March 29, 2024

Boeing Acknowledges Tests Underestimated 787 Battery Risks

At the start of a two-day hearing held by the National Safety Transportation Board, Boeing’s chief engineer on the 787, Mike Sinnett, said the calculation that a battery would fail only once every 10 million flight-hours applied to the design of the battery and did not include possible manufacturing flaws. The testimony seemed to point to GS Yuasa, the Japanese manufacturer of the battery.

The purpose of the safety board’s hearing was to figure out how Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration — despite years of careful work — could have missed the potential for catastrophic failure when the battery was initially certified in 2007. But the broader focus was how the plane’s manufacturers and regulators can cope with rapid changes in technology that may outstrip their ability to predict problems. The 787 is the first major commercial airplane to make extensive use of lithium-ion batteries.

The safety board is investigating the fire on Jan. 7 in a Japan Airlines 787 parked at a gate at Boston’s Logan Airport. A second incident, involving a similar battery on an All Nippon Airways plane on a Japanese domestic flight, led to the grounding of all 50 of the planes Boeing has so far delivered.

“We are here to understand why the 787 experienced unexpected battery failures following a design program led by one of the world’s leading manufacturers and a certification process that is well-respected throughout the international aviation community,” said the board’s chairwoman, Deborah  A. P. Hersman.

Mr. Sinnett said the failure calculation was based on data provided by GS Yuasa. “That value essentially is reached by experience with similar type cells,” he said. “GS Yuasa had experience with over 14,000 cells of similar makeup. They had millions upon millions of those cells without any cell venting.”

One of the tests consisted of driving a nail into a battery cell to provoke a short circuit. While the cell failed, the test did not result in a fire. But under repeated questioning, Mr. Sinnett acknowledged that the nail test had been inadequate and was not “conservative enough.” Boeing, he said, found that the batteries could catch fire only if they were overcharged.

The Boeing executive was pressed to say whether the company stood by its original risk estimate. He declined to do until investigators determined the cause of the two battery failures. Ms. Hersman did not seem satisfied with the answer. At one point she complained, “There is some obfuscation here.”

During questioning, Mr. Sinnett gave a narrower definition of Boeing’s risk estimate than the company had in the past. “That once in 10 million flight hours doesn’t apply to things like abuse of the battery,” he said. “It doesn’t necessarily apply to a nonconforming battery, meaning a battery that was not built for the type design. So there are other things that can cause the failure of a battery that don’t contribute to that one in 10 million hours.”

The F.A.A. last week approved Boeing’s plans to fix the plane’s lithium-ion batteries, an important step in lifting the grounding of the 787s in the United States. Boeing’s fixes include better insulation for the batteries’ eight cells and a stainless steel box that will encase the batteries and contain any fire and vent possible smoke or hazardous gases out of the planes.

“There is still more work to be done in the investigation,” Ms. Hersman said.

Boeing told the F.A.A. it planned to use lithium-ion batteries on its 787 in 2003. Because airplane regulations at the time did not cover such batteries, the F.A.A. in 2007 approved Boeing’s use under nine special conditions that covered the need to contain or vent any hazardous materials.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/business/safety-board-examines-787-battery-approval.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Boeing Presents Fix for 787’s Battery Problems

Making an ardent pitch in Japan, home to two of the largest buyers of its next-generation 787 plane, Boeing said that more than 500 engineers had worked with outside experts to put in more than 200,000 hours of analysis, engineering work and tests to understand what may have caused the batteries to overheat in two aircraft in January. Those incidents prompted American and Japanese regulators to ground the 50 Dreamliners already delivered.

Michael K. Sinnett, the Dreamliner’s chief engineer, acknowledged that Boeing had not pinned down the exact cause of the overheating, and said the company might never know what, and by extension who, is responsible. A lithium-ion battery caught fire aboard a parked plane operated by Japan Airlines; another emitted smoke during an All Nippon Airways flight, forcing the jet to make an emergency landing.

The batteries are made by the Japanese manufacturer GS Yuasa of Kyoto. The Japanese have not yet ruled out that a problem other than the battery, such as a surge in current, could have caused the malfunction. But Boeing has ruled out any possibility the batteries may have been overcharged, citing measurements from instruments aboard the plane.

