"Vent" Holes of JAL's 787 Dreamliner Batter Case Were Taped Shut, JAL Blames Boeing's Shoddy Work

Or I would say "Japan special". Venting not working - where have I seen before?

As the result, the air pressure sensor showed abnormal readings, and JAL swapped the plane.

If you recall, the lithium-ion batteries on board JAL and ANA's 787 Dreamliners caught fire while in operation, and after lengthy investigation and grounding of the entire fleet of 787 around the world, the solution was to put the containment vessel around the battery and install a vent. The real cause of meltdown, I mean, battery fire, is still not known, but the prevailing sentiment among industry participants (particularly those numerous Japanese suppliers to Boeing) seems to be, "Who cares?"

From The Telegraph (6/2/2013; emphasis is mine):

Japan Airlines finds fault on modified Dreamliner

More battery-related problems aboard a Boeing Dreamliner forced Japan Airlines (JAL) to use an alternative aircraft on Sunday, just one day after it resumed full service of the troubled 787 fleet.

JAL found a fault in an air pressure sensor that detects overheating in the aircraft's modified battery container, according to Japanese media reports.

The problem was put down to Boeing's faulty maintenance as two small holes on the container - necessary for air ventilation to prevent overheating - were mistakenly sealed when it repaired the battery system, said broadcaster Kyodo, citing JAL.

Although the issue was not believed to pose a safety risk, the Dreamliner in question was replaced with a Boeing 767 for a scheduled flight between Tokyo and Beijing.

JAL and its rival All Nippon Airways (ANA) both blamed the grounding of their Dreamliner fleets for hitting revenues to the tune of $200m, prompting Boeing to print full-page apologies in major Japanese newspapers. Japan is the single-biggest market for Boeing's newest aircraft.

Airlines across the world grounded their Dreamliner fleets earlier this year while Boeing and national regulators investigated the causes of a series of problems aboard the aircraft, including a small fire aboard a JAL passenger jet parked at Boston's Logan airport.

The Telegraph is quoting Kyodo News (6/2/2013), but neither The Telegraph nor Kyodo mentions the "container" and the "holes" weren't in the original design, that the battery did not have a container with two holes.

Someone working for Boeing (or more likely, one of the subcontractors) seems to have forgotten to remove the tapes over the holes before he/she installed the container.

What is surprising to me is that both JAL and ANA don't seem to have done their own inspection to at least make sure the battery system has been "repaired" according to the spec. They relied on Boeing (and/or its subcontractors) to do everything for them perfectly, even though the repair was all done in Japan.

Where have I seen something like this before? (Turnkey nuclear reactors from GE, perhaps?)

On a separate 787 Dreamliner incident from ANA, part of the switchboard was damaged by heat during the test flight in May. The incident happened on May 4. The captain made his decision that it was no big deal, and continued the flight. And true to form, ANA didn't bother informing anyone about the incident until May 16.

After all, ANA didn't bother to report battery problems in 2012 to anyone until after the battery caught fire in January this year.

For JAL, it was only yesterday (June 1) when the stewardesses, pilots, ground crew donned new uniform and gave away "message cards" with candies to passengers to celebrate the re-introduction of Dreamliner 787.

(Photo from Jiji)

Tweet

Boeing 787 Battery Fire: Thermal Runaway from a Short-Circuited Cell, Says NTSB

So that's for JAL's battery. No word yet on ANA's. There is no mention of multiple occasions of JAL and ANA exchanging batteries throughout last year.

From ABC News (2/7/2013):

The battery fire that grounded Boeing's Dreamliner back in January was started in one of eight battery cells that make up the lithium-ion battery used to power the plane when all other power sources fail, NTSB investigators said at a news conference today.

The single cell showed signs of short circuiting that led to thermal runaway -- a chemical reaction during which a rising temperature leads to increasingly higher temperatures, and spread to the rest of the battery, the board reported.

The NTSB has ruled out external short circuiting as a cause for the problems.

"Boeing has indicated that these tests that were conducted prior to certification showed no evidence of cell-to-cell propagation or fire in the battery," Deborah Hersman, chairwoman of the NTSB, said today in Washington. "However, our investigative findings with respect to the event battery show that when a short circuit did occur, it resulted in cell-to-cell propagation in a cascading manner and a fire."

...The certification tests by Boeing found that the likelihood of "smoke emission" from one cell and then a spread to other areas would occur in less than one out of every 10-million flight hours. The 787 currently has only 100 thousand flight hours, and already there have been two smoke events -- one resulting in a fire.

