Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 4. Propulsive efficiency April 19, 2024
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
FAA approves Boeing plan for 787 battery fix; it is a “path” to resume service
From the FAA:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today approved the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company’s certification plan for the redesigned 787 battery system, after thoroughly reviewing Boeing’s proposed modifications and the company’s plan to demonstrate that the system will meet FAA requirements. The certification plan is the first step in the process to evaluate the 787’s return to flight and requires Boeing to conduct extensive testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with the applicable safety regulations and special conditions.
“This comprehensive series of tests will show us whether the proposed battery improvements will work as designed,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We won’t allow the plane to return to service unless we’re satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers.”
The battery system improvements include a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a short circuit within the battery, better insulation of the cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system.
“We are confident the plan we approved today includes all the right elements to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the battery system redesign,” said FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta. “Today’s announcement starts a testing process which will demonstrate whether the proposed fix will work as designed.”
The certification plan requires a series of tests which must be passed before the 787 could return to service. The plan establishes specific pass/fail criteria, defines the parameters that should be measured, prescribes the test methodology and specifies the test setup and design. FAA engineers will be present for the testing and will be closely involved in all aspects of the process.
The FAA also has approved limited test flights for two aircraft. These aircraft will have the prototype versions of the new containment system installed. The purpose of the flight tests will be to validate the aircraft instrumentation for the battery and battery enclosure testing in addition to product improvements for other systems.
The FAA will approve the redesign only if the company successfully completes all required tests and analysis to demonstrate the new design complies with FAA requirements. The FAA’s January 16, 2013 airworthiness directive, which required operators to temporarily cease 787 operations, is still in effect, and the FAA is continuing its comprehensive review of the 787 design, production and manufacturing process.
From Boeing:
Boeing Receives FAA Approval of Certification Plan for 787 Battery Solution
EVERETT, Wash., March 12, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — Boeing (BA) has received approval from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the company’s plan to test and certify improvements to the 787’s battery system. Successful completion of each step within the plan will result in the FAA’s approval to resume commercial 787 flights.
“Our top priority is the integrity of our products and the safety of the passengers and crews who fly on them,” said Boeing Chairman, President and CEO Jim McNerney. “Our team has been working around the clock to understand the issues and develop a solution based on extensive analysis and testing following the events that occurred in January. Today’s approval from the FAA is a critical and welcome milestone toward getting the fleet flying again and continuing to deliver on the promise of the 787,” he said.
Ray Conner, president and chief executive officer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said that the company’s focus has been on developing a permanent resolution.
“Working with internal and external experts in battery technology, we have proposed a comprehensive set of solutions designed to significantly minimize the potential for battery failure while ensuring that no battery event affects the continued safe operation of the airplane,” said Conner.
“Our proposal includes three layers of improvements. First, we’ve improved design features of the battery to prevent faults from occurring and to isolate any that do. Second, we’ve enhanced production, operating and testing processes to ensure the highest levels of quality and performance of the battery and its components. Third, in the unlikely event of a battery failure, we’ve introduced a new enclosure system that will keep any level of battery overheating from affecting the airplane or being noticed by passengers,” Conner said.
Design feature improvements for the battery include the addition of new thermal and electrical insulation materials and other changes. The enhanced production and testing processes include more stringent screening of battery cells prior to battery assembly. Operational improvements focus on tightening of the system’s voltage range. A key feature of the new enclosure is that it ensures that no fire can develop in the enclosure or in the battery. Additional details of the new design will be provided by Boeing in the days ahead.
Boeing made its certification plan proposal to the FAA in late February. Today the agency agreed that the proposed changes and the detailed test plans address the conditions that resulted in the suspension of 787 operations.
The FAA also granted Boeing permission to begin flight test activities on two airplanes: line number 86, which will conduct tests to demonstrate that the comprehensive set of solutions work as intended in flight and on the ground; and ZA005, which is scheduled to conduct engine improvement tests unrelated to the battery issue. Additional testing may be scheduled as needed.
