Seeking Alpha

In an unusual twist, Boeing (BA) is stepping up criticism of the NTSB's characterization of... (BA)

In an unusual twist, Boeing (BA) is stepping up criticism of the NTSB's characterization of battery-fire dangers aboard the 787. Last month NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said the incidents with the 787's lithium-ion batteries posed "unprecedented" safety concerns, ending in a so-called thermal runaway. But for the second day in a row, a high-ranking BA executive disputed the NTSB's description, saying it didn't fit the aircraft builder's view or industry-wide definitions of a thermal runaway, which entails "extensive heat and an uncontrolled fire of the battery that basically consumes the entire battery."
Comments (14)
  • haroldfounder
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Hersman is an idiot.
    15 Mar 2013, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    Well, this is not what the linked article says; WSJ quotes the airline veep as saying he believes there is more than one way to define thermal runaway.

     

    There's absolutely no doubt the battery caught on fire and burned; the photos show a charred box.
    15 Mar 2013, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1467) | Send Message
     
    You don't need fire to get a charred box--just heat.
    15 Mar 2013, 09:07 PM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    Look at the photos. Know what a nasty-dirty barbeque grill looks like before you clean it? That kind of charred.
    15 Mar 2013, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1467) | Send Message
     
    no fire on a bbq either. Unless you let your fat drip.
    15 Mar 2013, 11:31 PM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    ;-) you're being difficult.

     

    Photos and eyewitness reports say: Warning lights, smoke, flames, firefighters, 2 kinds of extinguishers, melted stainless steel.

     

    Plus the data recorder log shows power loss when the APU shut down.

     

    Conclusion: there was indeed a fire.
    16 Mar 2013, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    Anyway, what does Hersman have to do with the news brief misquoting the article?
    16 Mar 2013, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    More gossip here: http://yhoo.it/11rkl0A NTSB review still ongoing, no final answer yet.
    22 Mar 2013, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • ptnyc
    , contributor
    Comments (49) | Send Message
     
    BA has a lot of money riding on a fix. The quicker this gets "resolved", the better for them. But from a passenger point of view, I'd prefer more extensive testing. If you look at the photos on the NTSB site, evidence of an actual fire seems pretty obvious:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/16yySLQ
    15 Mar 2013, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • thomas85225
    , contributor
    Comments (536) | Send Message
     
    Has the scientific properties of lithium ion batteries that silmar to nitroglycerin, has change over night!
    And where is all the approval from all the existing battiers company that builds lithium ion batteries at?
    Where is the chemistry engineer statement at?
    What is the electrical load engineer statement that state that design of the 787 power need can be meet by the 787 electric systems without overloading the system and setting the batteries on Fire and the 12 to 24 of testing and flight testing to get the FAA form 8110-3
    The energy provided by the cell is equal to the voltage times the charge. Each gram of lithium represents Faraday's constant/6.941 or 13 901 coulombs. For a voltage of 3 V, this gives 41.7 kJ per gram of lithium, or 11.6 kWh per kg. This is a bit more than the heat of combustion of gasoline, but does not take into account all the other materials that go into a lithium battery and which make lithium batteries many times heavier per unit of energy.
    http://bit.ly/V3LwMm
    All this was original requirement for the 787 in 2003 for Boeing to receive the 787 Aircraft Type Certificate.
    ======================... will be allowed “limited test flights” with two 787s
    flight test 787 of Za005 and line 86
    that will have prototype components of the new battery system, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said March 12. Boeing must prove in flight and laboratory tests that the design meets U.S. standards, and the FAA could insist on more changes, the agency said in a statement
    15 Mar 2013, 10:50 PM Reply Like
  • thomas85225
    , contributor
    Comments (536) | Send Message
     
    After reading the NTSB report it answers a few questions but did address others questions
    The FAA and NTSB could save time and money and just add a new cover sheet to their existing 2007 report
    http://1.usa.gov/Z9GG2a;ExpandSection=-7,-4#_...

     

    In 2007 The FAA The US Federal Aviation Administration voiced its concerns about the use of lithium ion batteries and proposed special condition for 787-8.

     

    Boeing and NTSB have known about Lithium-ion battery in 2007 when a Cessna Citation CJ4 Citations catch fire and the FAA issued an emergency AD, without all the herding ect and the month of delays to remove the Lithium-ion battery

     

    Airbus, Cessna, Gulf Stream will not use Lithium-ion batteries in there aircrafts!

     

    Lithium-ion batteries defects. Are sensitive to manufacturing flaws.

