Another Dreamliner fire - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 05:04:15 pm
content: Well, Boeing have only just got them back in the air and there is another fire - this time at Heathrowhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760Apparently, it is the first aircraft they modified that resumed commercial filghtsNeil

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 06:07:03 pm
content: Queen of Sheba, what a nice name for an aircraft. Wonder how this battery failed now. Either they need to put the older batteries in there as an alternative or do a redesign again and do some really abusive testing involving a NASA shake table for satellites and around 48 hours of shake and bake cycling on them and see what fails and then rinse and repeat until they will do the 48 hours.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 06:14:13 pm
content: Non of the more reputable news outlets report it is the battery again. What they all report is there was a fire.It might or might not be the battery again. Anyhow, Boeing stock price is going down.

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 06:25:31 pm
content: The BBC hasmore video footageof the stricken plane, showing remarkable detail. What does it take to burn through the roof of the passenger compartment on a modern airliner?

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 06:46:46 pm
content: Quote from: ElectroIrradiator on July 12, 2013, 06:25:31 pmEnough heat to melt the aluminium. Around 660 C, if it would be pure aluminium.

author: peter.mitchell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 06:49:51 pm
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on July 12, 2013, 06:14:13 pmA friend of mine just got quite lucky shorting.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 07:15:51 pm
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on July 12, 2013, 06:46:46 pmI know a lot of the skin is composite rather than aluminium but I don't know how much or where. I did see that Boeing are reported to have people at Heathrow. I bet the first thing they were told was "Was it the batteries?" They would be desperate to rule out a battery problem. I have had a quick hunt on the net and there is a battery near that location.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 07:34:56 pm
content: Well I still think they haven't got the shite battery problem solved, and I suppose 500 +, or more people have to die in a crash before, they get it right.

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 07:38:38 pm
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on July 12, 2013, 06:46:46 pmI suspect we can agree that it doesn't just happen due to a smouldering cigaret in the loo?Was checking the construction of the airplane, and I cannot find any particularly flammable materials within the fuselage at that location. Could have started in pillows in the crew rest area, of course. The alternative is that the internal fire damage could be substantial, if the fire has managed to spread from a different location. However that doesn't seem likely either, given what the rest of the plane looks like.Will be interesting to follow the investigation of this incident...

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 07:47:18 pm
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on July 12, 2013, 07:37:29 pmThe picture I saw showed the second battery near the aft cargo door - basically a bit forward of the vertical tail towards the bottom of the plane. The only way this could have reached the top would be if it had burnt through most of the plane although I would have thought if that had happened there would be more external damage.Still, mention "Fire" and "Dreamliner" and everyone will assume the batteries. If it wasn't the batteries, expect that to be mentioned loud and long ASAP.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 09:05:01 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on July 12, 2013, 06:07:03 pmYou're being way too quick to jump to conclusions.No reports it was a battery fire, and if it was, the cause needs to be investigated before anyone could make a qualified or reasonable statement about what Boeing should do.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 10:00:29 pm
content: The original battery logs (in the aircraft which had battery fires) reported a sudden drop to near 0V.Perhaps in this case a short circuit has occurred which is causing the voltage to drop low and in this case some wiring bundling burnt but in other cases the battery caught fire.Just one possible cause of many. Any other battery chemistry would have similar characteristics.

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 10:04:36 pm
content: If you want the truth when the report comes out read the aeronautical authority's report yourself.The medias story is never accurate. The know few people know very much about aeronautics and are wary or fearfully of flying. Because fear sells news they will digest the facts down to something extremely simplified that can be delivered quickly for the added shock factor.