The certification plan calls for a series of tests that show how the improved battery system will perform in normal and abnormal conditions. The test plans were written based on the FAA’s standards as well as applicable guidelines published by the Radio Technical Commission on Aeronautics (RTCA), an advisory committee that provides recommendations on ways to meet regulatory requirements. The RTCA guidelines were not available when the original 787 battery certification plan was developed.
“We have a great deal of confidence in our solution set and the process for certifying it,” said Conner. “Before 787s return to commercial service, our customers and their passengers want assurance that the improvements being introduced will make this great airplane even better. That’s what this test program will do.”
Ray LaHood:
“We won’t allow the plane to return to service unless we’re satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers.”
That sounds reasonable compared to the “1000% sure”.
What’s concerning here is the apparent disconnect between the two regulatory agencies looking at the issue. The NTSB slaps Boeing and the FAA because the battery charging system was apparently NEVER TESTED as an integrated system…..with batteries and circuit boards later catching fire.
http://gizmodo.com/5989580/boeing-never-fully-tested-the-design-of-the-dreamliner-battery-that-caught-fire
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-06/boeing-787-circuits-burned-on-ana-planes-last-year-union-says.html
The FAA here seems focused on containment of a fire and has laid out a process for Boeing to vet the efficacy of its fire prevention battery modifications and fire containment system.
THE NTSB sees that as the central issue. The FAA has apparently decided that the central issue is stopping a fire from causing catastrophic damage to the aircraft.
Neither agency can tell us WHY things are catching on fire. I think that Boeing has a real problem until they can answer that question. Even if they ultimately receive FAA approval for this “fix”….it’s going to look like political expediency rather than sound judgment is nobody can explain the root cause of the incidents.
What are the details of the proposed fix, and can we see at least a summary listing of the proposed tests?
The battery will be cloaked as a bomb calorimeter 😉
factual:
a pressurisable vented to out of fuselage enclosure
with the cells arranged with increased spacing and thermal isolation.
( Wonder if the arrangement will allow cell expansion. )
some other internal changes.
This should reduce cascading failures and contain
the ejectables from a hopefully more limited failure.
Touchy feely changes elsewhere without really knowing
what to look out for.
well the ny times seems to have a few more details as to tests required
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/business/faa-backs-boeing-plan-for-battery-test.html?pagewanted=2
but nothing really definitive.
as in ….The F.A.A. has also approved limited test flights for two aircraft. One plane will test the old battery, while the other will test how the new system performs under normal flight conditions. The flight tests will begin within a week. ..
However this excerpt is significant
… Aviation analysts said the plan would probably protect against the main problem that the safety board identified, a short circuit in one cell that can set off a chemical reaction, causing the battery to overheat.
But some battery experts said they would feel more comfortable if a precise cause were found and the problems that happened on the two flights in January could be replicated in a lab.
“The tests have to be comprehensive insofar that they capture the conditions that started these fires,” Professor Sadoway said. “How is it that Boeing managed to log more than 50,000 flight hours on the 787 and didn’t manage to turn up any of the problems we are seeing today?”
+++ My guess re the 50K flight hours has to do with the tempo of the tests. Typically a long flight followed by a day or two layover to redo instrumentation and get set up for different loads , temperatures, etc , minor repairs, data analyis of odd looking data, etc.
Whereas in commercial use – as in japan – short flights, rapid turnaround, minimum maintainence checks, refueling, reloading and another flight within an hour or so, probalby averaging 8 to 12 hours/day/ every day.
Thus a major increased load unload charge discharge cycles compared to bench testing only separate parts of the system in some sort of a cycle under ‘ ambient ‘ conditions.
NBow add sneak circuits evolving from unplanned events like shock, vibration, loose wires, etc and away we go .
Being up to 5 hours or more from a landing site with a molten battery in a hot steel case is not exactly comforting to most passengers. My guess is even if return to flight is granted within a month or two it will be a year before significant ETOPS issues come up for recert or certification.
