grahampros

Correct. Numerous reports now that the FAA has not given the ok to begin testing of the fix. There was also a report this week that the battery supplier does not agree with Boeing's assessment of the cause of the issue. Long road ahead yet.

mduell

Boeing modified the tailcone to solve an APU torching problem.

You can't cut off the fuel supply to a lithium-ion battery fueled fire like you can to the controlled (or uncontrolled) combustion in the APU.

PHLGovFlyer

Thanks for posting the article which correctly points out that it was not the APU that was torching. Rather it was fuel pooling in the tailcone that was torching.

Granted the fuel came from the APU's fuel supply system but this has no bearing on the ability to effectively implement a fire containment system for a battery.

Simply cutting off fuel in the event of an APU fire is insufficient. In an APU fire there are many things that can burn (electrical components, lubricants, fuel, etc.). Of course it's a good idea to cut off the fuel supply so there is not more combustible material added to the fire, but it neither prevents nor extinguishes fires by itself.

rankourabu

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0BYJQD20130306

(Reuters) - U.S. safety regulators are poised to approve within days a plan to allow Boeing to begin flight tests of the 787 Dreamliner with a fix for a its volatile batteries, a critical step towards returning the grounded aircraft to service

gokeeper

My PVG-LAX in April switched to 777, called UA they put me to another flight for free.

lax2010

What do you mean by put me to another flight? Same departure date and destination?

gokeeper

No, everything is the same, now make connection at ORD instead of LAX, 787 is the only reason I choose LAX, but isn't there anymore.

Firewind

Guardian (3/7/13): NTSB to hold hearings next month re Lithium-ion batteries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...-ion-batteries

(Hopefully they are communicating with the FAA better than the US TSA and the air marshals are communicating, or there could be cart and horse issues.)

Firewind

Today's NTSB news release:

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130307.html

NTSB's "BOEING 787 BATTERY FIRE" website:

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2...oeing_787.html

Link to NTSB's March 7, 2013 Interim Factual Report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2...787_3-7-13.pdf

CCIE_Flyer

Interesting:

"FAA likely to approve Boeing 787 battery plan in days: sources"

http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013...tcmp=obnetwork

invisible

Investigators later found little balls of melted and cooled stainless steel, apparently from the cases of the battery's eight cells. That type of steel melts at 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, one document noted.

Ahem....

JetSetDave

Thanks for the article!

Another firefighter reported "no visibility" because of the smoke and directed another burst from a fire extinguisher at a hot spot, but the battery seemed to rekindle. Firefighters sprayed 740 pounds of the firefighting agent Halotron as they tried to put the battery fire out.

And all Boeing wants to do is contain a possible fire? I smell CEO bonuses as a priority over pax safety. Have a question, how much heat can composite withstand?

jbcarioca

Very few airplane pilots hold either engineering or science degrees, although about 93% reportedly do have college degrees, nearly all of them are in aeronautical fields, essentially four year pilot courses.

During the time that I was involved in a training program for Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) ratings and type ratings I kept track of educational backgrounds of applicants. I just looked up the statistics for the ones I was responsible for training. Only five had engineering or science backgrounds out of 437 total applicants whose records I had. All five of them were former military pilots who were seeking civilian ratings.

Otherwise, pilots know how to operate aircraft but few have any technical background at all, much less chemistry, physics and engineering. Maybe things have changed since my data of the late 1980's, and maybe my data are not representative. Embry Riddle, the school of choice for academic training for pilots, probably has some very good data.

slawecki

the battery did not have a fire(Combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke.) this was a chemical reaction. no oxygen necessary. the reaction was very hot. probably close to 3000 degrees F. hot enough to melt through the box, and continue down through the plane. cannot be extinguished by std oxygen deprival means.

although a long time ago, i was the materials scientist (metallurgist) at pratt&whitney. yeah they had 1. the guys from boeing visited on 3-4 occasions a year with materials problems. they had no materials guys back then.

both boeing and NASA used project engineers(guys wiith yellow hats) who looked up materials problems in a tech manual.

my guess is the battery guys (yusau have one or two materials guys), but they probably got run over by the project guys who needed space and weight.

that battery is still really scary. once it starts, it cannot be extinguished, and it can cascade to the whole battery. they were lucky the plane was on the ground when the thing went boom. from what i read, fire people could not put it out.

this probably should beconsidered a thermite reaction(look up on wiki)

invisible

I have flashlight working on Li-Ion rechargeable batteries. First of all, it is extremely cool, but more a was reading about Li-Ion batteries more I tried not to use flashlight for more than couple of minutes - it it was starting getting hot.

I do believe that Li-Ion and other newer batteries are way to go. However I'd rather seem them adopted first in cars opposite to planes.