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2013, 10:15:53 pm
content: Yes all batteries are susceptible to vibrations. This is an ongoing battle, and there are many safety features required in an aircraft to protect the passengers and crew.The initial maintenance schedular of the battery and its safety system is derived from the battery makers specs. After initial recording periods a better schedule is created. But when the actual service-life is dramatically shorter that specified a catastrophic battery failure is more probable. The recording periods change from carrier to carrier but can be assumed to be 1, 3, 6,12, 60, 120 months. The one month would be done during test flights etc.

author: cthree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 06:45:43 am
content: Quote from: Telequipment on July 12, 2013, 07:34:56 pmYour comment is nonsensical. It doesn't matter what you 'think' the problem is on this particular plane. What matters is what the problem actually is. If we aren't discussing facts then wtf?It's unlikely to be the batteries because they just went through a very detailed and exhaustive redesign in which they were all carefully retested. It is much more likely something which hasn't been scrutinized as closely. A fire in the galley is probably related to the galley. It is pointless to speculate more than that.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 08:57:26 am
content: There were some (apparently false) news reports that an air conditioner in the ceiling area of the plane had caught fire and caused the issue... however so far the preliminary investigation appears to show that the fire started in the galley area and burned for some time until it caused the damage to the roof. The aircraft was parked away from the gate and was not powered up during the situation, so given there was nobody on board, it took quite a while for the fire to be noticed - hence the level of damage.So far, it appears someone left a coffee maker turned on, which boiled dry. Normally not a problem, but this particular unit had a faulty thermal cutoff switch, so it eventually caused a fire.

author: KedasProbe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 09:47:38 am
content: Dreamliner, where the coffee is always hot!(also outside business hours)

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 12:59:54 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 13, 2013, 08:57:26 amDoes anyone else find it odd that the materials they used weren't less flammable...?

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 02:22:10 pm
content: Any number of things can cause a fire in an aircraft. Wiring faults, dropped stuff during build or service, failure of equipment like entertainment or galley, poorly laced wiring looms chafing through, water on wiring, connectors with conductive debris on them. Any number of causes. I have met many of them.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 04:54:38 pm
content: Barely 24 hours after the fire they rule out the batteries.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23302722I thought that any evidence that would exonerate the batteries would quickly be put out

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 06:20:13 pm
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on July 13, 2013, 01:06:00 pmYou assumed that is where I got the news - you are incorrect. The report was on Airliners.net, linked from another site that reports on aviation where two people who claim to be involved in the industry (one a BA ground engineer) reported that it was a fire in the galley in so far it appears to have started at a coffee maker with a faulty trip switch. I am not sure if the NTSB guy was reporting the same thing because he's also heard that, but I doubt it is pure speculation on his part.The ET 787 does not have a crew rest area in that part of the plane - what is in that location is the galley. The inquiry going on will show what happened, but so far, battery issues have been ruled out. It's worth noting that the police are also involved as they consider this fire suspicious. It is not normal that the police get involved in an airline fire incident. It may be just caution why they are involved, or there may be other reasons that make them feel this particular case is suspicious.

author: Mr Smiley
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 10:28:33 pm
content: BBC News, UK, say the batteries were not the cause of the fire.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 10:43:38 pm
content: Ifa coffee pot was left on, and it caused the fire, what powered the coffee pot? Might it have been batteries? (One assumes that all engines including the APU were shut down, and that the plane was not plugged in to an external power supply.)

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 10:58:16 pm
content: Quote from: Neilm on July 13, 2013, 04:54:38 pmActually, that is not what the linked article actually says. The specific quote is:"However, it is clear that this heat damage is remote from the area in which the aircraft main and APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) batteries are located andat this stagethere is no evidence of a direct causal relationship."(Emphasis added.)Genuine CYA doublespeak.He is not denying that it could be the batteries, only saying there is extensive damage in upper part of the fuselage. Ie. they don't know yet....and what happened to the other 787, which on the same day was forced to return to the UK partway across the Atlantic due to a 'technical issue'?

author: ElectroIrradiator
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 11:14:13 pm
content: There may be more to this. If they cannot yet rule out that the batteries are the cause, then it must be because the damage inside the airframe isextensive. That also makes sense, as the fire/smouldering had time to burn through the top of the fuselage. The plane had been parked and sitting alone on the tarmac for 8 hours, when the fire was discovered.In related news, then I managed to find the illustration, which had been tugging at my memory since this story broke. Attached below. It shows the location of the battery, which caused problems at one of the earlier events. It may be worth noting in passing, that the service access(?) door below the rear passenger door is open in the BBC photo fro Heathrow. One suspect this door opens into the compartment, where the battery shown in the figure is located.Happy speculating!

