"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