...But the NTSB said Boeing failed to mitigate the hazards and must review not only the battery problem but its testing that provided false conclusions.

(Full article at the link)

It looks like both Boeing and GS Yuasa have some explaining to do, but to say the "testing ... provided false conclusions" is a bit harsh. As Boeing says, in the article:

"We provided testing and analysis in support of the requirements of the FAA special conditions associated with the use of lithium ion batteries..."

In other words, Boeing provided exactly what the regulator wanted.

(Sound familiar?)

Tweet

NTSB Chief Deborah Hersman on Boeing 787 Battery Fire: Plane Batteries Not Necessarily Unsafe

She says NTSB still doesn't have answers why the lithium-ion batteries by Japan's GS Yuasa caught fire in ANA and JAL, but as long as there are safeguards in place we shouldn't worry too much.

(and nuclear reactors that melt down are not necessarily unsafe as long as there are safeguards in place...)

From AP (2/6/2013; emphasis is mine):

NTSB: Plane batteries not necessarily unsafe
NTSB chairman: Lithium batteries not necessarily unsafe in aviation but safeguards needed

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite a battery fire in one Boeing 787 Dreamliner and smoke in another, the type of batteries used to power the plane's electrical systems aren't necessarily unsafe — manufacturers just need to build in reliable safeguards, the nation's top aviation safety investigator said Wednesday.

National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman said she doesn't want to "categorically" rule out the use of lithium ion batteries to power aircraft systems, even though it's clear that safeguards failed in the case of a Japan Airlines 787 that had a battery fire while parked at Boston's Logan International Airport last month.

"Obviously what we saw in the 787 battery fire in Boston shows us there were some risks that were not mitigated, that were not addressed," Hersman told reporters in an interview. The fire was "not what we would have expected to see in a brand new battery in a brand new airplane," she said.

The board is still weeks away from determining the cause of the Jan. 7 battery fire, Hersman said.

The 787 is the first airliner to make extensive use of lithium batteries. Aircraft makers view lithium batteries, which are lighter and can store more energy than other types of batteries of an equivalent size, as an important way to save on fuel costs. The Airbus A350, expected to be ready next year, will also make extensive use of lithium ion batteries. Manufacturers are also looking to retrofit existing planes, replacing other types of batteries with lithium ion.

But lithium batteries are more likely to short circuit and start a fire than other batteries if they are damaged, if there is a manufacturing flaw or if they are exposed to excessive heat.

..."What happens is that when an aircraft is certified it basically gets locked into the standards that were in existence at the time," Hersman said. Oftentimes, tougher standards will come along later, but aren't applied to already-approved aircraft designs. "Those are issues we do look at regularly in our investigations and it is something I'm sure we will be focusing on with the battery," she said.

Investigators have been working very closely with the FAA on a review the agency has under way of its sanctioning of the 787's certification for flight, Hersman said. The FAA awarded the certification in August 2011.

"We are evaluating assessments that were made, whether or not those assessments were accurate, whether they were complied with and whether more needs to be done," she said. "I think that is important before this airplane is back in the air, to really understand what the risks are and that they're mitigated effectively."

(Full article at the link)

From the article, the issue of safety seems to be just the matter of whether the certification is properly issued by the government bureaucrats. As long as that is properly done, the plane should be safe.

The parallel to things nuclear is obvious.

Tweet

Boeing 787 Battery Fire: Both ANA and JAL Had Replaced Batteries Last Year, on Multiple Occasions

ANA replaced 10 batteries, JAL replaced on several occasions.

ANA also says the problem started in May last year. ANA's first 787 Dreamliner (it was actually the world's first commercial flight) flew in October 2011.

From Reuters (1/30/2013; emphasis is mine):

Japanese airlines had 787 battery issues before recent incidents

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's two biggest airlines replaced lithium-ion batteries on their Boeing Co (BA) 787 Dreamliners in the months before separate incidents led to the technologically advanced aircraft being grounded worldwide due to battery problems.

Comments from both All Nippon Airways <9202.T>, the new Boeing jetliner's biggest customer to date, and Japan Airlines Co Ltd <9201.T> point to reliability issues with the batteries long before a battery caught fire on a JAL 787 at Boston's airport and a second battery was badly charred and melted on an ANA domestic flight that was forced into an emergency landing.

ANA said it changed 10 batteries on its 787s last year, but did not inform accident investigators in the United States because the incidents, including five batteries that had unusually low charges, did not compromise the plane's safety, spokesman Ryosei Nomura said on Wednesday.