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 13, 2013, 11:43:40 pm
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on July 13, 2013, 07:01:03 pmI said "so far" - as in "based on all the information we have".I am basing my information on what I've learned and heard so far... I trust unverified corroborated first hand accounts more than I trust people who say it may have come from the crew rest compartment on a plane that doesn't have a crew rest compartment.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 14, 2013, 12:16:47 am
content: Quote from: ErikTheNorwegian on July 14, 2013, 12:00:20 amI am not sure what you are trying to say.You said earlier in the thread that it could have started in the crew rest area, and joked about it being due to "ganja" because it was an Ethiopian plane. And you questioned why I said the info so far was it was in the galley, and possibly a failed breaker on a coffee maker.Well, the investigation is ongoing. Nobody knows what caused it. But I do know one thing.... it wasn't anything to do with the crew rest area, because the ET 787 does not have a crew rest area.Reports are that it was in the area of the last 2 rows of seats back to the other side of the partition wall, which is where the galley is. ET originally said/leaked/inferred that they'd had some issues with an AC unit recently on that plane, but the AC unit is not in the area. The plane was parked and shut down - so there is limited stuff that could have caused it. The remote data concentrators, remote power distributors and galley are in the area.It was not a small fire - the plane was empty and it burned for a while until it affected the roof/structure.

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2013, 05:58:28 am
content: I though this tread was going to be interesting.Unfortunately it is mostly drivel.You can rest assured this will be considered gravely serious. People do not need to be hurt to be taken serious.Many thousands of hours will be spend buy very skilled investigators to pinpoint the cause.This has to be done because of safety and if it isn't that aircraft will banned by many countries.Not to mention the manufacturer can loose its aeronautical licence and or their international flight allowance because of it.There will be a huge detailed report generated that will be produced so this can be prevented in the future. Likely briefs will be published in various flight gazettes. And a minute amount of that information will be given to the media fir distribution to the public.In the next year all you are going to get are advance briefs, to assure the public that the problem is being investigated. The investigates done in these circumstances are very detailed and very serious. The results will not be a guess or resolved on a whim.Just because most people will never get access to the entire report, for good reasons. It doesn't not mean it this is a trivial thing. by the time the report is completed, the investigator will still be taking the incident seriously, and the media will be long gone off covering the next news item to make a splash.Yes it's is a rant and yes I am disgusted by many of the comments in this thread.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 14, 2013, 06:49:01 am
content: You can all say what you like that's democracy , however it all comes down to confidence in the aircraft, would I be happy to put my family on one, NO I WOULD NOT.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2013, 08:54:50 am
content: What is not clear at present is where the fire source is as it could have started some where else run along some ducting and then come out in the galley area, No one seems to have released any photographs of the inside of the plane yet, all that is available is the long shots of the outside showing where the fire burnt through the roof this may well not be over the seat of the fire. One thin is for certain we will not get the truth from Boing until they have to give that out due to the amount of financial damage all this is doing to the company, at the same time this one was burning another one was forced to return to the UK for some reason I have not seen any further mention of this, what was the reason for that return.

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2013, 09:01:56 am
content: Quote from: Telequipment on July 14, 2013, 06:49:01 amVery true, event like this make any sane person think about their travel choices. Also one of the reason aircraft makers are not permitted to hide events like this. A summary of every aircraft incident is published in the corresponding gazette. It's pretty much the only way to enable people to make an informed decision. A good reason to fly domestic carriers, you can get you own countries flight gazettes but rather difficult to get a flight gazette from another country. One exception USA and Canada have less restrictions to exchange of domestic flight gazettes between them.