“We may never get to a single root cause,” Mr. Sinnett said. But he said that engineers had examined 80 potential problems that could lead to a battery fire, grouped them into four categories and designed solutions for each category.

“We looked at everything that could impact the battery,” Mr. Sinnett said, “and we applied a broad set of solutions that encompasses everything that this large team of experts believed someday could happen. And it led to a very robust solution,”

He also said that the fix, which includes a new battery enclosure made of stainless steel, was not designed to contain a fire, but to keep the battery from ever having a fire to begin with, by quickly starving any flame of oxygen.

“We’ve been able to demonstrate that no fire is possible inside the enclosure,” Mr. Sinnett said. If battery were to heat up, its vaporized electrolytes would be vented directly out of the plane, he said, protecting the bay and other electronics.

He said the additional weight of the fix, about 150 pounds, was “a wash” compared with heavier batteries. The 787 is the first passenger jet that uses lithium-ion batteries, which are more powerful, easier to charge and lighter than older battery technologies. But they have also proven to be more volatile.

At the news conference in Tokyo, Boeing executives offered little in the way of self-criticism beyond an apology to Japanese airlines and customers from Ray Conner, executive vice president of the Boeing Company.

Mr. Sinnett said that in both incidents in January, the batteries performed as designed and stressed that there had been no injuries or extensive damage to the planes.

Earlier this week, American regulators approved Boeing’s plan to test its fixes.

Mr. Sinnett said that about 75 percent of Boeing’s test plans for the 787 had been approved and that 25 percent of the testing was complete. He said that he expected flights to resume in weeks, and if Boeing missed that time frame, it would “be by a little, not by a lot.”

“I get often asked whether the airplane is still safe,” Mr. Sinnett said. “My answer is ‘absolutely.’ I’d gladly have my family fly in this airplane.”

Japanese authorities must also approve Boeing’s fix and its test results. The Japanese transport minister, Akihiro Ota, said Friday morning it was too soon to say when Tokyo might allow the Dreamliners back in the air.

“We will work closely with the F.A.A. to examine and confirm the safety of the aircraft,” Mr. Ota said. “The tests are only beginning.”

Hisako Ueno contributed reporting from Tokyo, and Jad Mouawad from New York.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/business/boeing-presents-fix-for-787s-battery-problems.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Japan Airlines Says Grounding 787 Will Cost $7.5 Million

In making the announcement, Japan Airlines joined other Dreamliner operators, like All Nippon Airways and United Airlines, in raising the possibility of demanding compensation. That adds to Boeing’s woes as it struggles to determine why a battery aboard a parked 787 burst into flames and another emitted smoke while a plane was in the air last month.

After those incidents, regulators around the world grounded all 50 Dreamliners in service. United States and Japanese officials investigating the two cases have not determined what caused the lithium-ion batteries, made by GS Yuasa of Japan, to overheat.

Japan Airlines, which operates seven 787s and has placed orders for 38 more, is trying to get back on track after its emergence from bankruptcy last year and the relisting of its shares, which raised 663 billion yen.

In earnings announced Monday, the airline said net profit fell 3.7 percent, to 140.6 billion yen, in the first three quarters, through December, of its fiscal year. Sales rose 3.6 percent, to 942 billion yen, but were offset by a nearly 5 percent increase in operating costs as fuel prices climbed.

Japan Airlines also said that it would postpone the introduction of service between Helsinki, Finland, and Narita International Airport near Tokyo, originally scheduled to start Feb. 25. The airline cited “necessary adjustments to JAL’s international routes utilizing the Boeing 787 aircraft.”

Still, it raised its full-year profit forecast through March by 16 percent, to 163 billion yen ($1.75 billion), citing strong demand in Europe, the United States and Southeast Asia.

Speaking in Tokyo, Yoshiharu Ueki, president of Japan Airlines, said his company was more focused on doing all it could to help get the 787s safely back in the air. He added that the airline would begin compensation negotiations “once the situation had settled down.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/business/global/japan-airlines-says-787-grounding-will-cost-it-7-5-million.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Inquiry Into 787 Batteries Expands to Other Components

Adding to concerns about the batteries, industry officials said that United Airlines had replaced three batteries on the six 787s it received from September through December because they were wearing out sooner than expected.