JAL also replaced batteries on the 787 "on a few occasions", said spokeswoman Sze Hunn Yap, declining to be more specific on when units were replaced or whether these were reported to authorities.

ANA did, however, inform Boeing of the faults that began in May, and returned the batteries to their manufacturer, GS Yuasa Corp <6674.T>. A spokesman for the battery maker declined to comment on Wednesday. Shares of the company fell 1.2 percent.

Boeing, in a statement, said battery replacements are not unusual for airplanes.

"We have not seen 787 battery replacements occurring as a result of safety concerns," the company said.

An NTSB spokesman said the board was aware of the reports of the prior battery problems and would review the data to see if it was relevant to the broader 787 probe.

LITTLE HEADWAY

Under aviation inspection rules, airlines are required to perform detailed battery inspections once every two years.

Officials are carrying out detailed tests on the batteries, chargers and monitoring units in Japan and the United States, but have so far made little headway in finding out what caused the battery failures.

Japan's transport ministry said the manufacturing process at the company which makes the 787 battery's monitoring unit did not appear to be linked to the problem on the ANA Dreamliner that made the emergency landing.

The NTSB said on Tuesday it was carrying out a microscopic investigation of the JAL 787 battery. Neither it nor the Japan Transport Safety Board has been able to say when they are likely to complete their work.

The global fleet of 50 Dreamliners - 17 of which are operated by ANA - remain grounded, increasing the likely financial impact to Boeing, which is still producing the aircraft but has stopped delivering them, and the airlines that fly the Dreamliner.

Boeing said on Wednesday that its 2013 financial forecast assumes no significant impact from the grounding. Boeing shares rose slightly in early trading and are down just 0.5 percent since the 787 was grounded.

ANA posts its earnings on Thursday. ANA shares rose 0.56 percent on Wednesday.

(Reporting by Tim Kelly, Dominic Lau, James Topham, Alwyn Scott and Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Ian Geoghegan)

Tweet

Boeing 787 Battery Fire: Short Circuit and Thermal Runaway in One of 8 Battery Cells

From Flight Global (1/24/2013; emphasis is mine):

NTSB finds signs of short circuit, thermal runaway in JAL 787 battery failure

The Boeing 787 battery involved in the Japan Airlines incident on 7 January reveal signs of a short-circuit in one cell and thermal runaway that led to a fire, says the US National Transportation Safety Board.

The NTSB's first press conference 16 days after the JAL battery failure and fire in Boston also revealed that the investigation could still be far from discovering a root cause.

"It is really hard to tell how long the investigation will take," says Deborah Hersman, NTSB chairwoman.

"We have to understand why this battery resulted in a fire when there is so many protections designed into this system," she adds.

The short circuit was found in cell five of the eight-cell, 32V battery that starts the auxiliary power unit and is located in the aft electronic equipment bay in the 787.

But the NTSB has not yet been able to narrow down a set of possible root causes that it is ready to reveal to the public.

"We are seeing symptoms," she says. "We know there is something wrong here. The short circuit, the fire, these are all symptoms that something is wrong."

Hersman says a troubling complication of both the JAL 787 incident and the All Nippon Airways 787 battery event was the timing of the battery failures within 100 flight hours of service by both aircraft.

"We do not expect to see events like what we saw on the 787 in the battery system," Hersman says. "Two battery events in two weeks in the early flights of this aircraft are not what we expect."

The incidents prompted the FAA to order United Airlines to ground all six US-registered 787s on 16 January, an action that triggered a global grounding of the aircraft less than 15 months after it entered service with ANA in October 2011.

So far, the Japan Transport Safety Board and the NTSB have agreed that there is no evidence yet that either battery was over-charged when it failed, but they are continuing to examine the data. Hersman says, for example, that investigators are still considering if it was possible for one of the eight battery cells was over-charged, but not the overall battery.

Another critical part of the investigation is considering the certification process for the 787 batteries.

"These events should not happen as far as design of the airplane," Hersman says. "There are multiple systems to prevent a battery event like this. Those systems did not work. We need to understand why."

Tweet

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Battery Fire: NTSB Is Testing Each Battery Cell

NTSB's press release (1/20/2013; emphasis is mine):

NTSB Provides Third Investigative Update on Boeing 787 Battery Fire in Boston
January 20

WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board today released a third update on its investigation into the Jan. 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston.