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2013, 09:09:24 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 14, 2013, 08:54:50 amI tried to explain how the system works as far as i am willing/permitted and you seem to be willfully ignorant.It is a shame that you have to so arrogant in your accusations.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2013, 12:30:54 pm
content: Quote from: WarSim on July 14, 2013, 09:01:56 amWhat does worry me is the extent to which news stories like this eschew the quantitative. So to keep the incident in perspective, and to help those of us without direct involvement in the industry make informed as opposed to prejudiced / alarmist choices:In terms of safety, how does flying on this aircraft compare, statistically, with the taxi ride to the airport?

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2013, 05:04:17 pm
content: Apparently it was forced to dump fuel, I am not sure if this is usual for a forced return or only if there is a possibility of fire.http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/florida-bound-thomson-boeing-787-dreamliner-5076706

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2013, 05:13:21 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on July 14, 2013, 12:30:54 pmIf you take the regular SA minibus taxi ( colloquially known as iHiAce) as the reference then the Dreamliner is far better, as there have been no fatalaties in all the accidents so far. Compare to the regular daily death toll from the rolling coffins here. Taxi accident normally means at least 15 injured or dead.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2013, 05:32:50 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 14, 2013, 05:04:17 pmA such big aircraft can't land while full on fuels. I could snap by it's own weight.Alexander.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 02:41:58 am
content: Quote from: firewalker on July 14, 2013, 05:32:50 pmWith all that fuel the dreamliners have to dump - I guess their average fuel consumption != 20% savings as promisedAnd yes - most commercial jets - needs more than 1/2 of the fuel gone before they can land again without the risk of the wheels coming up through the wings - or wings can snap off. Both a no go scenarios since the fuel usually resides in the wings and a belly-tank between the wings. So a landing with full tanks can quickly turn into a big fireball.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 02:51:13 am
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on July 14, 2013, 12:30:54 pmThat would depend greatly upon the city and country you are talking about.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 03:04:05 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 15, 2013, 02:51:13 amI don't think there is a scenario where you are more likely to be killed flying a commercial airliner than driving - even if you flew Aeroflot all the time.That being said - I have been in air-plane 1 incident - and 1 crash.but not commercial. And I was NOT the pilot at the crash. The pilot of the crash was of the gender that usually can't parallel park.

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 03:10:23 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 15, 2013, 02:51:13 amAnd a lot of the "facts" are subject to perception.Places that where suppose to be very dangerous ended up not being relatively safe.Places the where suppose to be relatively safe ended up being dangerous.I try always avoid acting on preconceptions, too often they are just plain wrong.BTW just adding to, not disagreeing with your comments.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 04:24:23 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 15, 2013, 03:04:05 amDriving, no. Taxi, I'm not so sure. I cannot recall a passenger single taxi death in this country, but I'm sure there have been the odd one, but I think they are very rare.It's a simple percentage thing. The more you drive, the greater your risk. A taxi to-from the airport is not a common occurrence for most people.I would not be surprised if there hasn't been a single taxi passenger death while driving to and from the airport in this country.Remember, 47% of statistics are bullshit

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 04:35:07 am
content: Certification requires that an airliner, in case of an emergency, must be able to land at MTOW (maximum take off weight) without any damage to the aircraft.There is a special overweight landing checklist, which usually limits the descent rate at touch-down and landing flap selection.Landing distance is greater than usual and the crew uses the longest runway available.The aircraft has to be inspected for structural damage after an overweight landing.If the nature of the emergency allows it, the crew would reduce the aircraft weight by fuel jettison or if not available, by burning fuel in a holding pattern, until the aircraft weight is below MLW (Max landing weight).

