | The DreamLiner has had its share of glaring problems. If a pinched wire was the root cause of failure, then I attribute this to poor workmanship. This is a very bad attribute for a new, high tech airliner, possibly leading to other failures. What else lurks inside that carcass?
Last thing I need is the stench of dilithium crystals boiling under my butt. |
Yes but . . . it seems this 'pinched wire' is INSIDE the
ELT. The FAA issued an AD against the airframe
http://tinyurl.com/mekmrzd
stating . . .
"We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire in the aft crown of the airplane, or to
detect and correct discrepancies within the ELT that could cause such a fire."
. . .which I find a little odd. If the suspected
root cause is located inside a TSO'ed appliance
then I would have thought the AD would have been
written against that appliance.
There are approximately 6000 of this ELT in
service but the AD only investigates those installed
on the 787 and then in very unspecific terms except
to
"Inspect the Honeywell fixed ELT for discrepancies, and do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD."
Not sure I understand how this works . . .
perhaps every ELT installed on a 787
receives proper 'corrective action', gets
re-installed and all is right with the
universe? Seems there's a few thousands
yet to be inspected/corrected. . . oh,
perhaps another AD, this time against the
ELT.
In the mean time, how would you like to
be Honeywell looking at financing the fixing
of a smoked 787 and doing inspect/repair/replace
on a boatload of ELTs?
Aren't you glad you fly an OBAM aircraft?
Bob . . .
[quote]http://www.matronics.cofollow" target="_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://foru==========
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:41 am Post subject: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
|
|
At 05:52 AM 7/29/2013, you wrote:
Bob, I believe the FAA is requiring that all 787 ELTs be inspected as
a sampling of a larger population in order to derive statistical
data, then regroup and do what's in section Interim Action:
It may well be . . . but it seems that a
mandatory service bulletin from Boeing would
do the same thing.
It just seems odd that this particular model ELT decided to burn up
on a DreamLiner and so far, two of its worse problems involve lithium
batteries. Maybe the DreamLiner has more vibration at specific
frequencies than other planes, and the ELT is spec'ed
incorrected? All I know is it's easier to blame the little guy than
the big guy, especially when it involves big corporations and/or
government. It won't be long before this airplane is called the BadDreamLiner.
The difference between failures in the ship's
system batteries and the ELT battery is profound.
Root cause for the system batteries was internal
to the battery and was not particularly unique
to the lithium chemistry . . . all battery
technologies have suffered separator development
and quality control problems at one time or
another.
The 'simple failure' that occurred within the
battery was elevated in consequence by the chemistry
that really likes to burn.
The failure in the ELT seems to be a quality control
issue with the routing of wires outside the batteries
during assembly. Again, the 'simple failure' was
elevated to $high$ miseries by the energetic failure
mode of the lithium batteries . . . but in this
case, the batteries themselves were performing as
designed and qualified onto the product.
In the first case, we have a failure to meet design
goals in a product with hazardous failure modes. In
the second case, the failure seems to reside with
first line supervision in manufacturing and quality
control of a mature product. The first case is
not excusable but understandable. The second case
(assuming present suppositions are proven true)
boggles the mind.
Yes, I'm glad I fly OBAM, but it's mostly because of the TSA and all
the security hassles we're subjected to. I don't mind being frisked
by a good looking babe, but most of them are Fugly! I asked one if
the TSA paid all the bills, and she said "no, I also work nights at a
masochist masseuse parlor. Here's my business card."
Understand. And I hope my comments were not mis-interpreted
by anyone to mean that my global view of hazard for
the air transport industry was pessimistic. Those
guys could loose an airplane a day and still be
statistically safer than personal automobile.
I am concerned that questions of suitability to task,
meeting system design goals and having the will
and means to react quickly to serious problems
is bring impeded by an increasing load of no-value-
added 'activity' dictated by bureaucratic organization
and policy/procedures taking its toll on skills/
common-sense.
For the moment at least, we're largely free of such
impediments in the OBAM aviation world.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:10 pm Post subject: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
|
|
Bob said:
"The difference between failures in the ship's
system batteries and the ELT battery is profound.
Root cause for the system batteries was internal
to the battery and was not particularly unique
to the lithium chemistry . . . all battery
technologies have suffered separator development
and quality control problems at one time or
another.
The 'simple failure' that occurred within the
battery was elevated in consequence by the chemistry
that really likes to burn."
While I agree with you, Bob, doesn't it sound logical to extensively focus on this battery technology and make it fool-proof before use, since it has a tendency to cause such drastic problems? Look at the evolution of the tank. It started out as petrol (gasoline) machines during WWI and remained so until Russia faced the Japanese at Nomonhan. The Japanese had far less tanks but were still deadly as they burned diesel, which of course doesn't ignite and burn in the air as easily. They progressed to turbines, which still burn diesel (Jet-A). The world militaries learned to go to a safer fuel, but now Boeing's gone to a more dangerous battery. Works great until it decides to catch fire and light up the sky.