The lithium-ion battery that powered the auxiliary power unit has been examined in the NTSB Materials Laboratory in Washington. The battery was x-rayed and CT scans were generated of the assembled battery. The investigative team has disassembled the APU battery into its eight individual cells for detailed examination and documentation. Three of the cells were selected for more detailed radiographic examination to view the interior of the cells prior to their disassembly. These cells are in the process now of being disassembled and the cell's internal components are being examined and documented.

Investigators have also examined several other components removed from the airplane, including wire bundles and battery management circuit boards. The team has developed test plans for the various components removed from the aircraft, including the battery management unit (for the APU battery), the APU controller, the battery charger and the start power unit. On Tuesday, the group will convene in Arizona to test and examine the battery charger and download nonvolatile memory from the APU controller. Several other components have been sent for download or examination to Boeing’s facility in Seattle and manufacturer’s facilities in Japan.

Finally, examination of the flight recorder data from the JAL B-787 airplane indicate that the APU battery did not exceed its designed voltage of 32 volts.

In accordance with international investigative treaties, the Japan Transport Safety Board and French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la sécurité de l'aviation civile have appointed accredited representatives to this investigation. Similarly, the NTSB has assigned an accredited representative to assist with the JTSB’s investigation of the Jan. 15 battery incident involving an All Nippon Airways B-787. Both investigations remain ongoing.

Further investigative updates on the JAL B-787 incident will be issued as events warrant. To be alerted to any updates or developments, please follow the NTSB on Twitter at www.twitter.com/ntsb.

NTSB Media Contact:
Office of Public Affairs
490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20594
(202) 314-6100
Kelly Nantel
kelly.nantel@ntsb.gov

Tweet

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Battery Fire "No Excess Voltage", Says US NTSB, Probe Widens

The US National Transportation Safety Board's conclusion about the battery on board the JAL-owned Dreamliner seems to be at odds with the statement made by the Japanese official that "excessive electricity may have overheated the battery in the ANA-owned Dreamliner".

NTSB will examine the battery charger (made by UK's Securaplane Technologies Inc) and the auxiliary power unit (by US's United Technologies).

From Reuters (1/20/2013; emphasis is mine):

Dreamliner probe widens after excess battery voltage ruled out

(Reuters) - U.S. safety investigators on Sunday ruled out excess voltage as the cause of a battery fire this month on a Boeing Co 787 Dreamliner jet operated by Japan Airlines Co (JAL) and said they were expanding the probe to look at the battery's charger and the jet's auxiliary power unit.

Last week, governments across the world grounded the Dreamliner while Boeing halted deliveries after a problem with a lithium-ion battery on a second 787 plane, flown by All Nippon Airways Co (ANA), forced the aircraft to make an emergency landing in western Japan.

A growing number of investigators and Boeing executives are working around the clock to determine what caused the two incidents which the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration says released flammable chemicals and could have sparked a fire in the plane's electrical compartment.

There are still no clear answers about the root cause of the battery failures, but the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board's statement eliminated one possible answer that had been raised by Japanese investigators.

It also underscored the complexity of investigating a battery system that includes manufacturers across the world, and may point to a design problem with the battery that could take longer to fix than swapping out a faulty batch of batteries.

"Examination of the flight recorder data from the JAL B-787 airplane indicates that the APU (auxiliary power unit) battery did not exceed its designed voltage of 32 volts," the NTSB said in a statement issued early Sunday.

On Friday, a Japanese safety official had told reporters that excessive electricity may have overheated the battery in the ANA-owned Dreamliner that was forced to make the emergency landing at Japan's Takamatsu airport last week.

"The NTSB wanted to set the record straight," said one source familiar with the investigation who was not authorized to speak publicly.

U.S. investigators have already examined the lithium-ion battery that powered the APU, where the battery fire started in the JAL plane, as well as several other components removed from the airplane, including wire bundles and battery management circuit boards, the NTSB statement said.

On Tuesday, investigators will convene in Tucson, Arizona to test and examine the charger for the battery, and download non-volatile memory from the APU controller, with similar tests planned at the Phoenix facility where the APUs are built. Other components have been sent for download or examination to Boeing's Seattle facility and manufacturer facilities in Japan.

Securaplane Technologies Inc, a unit of Britain's Meggitt Plc that makes the charger, said it will fully support the U.S. investigation.

Officials with United Technologies Corp, which builds the plane's auxiliary power unit and is the main supplier of electrical systems on the 787, said they would also cooperate with the investigation.

(Full article at the link)

Meanwhile, The Seattle Times reports that the top management at Boeing secretly says the US regulators are overreacting.