All Nippon Airways, the first airline to get the 787 and its biggest operator, said this week that it had replaced 10 batteries on its 17 jets from May to December. Investigators are now looking for these batteries and others from different operators to see if they can provide any clues to the problems that led to the grounding of all 50 787s delivered so far.

Investigators also are delving into Boeing’s supply chain. The National Transportation Safety Board said Friday that it would send an investigator to France to test a part that connects the battery to the plane’s wiring.

Besides the battery, this connector is the fourth component to come under scrutiny in the jet’s innovative electrical system. Investigators have also inspected the plants that made the battery charger and a controller unit, which are both in Arizona, as well as a facility that makes the battery’s monitoring unit in Japan. The battery itself, using a volatile lithium-cobalt chemistry, is made by GS Yuasa in Japan.

In releasing an update on Friday, the board said it was still testing the battery that ignited on a Japan Airlines 787 while parked at Boston’s Logan International Airport on Jan. 7.

Another 787, owned by All Nippon, made an emergency landing in Japan on Jan. 16 after the pilots received warnings of a battery problem and smelled smoke.

Kelly Nantel, the safety board’s spokeswoman, said the board was still performing laboratory tests on the battery that was badly damaged in the Boston fire.

Other government officials said there was still no leading theory to explain why the two batteries emitted fire or smoke.

The 787 is the first commercial plane to use large lithium-ion batteries. The battery for the auxiliary power unit is in the plane’s midsection. A second, under the cockpit, is the main battery and provides emergency power.

To assist in the investigation, the safety board has sought out the Naval Surface Warfare Center, which has worked with lithium-ion technology since at least the 1970s. Earlier this week, the board shipped the undamaged battery from the Japan Airlines plane for testing at the group’s Carderock Division, in West Bethesda, Md. Those tests, which included electrical measurements and infrared thermal imaging of each of the battery’s eight cells, found no anomalies, the safety board said on Friday.

Next week, the board plans to short all of that battery’s cells. The test could highlight any problems in the cells.

Investigators hope that the examination of other batteries that were replaced in the months before the Boston fire will yield some clues. All Nippon said five of the 10 batteries it replaced had lost most of their charge. The three United batteries that were replaced also showed low power levels.

Despite the two incidents with the batteries and the questions about their reliability, Boeing’s chief executive, W. James McNerney Jr., said Wednesday that the company saw no reason so far to switch back to older but less volatile types of batteries.

Mr. McNerney acknowledged that airlines had needed to replace the new batteries at a “slightly higher” rate than Boeing had expected.

“What we know is that the replacement cycle that we’ve been experiencing there has been for maintenance reasons,” Mr. McNerney said. “There is no incident where we’re aware of where a battery has been replaced due to any kind of safety concerns.”

But in an interview on Friday, John Goglia, a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, took exception to Mr. McNerney’s statement.

Mr. Goglia said X-rays of the batteries that had been replaced could show if there were any changes in their makeup and might provide clues.

Investigators have said there could still turn out to be minuscule defects in the batteries. But Mr. Goglia, who is now an aviation safety consultant, said the loss of charges in a number of batteries suggested that there also could have been a problem with the battery charger or the circuits controlling the battery.

“There could be something in the system that tells the battery charger what to do that is giving bad information, or something could be diverting the charge from being received at the battery,” he said.

As regulators and industry officials settle in for what could be a prolonged search for the cause of the safety incidents, Boeing’s engineers have been studying ways to better contain or vent any smoke or excess heat if a battery malfunctions.

Officials at the Federal Aviation Administration have said they will not allow the planes to fly again until the cause of the safety problems is clear and fixes have been identified.

Besides stopping all passenger flights, the agency directive that grounded the planes has also prevented Boeing’s test pilots from making flights.

Boeing has stopped delivering planes to customers, but it has not slowed production.

Industry officials said Boeing hoped to come up with interim safety measures, including more frequent inspections of the batteries, that might persuade regulators to allow it to resume at least the test flights. But the executives said Boeing, which floated a similar idea earlier, had not yet presented a new proposal to regulators.

Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from Tokyo.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/business/inquiry-into-787-batteries-expands-to-other-components.html?partner=rss&emc=rss