The customer use case seems to prefer standalone powerup without ground power attached ( adequate units not available ?).
My guess is the testflights invariably had bespoke ground power attached ( probably mandated just to keep the measurements/recording infrastructure alive.)
Also computers don’t sweat. The Laredo incident was with a larger passenger complement.
The now to be tested battery containment system just covers the “burning end” of a whole chain of problematic, unstable (unknown) elements (hardware and software) of the highly complex electric system, that behaves imo “non linear”. Obviously there were a lot of other arcing, sparking and burning events in the preceding elements (power panels, etc.) of the system. As long as these problems ar not analysed and solved, there will clearly be more burning panels. This is an absolutley unacceptable situation. — poor Boeing. It shames itself.
And as I stated a little while ago, I believe this sanctioned test programme *IS* intended to analyse and solve those problems…
Hmmm wonder if they( FAA et al ) will publish the ground rules in detail, the fixes approved, etc in a timely manner other than x years later ??
Non related news:
“Lutz Bertling Appointed President and Chief Operating Officer of Bombardier Transportation.”
This is good for Bombardier because Bertling has experience in both of BBD’s areas of expertise, Transportation and Aerospace.
http://www.stockhouse.com/news/canadianreleasesdetail.aspx?n=8761940
Wonder if I’ve ever seen him. Same University, same timeframe, same industry contacts. strange that.
From Eurocopter to Bombardier. fascinating 😉
Bertling also worked for Adtranz before it was acquired by Bombardier. So it’s a return home if you want. But in the meantime he acquired experience in aerospace. The ideal CV to work for Bombardier. BBD is actually the only company in the world to manufacture both trains and airplanes.
Adtranz was my link in. M-Bahn was integrated into AEG Bahnsysteme while at the same time Daimler Benz AG under Edzard Reuter took in AEG, various cooperations stuffed on top we had interaction with people from Bombardier for the second planned M-Bahn line connecting FRA with Frankfurt City. Then his flunky Schrempp effectively “assasinated” first Reuter vision then his position. Projects turned into a gooey mess ( that I left behind for working in a small startup ).
“BBD is actually the only company in the world to manufacture both trains and airplanes.”
Something in that vein ( synergetic integration ) was Reuters vision. completely foundered.
Last stop before the top..
Not at BBD. He’s not the right nationality, and he’s not related to the Bombardier family.
That was my first thought keesje. But Bertling is only 50 and his boss (Pierre Beaudoin) is even younger at 49. We also have to take into consideration what Howard says. BBD is still controlled by the Bombardier family.
The son is CEO, the father is Chairman of the Board and the family owns something like 40% of the company. This is not very good for the cowboys on Wall Street. But because it is a “family business” it offers stability and a long term vision.
I really do want to see the beautiful 787 flying again, but not at any cost.
I have a horrible feeling about this approval.
I just hope and pray the FAA/Boeing know what they’re doing and no one gets killed.
An hysterical reaction from me? Possibly, but I can’t help feel very uneasy about this development.
I think you’ve put your finger on a major problem for Boeing. This approval of a “fix” for a problem they can’t identify FEELS wrong. It FEELS political.
Boeing has been skating on the benefit of the doubt because they have such a (well deserved) reputation for safety and technical excellence……but this undermines that reputation.
Regardless of the truth, this feeling of impropriety is going to dog this decision until somebody can explain the root cause of the battery and circuit board fires.
Let’s get the plane back in the air already. This time Boeing, no fEck ups.
Also, it seems the only people with concerns about the 787 and Boeing’s fix are on the comments pages of various sites on the web. So let them get on with it. It’s better to bet on Boeing
It seems the “root cause” solution boldly announced after the incidents has been engineered out of the certification plan. Now it is about controling the symptoms. An accomplishment. Congratulations to all involved.
To be fair, although the media is saying this is an approval of the “fix”, I see it more as approval to do a comprehensive test programme with the new battery in place… not quite the same thing.