Tweet

(UPDATED) Charred Lithium-Ion Battery in ANA's 787 Dreamliner

(UPDATED with information on control circuit, below the photos.)

From Yomiuri Shinbun (1/18/2013):

Reuters reports (1/17/2013) that the control circuits for the batteries in Boeing 787 are made by a French company Thales SA, and they are part of a power unit supplied by a US company UTC Aerospace, part of United Technologies Corp:

- Boeing's new 787 airliner uses two lithium-ion batteries made by the Japanese company GS Yuasa Corp (6674.T), with the associated control circuits made by Thales SA (TCFP.PA). They are part of an auxiliary power unit supplied by UTC Aerospace, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), that provides power while the airplane is on the ground.

- Lithium-ion batteries can catch fire if they are overcharged, and once alight they are difficult to extinguish because the chemicals produce oxygen. But Boeing said it designed multiple systems to prevent overcharging, contain a battery fire and siphon smoke away before it reaches the cabin.

- Boeing said the battery it uses on the 787 is about twice as large as a car battery and has been extensively tested, both in the lab and in operation. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said the auxiliary power unit battery that caught fire on January 7 at Boston's Logan International Airport weighed about 63 pounds and measured 19 inches by 13 inches by 10.2 inches.

There is a speculation (not yet proven) that the controller was built on one of a bad circuit board batch produced in Mexico in both JAL and ANA planes.

(H/T reader netudiant)

Tweet

(Updated) Grounded Boeing 787 Dreamliners Use Lithium-Ion Batteries Made by a Japanese Company

(UPDATE) Nikkei Shinbun has an article that lists airlines that have received Boeing 787 Dreamliner, aka Nightmare-liner, and how many. They are not whom you may expect:

All Nippon Airways (NH, Japan): 17
Japan Airlines (JL, Japan): 7
United Airlines (UA, USA): 6
Air India (AI, India): 5
Qatar Airways, (QA, Qatar): 5
Ethiopian Airlines (ET, Ethiopia): 4
LAN Airlines (LA, Chile): 3
Polish Airlines (LO, Poland): 2

Total 49

Hmmm.

========================================

The battery manufacturer GS Yuasa, based in Kyoto Prefecture, uses lithium cobalt oxide electrodes which are apparently prone to overheating.

From MIT Technology Review (1/16/2013):

Grounded Boeing 787 Dreamliners Use Batteries Prone to Overheating

A fire last week and a forced landing today have brought the possibility of such problems to the forefront.

By Kevin Bullis on January 16, 2013

(Image of the lithium-ion battery that caught fire on board JAL's 787)

Two major safety incidents involving Boeing 787 Dreamliners have caused two Japanese airlines to ground their fleets of the aircraft. The problems may be linked to a battery chemistry that’s particularly prone to causing fires.

Earlier today, a plane in Japan was forced to make an emergency landing after reports of a battery warning light and burning smell. Last week, a battery caught fire on a plane on the ground in Boston. In both cases, the problems may be related to Boeing’s decision to use a kind of lithium-ion battery chemistry that overheats and catches fire more readily than others.

It’s not yet clear whether the problems in the 787s originated with the batteries. Faults in the electronic controls have been implicated in other lithium-ion battery fires. According to reports, inspectors found liquid leaking from the 787’s batteries after the forced landing in Japan today. The battery was also discolored, but it wasn’t clear if it had caught fire.

...Boeing’s 787 is the first commercial aircraft to use lithium-ion batteries, according to GS Yuasa, the Japanese battery manufacturer that supplies the batteries. The company also supplies batteries for the International Space Station and electric railcars, among other applications.

The chemistry—and safety—of lithium-ion batteries varies. According to GS Yuasa’s website, the batteries it uses for Boeing’s 787 use lithium cobalt oxide electrodes. These are known for high-energy storage capacity, but other battery chemistries, such as lithium iron phosphate, are more resistant to overheating. Because of safety concerns, many electric vehicle makers have shifted to alternative chemistries, sacrificing some energy storage capacity.

...According to GS Yuasa, its battery for the 787 “comes with battery management electronics which guarantees multiple levels of safety features.” A specification sheet for the batteries warns, “Inappropriate handling or application of the cells can result in reduced cell life and performance, electrolyte leakage, high cell temperatures, and even the possibility of smoke generation and fire.”

(Full article at the link)

GS Yuasa's websites (English and Japanese) do not have any statement about the JAL or ANA incidents.

Tweet