

Heathrow shut after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire - bodski
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760

======
jlgreco
I suppose this _(assuming it was the batteries again. I understand they
swapped them out with a new design)_ is the downside to making a system fail
safe instead of making it just not fail. They modified the battery
compartments so that a fire wouldn't threaten the air-worthiness of the
aircraft but any fire is still likely to cause bad press and, in this case,
disrupt traffic at an airport.

------
smackfu
Fire doesn't look like it's near the batteries.

~~~
italophil
The auxiliary power unit on the 787 has a battery near the tail of the plane.

~~~
bobthedino
The APU battery is towards the middle of the plane, according to page 7 of
this:
[http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/arff/ar...](http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/arff/arff787.pdf)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Yup, here's a photo of one on fire [http://news.aviation-
safety.net/2013/02/07/ntsb-identifies-o...](http://news.aviation-
safety.net/2013/02/07/ntsb-identifies-origin-of-jal-boeing-787-battery-fire/)

------
ollysb
Maybe they should have taken Elon up on his offer...

~~~
lotso
Elon Musk: The only person who knows how to design lithium ion batteries.

~~~
jlgreco
More accurately, the person who has a bunch of lithium ion battery people at
his disposal...

------
robomartin
The question in my mind is far more fundamental than anything related to the
design of the battery packs or whether or not Elon Musk's involvement is of
any real engineering value.

None of that matters. He/they would have to convince me that LiPo/LiIon packs
are safe. This coming from someone who's waiting for Tesla's SUV's. I kind of
draw a demarcation line between flight and road-based vehicles. Fires are a
thousand times more dangerous at 30,000 feet.

The fundamental issue I keep coming back to is that Lithium Polymer batteries
are dangerous. One or multiple cells. It does not matter.

I've been using and abusing them extensively for, I don't know, maybe a
decade, in all of my RC gliders and helicopters. I keep them locked-up in a
fireproof container and never --ever-- charge them unless I can be in the room
during charging.

There are plenty of accounts in RC circles of battery packs spontaneously
combusting, catching fire in flight, catching fire while charging or lighting-
up if damaged. The problem, as it was explained to me, is that these cells can
produce methane and have an avalanche failure mode. Methane is a product of a
manufacturing defect whereby a small amount of moisture is sealed into the
package. Lithium reacts unfavorably with moisture and the rest is history.

Lithium Polymer battery fires are extremely hot, fast and very powerful. I've
seen it myself with three and six cell packs. I would not want to be anywhere
near a fire in a larger pack.

And so the fundamental question for me is simple: Why? Why use Lithium-based
chemistry for a flight battery pack. Yes, I know, lower weight, lower volume.
However, I am not sure these packs can ever be considered to be safe. How can
an aircraft manufacturer ensure that the quality of the packs it assembles is
as required? Can you ever know?

I know millions of Lithium-based batteries are in use in everything from
phones to laptops and more. Not sure how to think about that. A fire is a
fire. A laptop stowed away in cargo can still cause a huge problem if it
catches fire.

To be fair, I have never had a spontaneous fire in any of my thirty of forty
packs (ranging from 2 cells to 12 cells). I have had cells spontaneously puff-
up --inflating like a baloon-- and destroy the pack by expanding so much that
the battery pack's casing cracks open. In those cases I've used them to
experiment by overcharging to see how they light up. It does take a lot, but
when they do it is massive fireball.

Perhaps someone with information closer to the source or quantifiable safety
and reliability data can pitch in?

EDIT: Prior to LiPo's I was using NiCd (Nickel Cadmium) cells and have never
had any issues, even with abuse and mechanical damage.

~~~
neurotech1
Here is a thing. The mishap rate (accidents and serious incidents) of a
commercial airliner, including the 787 is magnitudes below that of driving to
the airport.

The reason the 787 was grounded previously, was that Boeing and the FAA
determined that the battery pack was insufficiently protected. The protection
of the battery pack has been upgraded, both physically and electrically.

RC batteries and their charging systems are not nearly as thoroughly designed
or protected as aircraft batteries.

~~~
tlb
Citation? We know of 3 fire mishaps on the 787, across 66 planes over 1.5
years of service. That's 1 mishap per 33 service years, which doesn't sound
'magnitudes' better than a typical road vehicle. Perhaps you have better
statistics?

~~~
tlb
Fire departments responded to 194k vehicle fires per year in the US, across
254M vehicles. That's one serious fire every 1310 car-years. Thus, 787s catch
fire 40 times more often than cars.

[refs]
[http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf](http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Total_number_of_vehicles)

~~~
lostlogin
Just to add to this - I have been involved in 2x car fires. 1 had the fire
brigade involved (car completely burnt out), the other 1 we dealt with and all
was well (welding some rust at a friends and the boot/trunk caught fire). I
image there aren't many plane fires where authorities aren't notified, but
this is a guess. Does anyone have any knowledge of aircraft incident reporting
rates?

------
uslic001
Sounds like Boeing should have taken Elon Musk up on his offer to help out
with the lithium battery design.

~~~
davepage
This incident is clearly not directly related to the previous electronics bay
battery issue. It could be indirectly related -- an electrical short in the
cabin, for example, which would be fed by the batteries.

------
detritus
I wonder how Airbus pulled this off?

 _peeks from under tinfoil hat_