In other words, I think it's too early to go to lithium technology in civil aviation unless someone is willing to pay the price of inevitable failures. This someone is Bloeing. They haven't done enough testing, in my opinion, and perhaps their design engineering, including their vendors, needs much more scroo-tinee. I know some of you OBAMers are seething at the teeth to incorporate lithium batteries in your dream machines. I just hope you're design and quality controls are better than Bloeing's.
Note: I do not work for Airbus, but I did work for Boeing Aerospace for 6 years and loved it.
Henador Titzoff
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Heathrow 787 lithium event
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)>
At 05:52 AM 7/29/2013, you wrote:
Bob, I believe the FAA is requiring that all 787 ELTs be inspected as
a sampling of a larger population in order to derive statistical
data, then regroup and do what's in section Interim Action:
It may well be . . . but it seems that a
mandatory service bulletin from Boeing would
do the same thing.
It just seems odd that this particular model ELT decided to burn up
on a DreamLiner and so far, two of its worse problems involve lithium
batteries. Maybe the DreamLiner has more vibration at specific
frequencies than other planes, and the ELT is spec'ed
incorrected? All I know is it's easier to blame the little guy than
the big guy, especially when it involves big corporations and/or
government. It won't be long before this airplane is called the BadDreamLiner.
The difference between failures in the ship's
system batteries and the ELT battery is profound.
Root cause for the system batteries was internal
to the battery and was not particularly unique
to the lithium chemistry . . . all battery
technologies have suffered separator development
and quality control problems at one time or
another.
The 'simple failure' that occurred within the
battery was elevated in consequence by the chemistry
that really likes to burn.
The failure in the ELT seems to be a quality control
issue with the routing of wires outside the batteries
during assembly. Again, the 'simple failure' was
elevated to $high$ miseries by the energetic failure
mode of the lithium batteries . . . but in this
case, the batteries themselves were performing as
designed and qualified onto the product.
In the first case, we have a failure to meet design
goals in a product with hazardous failure modes. In
the second case, the failure seems to reside with
first line supervision in manufacturing and quality
control of a mature product. The first case is
not excusable but understandable. The second case
(assuming present suppositions are proven true)
boggles the mind.
Yes, I'm glad I fly OBAM, but it's mostly because of the TSA and all
the security hassles we're subjected to. I don't mind being frisked
by a good looking babe, but most of them are Fugly! I asked one if
the TSA paid all the bills, and she said "no, I also work nights at a
masochist masseuse parlor. Here's my business card."
Understand. And I hope my comments were not mis-interpreted
by anyone to mean that my global view of hazard for
the air transport industry was pessimistic. Those
guys could loose an airplane a day and still be
statistically safer than personal automobile.
I am concerned that questions of suitability to task,
meeting system design goals and having the will
and means to react quickly to serious problems
is bring impeded by an increasing load of no-value-
added 'activity' dictated by bureaucratic organization
and policy/procedures taking its toll on skills/
common-sense.
For the moment at least, we're largely free of such
impediments in the OBAM aviation world.http://www.matron--> http://fo= - List Contribution Web Site &nbs="http://www.matronics.com/contribution" target="_blank">http://www.mat=====================
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:29 pm Post subject: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
|
|
| Quote: |
While I agree with you, Bob, doesn't it sound logical to extensively
focus on this battery technology and make it fool-proof before use,
since it has a tendency to cause such drastic problems?
|
It would be interesting to see the analysis of how
all the Joules got loose in the ELT . . .
If the ELT had been fitted with a NiCad, would
the outcome have been different? If a short on
internal wiring initiated the event, did some
circuit protective device fail to do it's job . . .
or was such a device included?
Operating life of the ELT battery
is something on the order of 120 hours. Hence
discharge rate compared to capacity is quite
low . . . seems like a simple PTC limiter would
have made it impossible to goad the ELT battery
into catastrophic self destruction.
I'd love to see a schematic of this product
along with a failure analysis of just how the
event was triggered.
Without a doubt, the lithium battery in an
ELT offers a huge boost to system reliability.
How many ELTs have failed to function because
fretting corrosion in the alkaline cell
array shut down a perfectly good battery?
A hard wired, long shelf life, long service life
battery is an elegant solution. I think it's
a bit soon to pan this particular lithium
product.
The ship's system batteries are another matter.
The rush to qualification by OEMs from Airbus/Boeing
down to the LSA guys seems to have stoked
a certification frenzy. I used to know folks
at the Navy's Battery Labs in Crane, IN who
were willing to tell me anything and everything
they knew about battery performance and robustness.
I would dearly love to know what, if any, tests
have been conducted on these leading edge secondary
batteries.
If you think the folks on board a 787 are fussy
about smoke in the cabin, just run the idea past
a submariner!
I'm hearing rumbles that separator fabrication
technologies are almost but not quite ready for
prime time. Seems that there are occasional
discontinuities in the separator matrix that
encourages exchange of 'bad stuff' between
the plates of the cells.