With any luck, the test programme will end up identifying the root cause. This line was especially interesting: “The purpose of the flight tests will be to validate the aircraft instrumentation for the battery and battery enclosure testing IN ADDITION TO PRODUCT IMPROVEMENTS FOR OTHER SYSTEMS.”
With the ‘product improvements’ adressing an inexcusable root cause that would put Boeing and/or the FAA to shame?
A very important question needs to be answered…
How can Boeing / FAA be sure these tests will prove the battery is safe to fly? The original certification tests failed to identify any problem, what has changed now?
I just can’t get my head around this stance. Bizarre!
Why aren’t the media asking this question?
The public NEED to know the answer.
We all hope Boeing learned its lesson: never subcontract design and testing of critical and safety systems without quality control and oversight in the supply chain , however good the suppliers are and that it will make sure this time -that all possible faults are protected against with fool proof systems . It would also do well to make public their protections for a broader understanding , given the way the previous multi fold protection systems falied.
Boeing should also look at an alternate battery solution ,a different electrolyte less prone to flaming as well as better accountability for testing by the system suppliers like Thales.
Certification arranged by defining the cells as safe seems to have been a Boeing activity.
( also the “special conditions” seem to have been a late activity from the FAA )
The best suppliers will not bring you a selfassembling plane.
Boeing was tasked with doing the basic design and concisely define interfaces between the various parts ordered and access and manage interaction.
They did not do this.
If the root cause is inability to disperse heat generated while buffering the system then they might have solved it, BUT I suspect the JTSB and other authorities will be more sceptical this time, and in the end they matter more than the FAA, not many 787s will ever fly under the US flag, comparatively speaking. After recent events it won´t be just the FAA that will need convincing.
Lithium-Phosphate instead of Lithium-Cobalt would be indicated. Or better still, Nickel-Cadmium.
Everyone keeps saying what’s the root cause what’s the root cause….
My take on this is the following, the Lithum Ion batteries went into thermal run away. Thermal run away is caused from rapid discharge between between positive and negative plates which means there was probably a defect that wasn’t noticed in one or multiple cells ie small metalic particles between plates. Since the parts were nearly destroyed I don’t think it would be possible to confirm this type of defect. Also, if the device is in thermal run away no level of DO-178 qualified software or DO-254 hardware is going to prevent the cell from going up in flames.
Regarding Boeing’s proposed plan
“First, we’ve improved design features of the battery to prevent faults from occurring and to isolate any that do. Second, we’ve enhanced production, operating and testing processes to ensure the highest levels of quality and performance of the battery and its components. Third, in the unlikely event of a battery failure, we’ve introduced a new enclosure system that will keep any level of battery overheating from affecting the airplane or being noticed by passengers,” – Ray Conner CEO
This would leave me to believe my assumptions above are correct.
“improved design features to prevent faults from occuring” – sounds like Boeing battery supplier is increasing the wall thickness between the plates to prevent metalic penetration which causes a rapid discharge of current which causes thermal run away which causes a fire.
“we’ve enhanced production, operating and testing processes to ensure the highest levels of quality and performance of the battery and its components” – sounds like Boeing Suppliers are trying to reduce contamination between plates ie metalic particles, metalic particles could cause a rapid discharge of current which causes thermal run away which causes a fire.
“we’ve introduced a new enclosure system that will keep any level of battery overheating from affecting the airplane or being noticed by passengers” – if all else fails contain it.
Good plan if you want to keep the current design.
A bit more detail can be found at randy tinseth blog
http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2013/03/testing_our_solution.html
Your characterisation is not quite right/incomplete.
Actual thermal runaway is initiated by breach of the passivation layer.
Overvoltage ( even very localised from a voltage spike ) will invariably breach that layer.
Metallic particles can breach the passivation layer.
Those can be either foreign matter, metallic copper from an undervoltage condition
or lithium dendrites growing from imperfections ( there is no metallic lithium in a “good” cell.
Note that damage initiating event and damage exposure via a fault event are not closely linked.