     

    http://bit.ly/Z8nmQy

     

    http://bit.ly/XRkSJl

     

    See Dan Rather reports on Boeing's
    http://bit.ly/Z6yEGg
    787 time line
    http://bit.ly/Z1YxF1

     

    Six year ago Boeing, FAA, the Post office, DOT, UPS and NTSB knew about Lithium-ion battery that being reported in the news and have had six years to study the problem!

     

    But in 2007 the FAA issued an Emergency AD, (without all the Herding ect and the month of delays) to remove the Lithium-ion batteries from Cessna Citation CJ4 Citations aircrafts
    Boeing and the FAA need to go the Boeing System Integration Laboratory in Seattle
    there should be a functional test mockup of the 787 electrical systems inside the LAB for 787 alone with a flight control Iron Bird and Electric Iron Bird for testing all the loadable Software LRS’s for each aircrafts
    Boeing and the FAA need configuring the System Integration Laboratory SIL for ANA airline and JAL airline by down loading the Flight Data Recorder from ANA and JAL into System Integration Laboratory and repeating the flight of ANA and JAL to determine where the battery got fire during the flight to find the root cause of the electrical 787 problems
    Also Boeing and the FAA need perform testing of the electrical system by placing electric OVER LOAD into system of each one of the components, of the six genitor, APU, R.A.T and two Batteries and the four LRS’s to repeat the failure in the LAB to try to discover the cause of problems
    This test should explain why Electrical Circuit Breakers did not trip that should have prevent the system from overloading of the electrical systems from the overload of the battery charging systems alone with aircraft on board monitoring system

     

    Boeing should have been running the SIL for the 787 electrical system since 2003 for all the 787 airlines configurations

     

    http://bit.ly/YeeqOL

     

    The All Electric Boeing 787

     

    http://bit.ly/YeeqOJ
    http://bit.ly/YeeqOL

     

    After knowing what inside ion-battery these batteries should never be allow on board any aircrafts
    If the Fire does not kill you, the smoke will !
    http://bit.ly/V3LwMm

     

    Boeing want to installed the two redesign batteries with more space between battery ceils and place it into an Explosion and fire proof LRU boxes with drain and vent tubes (no word on cooling of the batteries)
    The FAA has Explosion Proof LRU and fire proof LRU boxes has been the requirement for over 30 years alone with Flammability Standards for the rest of the aircrafts which was increase in 1989

     

    No Fire Extinguisher can put out a Lithium-ion batteries fire

     

    http://bit.ly/XRkSJl
    http://bit.ly/VHrg2w
    http://bit.ly/V3LwMm
    From the New times: The Justice Department should start an Investigations into the 787 since the program was started in 2003 and Boeing knew about the Lithium-Ion Battery problems and workmanships problems before the fires!
    The Bottom Line is Lithium-ion batteries are unsafe and should never be place on any aircrafts!
    Boeing was trying to save the weight of two Lithium-ion battery weighting 68 pound each and the cost of $1600.per batteries
    Which has cause the grounding of 50 787 since 1-16-2013 an lost of revenue to the airlines which the airlines are now demanding payment from Boeing, Boeing has spent 32 Billion on the first 40 787
    The 7E7 started in 2003 and Boeing is already 3.5 years late with the 787 program only 103 aircrafts has been assembly and 50 has been delivery to the airline since 2003
    Boeing need to sell 1100 787 to break even that was before the grounding
    Boeing said it would assemble one 787 ever three days Boeing should have delivery over 300 to dated !
    Boeing could offer the airlines an opinion on what color smoke that wanted coming out there Lithium-ion batteries and a close circuit TV camera to monitors the batteries so the crew and passenger can watch on the in seat passenger entertainment systems

     

    The next NTSB heard on the 787 Lithium-ion batteries problems is April 2013
    15 Mar 2013, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • larocag
    , contributor
    Comments (1467) | Send Message
     
    Hey thomas long time. BA north of 86--gotta like that.
    15 Mar 2013, 11:29 PM Reply Like
  • Joeswindon
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    It is difficult to believe this story from the Seattle Time, which said that a Lithium-ion battery caught fire during a test and then burned down the building 'the laboratory'. Then somehow despite this minor technical hitch, it was still OK to put this battery on the airplane. I just don't get that - surely somebody would have thought of the consequences? Here the article .... http://bit.ly/WZlGcc
    16 Mar 2013, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • PAHaysAZ
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    She's a politician, selected by politicians, and versed in the rhetoric of panic.
    16 Mar 2013, 12:46 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)