This is not unique to lithium products. Folks
are looking at time dependent (300-500 hours!)
screening techniques to spot cells with risky
separators before shipping to reliability
critical applications.
Who knows, maybe 3M or Monsanto will come up
with a new separator material that will make this
all go away. It's quite certain now that few
technologies in history have experienced so
much 'start up' expense.
Maybe the B-29 engine development program . . .
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:41 pm Post subject: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
|
|
Bob said:
"Maybe the B-29 engine development program . . "
Bob, there are many examples of start up expensive programs, and they didn't exactly get put into mass production immediately. Take the F-35 program, for example. I know the guy who ran it for several years. He was one of the best engineers I've ever met, but the program is way over budget and behind schedule. Trying to do too much too fast, just like these lithium batteries. I hope that separator technology is finally able to tame lithium technology and make it very reliable.
BTW, the F-35 program manager is now working for Spirit Aero. Quite a tumble but no big deal as he's had a great career for decades. Maybe you'll run into him at the local Walmart. 
Henador Titzoff
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Heathrow 787 lithium event
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)>
| Quote: |
While I agree with you, Bob, doesn't it sound logical to extensively
focus on this battery technology and make it fool-proof before use,
since it has a tendency to cause such drastic problems?
|
It would be interesting to see the analysis of how
all the Joules got loose in the ELT . . .
If the ELT had been fitted with a NiCad, would
the outcome have been different? If a short on
internal wiring initiated the event, did some
circuit protective device fail to do it's job . . .
or was such a device included?
Operating life of the ELT battery
is something on the order of 120 hours. Hence
discharge rate compared to capacity is quite
low . . . seems like a simple PTC limiter would
have made it impossible to goad the ELT battery
into catastrophic self destruction.
I'd love to see a schematic of this product
along with a failure analysis of just how the
event was triggered.
Without a doubt, the lithium battery in an
ELT offers a huge boost to system reliability.
How many ELTs have failed to function because
fretting corrosion in the alkaline cell
array shut down a perfectly good battery?
A hard wired, long shelf life, long service life
battery is an elegant solution. I think it's
a bit soon to pan this particular lithium
product.
The ship's system batteries are another matter.
The rush to qualification by OEMs from Airbus/Boeing
down to the LSA guys seems to have stoked
a certification frenzy. I used to know folks
at the Navy's Battery Labs in Crane, IN who
were willing to tell me anything and everything
they knew about battery performance and robustness.
I would dearly love to know what, if any, tests
have been conducted on these leading edge secondary
batteries.
If you think the folks on board a 787 are fussy
about smoke in the cabin, just run the idea past
a submariner!
I'm hearing rumbles that separator fabrication
technologies are almost but not quite ready for
prime time. Seems that there are occasional
discontinuities in the separator matrix that
encourages exchange of 'bad stuff' between
the plates of the cells.
This is not unique to lithium products. Folks
are looking at time dependent (300-500 hours!)
screening techniques to spot cells with risky
separators before shipping to reliability
critical applications.
Who knows, maybe 3M or Monsanto will come up
with a new separator material that will make this
all go away. It's quite certain now that few
technologies in history have experienced so
much 'start up' expense.
Maybe the B-29 engine development program . . .
Bob . . ronics List Features Navigator to //www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List" target="_blank">http://w http://www.matronics.com/contribution" target="_blank">http://www.matroni====================
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:18 am Post subject: Heathrow 787 lithium event |
|
|
| Quote: | | Trying to do too much too fast, just like these lithium batteries. I hope that separator technology is finally able to tame lithium technology and make it very reliable. |
Finding the golden separator material would alleviate some
reliability issues with the system batteries but it does
not address the potential for lapses in quality control.
The ELT battery probably didn't fail but was induced
to runaway by external shorting . . . which was not
held at bay by prudent system integration of the battery.
Take a look at
http://tinyurl.com/mrbr4ol
One of the tests for a cluster of 6, CR-2 batteries
blew the lid off a 5-gallon container. The test
report didn't hypothesize whether the overpressure
was simply due to heating of internal airspace,
out-gassing of the runaway cells, or both.
If these cells out-gas vigorously, then crafting
an enclosure that produces a comfortable FMEA
may be completely impractical. This means that
the designers have to embrace a combination of
reliability study (batteries never spontaneously
mis-behave) and ISO-9000 (errors of wiring never
get out the door).
Given human weakness for faith in assumption
and pronouncements by higher authority, there's
a risk potential that cannot be quantified.
Honeywell may be discovering the effects of
this condition as we speak.
It's inarguable, the lithium technologies are
energetic. I've oft likened lithium batteries
on airplanes as similar to considering how to
burn nitroglycerine in your engine. The weight
and volume to energy ratios are amazing, miles
per gallon profound . . . now if we can just figure
out how to keep it from blowing up.
Bob . . . [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