With apologies to Mr. Aboulafia for stealing his phrase, but I feel we are seeing
“the Potemkin solution” to whatever ails the 787.
Finmeccanica also makes planes and trains.
I stand corrected.
AnsaldoBreda and BredaMenarinibus manufacture trains and buses under Finmeccanica. And of course Alenia and ATR in aerospace.
Many people seem sceptical about the proposed fix because the exact cause is not known.
The cause of the failure might have gone up in smoke but that should not prevent all the parties to address the flaws of the current system.
If the fix prevents the end result to be the reason of the grounding i.e fire, then it is a good solution for now. Whenever the precise reason of the fire will be found, it will be addressed if it was not addressed by the current fix.
Just to reply to matjamca question: The reason why the original certification failed to identify any problem was because the process was flawed as indicated by the NTSB, but now the flaws are addressed. So the public need to be calm and enjoy flying the DreamLiner when it returns to the sky.
My last opinion is that Boeing should keep the Lithium batteries away from the 777-X and do what airbus did.
What will you say when Airbus goes back to Lithium Ion batteries later, as they have indicated they may well do?
At this point Airbus has announced that they will be using NiCd batteries. Of course there is no telling what anyone will be doing in the future, but even so this is a pretty weak swipe at Airbus.
Boeing might have found a fix for the battery problem, but other issues that plagued the aircraft were the incorrect battery wiring and reccurent electrical pannel faults and cooling system faults.
These issues must be addresssed if boeing intends to win more customers for the 787.
Boeing has been hidding behind the fact that the aircraft is a brand new type and all aircrafts experience EI problems.
Yes that may be true but the extent of the problems and their recuring nature leave a lot to be desired.
Any guesses when the aircraft can return to service and deliveries resume?
Project appears as follows:
1 Design of the solution (probably done).
2 Installation in flight test aircraft (probably underway or finished).
3 Flight and ground testing (to be started soon).
4 Certification.
5 Modification of in-service aircraft.
I can only contribute a W.A.-guess. It appears like at least a month until point 4 is completed. Even if point 5 is started in parallel, I would assume that most B787 will return to service during May. New deliveries from late May/ early June.
Do we know what in-service mods will be necessary?
They could, of course, test against the RTCA DO 311 standard, which is what they would have to do if they were introducing the plane now. It has the benefit of being objective.
http://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/hazmat/lithium-batteries/20100830-proposed-policy-rechargeable-lithium-batteries.doc
The FT reports possible return to flight within 3-4 weeks.
http://m.ft.com/cms/953be5f0-8b57-11e2-b1a4-00144feabdc0.html?catid=2
Does that sound realistic?
If Boeing has worked its magic on the FAA political upstream side
by way of showing the implements of torture? yes.
Think about why Obama and the Irish PM will hold their hand over the FR order 😉
Ah, you just can’t leave your prejudice out of it can you? It’s not enough that you have ZERO clue how the Aviation industry operates, or that you even work in a related field to commercial aviation. No, you just have your rabid anti-Americanism and fanbo…er cheer leading to hold you over. You have NO CLUE how the FAA operates. I doubt you have even ever met a single FAA employee in your entire life, much less had any kind of educational discourse with them. Yet, you are some how, mystically, an expert. Funny that.
Guess what, Obama picked McNerney to lead the US export council
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2010/03/11/president-obama-taps-boeings-mcnerney-to-lead-export-council/
I have more confidence in Jon Ostrower prevision, from WSJ !
The End of May !
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324281004578356721394267926.html
Calm down please
This kind of personal attack has nothing to do here
It’s not a “personal attack” when the characterization is 100% accurate.
Calm down, Everybody.
It’s an interesting theory. But it would be very risky to try to hide something like this. If discovered later on it could potentially backfire (the cover-up, not the battery).
This risk has not kept Boeing away from such activity in the past.
The way blowback has been contained up to now would speak for continuing on that path.
( “With the help of some friend” BA shares have risen during the grounding, fascinating recreation of M.C.Escher’s “Waterfall” )
My jaw drops…