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 05:13:40 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on July 15, 2013, 04:35:07 amThis sentence is simply not true. This requirement does not say without any damage to the aircraft. You are paraphrasing so much that your statement has become false.This requirement refers to passenger survivability and limits structural damage which is required for survivability.A passenger aircraft must be able to land at MTOW with "no harm" to the passengers.This does not mean the aircraft must be able to fly again.But if you design aircraft and you believe this, great your aircraft will be stronger than required.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 05:28:55 am
content: We're not in a court of law. I'm not in a mood to dig out the full certification verbose.I want to refute the drivel here, telling people that if an airliner has to land at max take off weight, they are likely to die on landing.I know of several aircraft that have landed above max landing weight. It happens more often than you think. The inspection afterwards takes a couple of hours and then the aircraft is good to go again. They do build them strong.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 05:36:17 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on July 15, 2013, 04:35:07 amFAR regulations state "without personal injury" - JAR regulations are a bit tougher.FAR regulations says - if you land overweight (Above MLW) - proceed to Phase I inspection (visible check for obvious signs of structural damage -3-6 hour inspection) - If even the slightest signs are found - Proceed to Phase 2 inspection - which requires a lot of disassembly - that usually takes the plane out for 2+ weeks)The problem with Emergency landings (incl. overweight) - is not the stress on the airframe - but the stress on the pilots. The stress can cause quite hard landings. That is why MOSToperatorsrequire their pilots to land within specifications if in ANY way possible (MLW) (Plus of course no operator wants a Phase II inspection requirement) - so operators put tougher "requirements" in - to save MONEY.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 05:54:42 am
content: Phase II inspection is seldom required.The stress for pilots comes from post flight litigation. A brake fire is quite possible after an overweight landing, which could require an evacuation.So pilots will prefer to land below max landing weight, as long as the emergency allows a flight duration long enough to reduce the fuel load.Operators don't usually get involved in the decision making.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 07:42:11 am
content: Well this plane was dumping fuel over Wales this is relatively close to Manchester as the crow flies and also has quite a few people there. I do not know at what height they were dumping fuel but I used to live very close to an RAF base that flew tanker aircraft (Victor Tankers) on one occasion one of these had to make an emergency landing and had to dump fuel while over Wisbech which is about 30 mile from the base, people were complaining of the scorch marks on their lawns and farmers were also complaining about crop damage caused by the kerosene that was dumped. There was a statement in the local paper by the RAF that wherever possible the orders were if fuel had to be dumped it was done over the sea and at high altitude in order to minimise problems caused by the dumped fuel, I would have thought that such instructions are given to civil aircrews as well, so the Thompson plane had to be something a bit more serious than the loo would not flush or the in use light would not come on or go off, or at least the captain thought so at the time.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 07:54:34 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 15, 2013, 07:42:11 amAs far as I remember - the Boeing recommendation - is dump fuel if you are > 6000' - if < 6000' try to land or "burn off" if you have time for it. At 6000' dump - the fuel should be vaporized before reaching the ground. But not all airplanes can drop fuel.

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2013, 12:36:30 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on July 15, 2013, 05:28:55 amDo you even read before you flip out?I see there was no rant on 911 for saying the same thing.

author: daveshah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 18, 2013, 04:17:23 pm
content: It seems that there is some progress in the investigations, and that it is related to the emergency location transmitter.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23364389

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2013, 04:27:57 pm
content: So when the next one goes down they cant find.

author: Mr Smiley
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2013, 04:43:56 pm
content: I love the following statement from the above web page,"As the ceiling space where the ELT is located "do not typically carry the means of fire detection... had this event occurred in flight it could pose a significant safety concern and raise challenges for the cabin crew in tackling the resulting fire".Now that's confidence boosting, wanna take down a Dreamliner, start a fire in the tail, nobody will know till it falls off

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2013, 07:39:27 pm
content: Due to a miscommunication of the design requirements, someone thought that smoke signals would be a good way to provide emergency location.....Any bets on what type of batteries are in that ELT...?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2013, 07:40:48 pm
content: So it was caused by a battery. A lithium one at that, but typically a very safe chemistry (non rechargeable.) Unexpected.

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2013, 09:50:52 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 18, 2013, 04:27:57 pmThat aircraft should have several of different types. If it has just one that would worry me, allot.

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2013, 10:05:33 pm
content: and another Dreadliner does a "u"eJAL7 goes from Boston to Boston via Hudson's Bayno Tokyohttp://mynorthwest.com/11/2316885/Japan-Airlines-787-Dreamliner-forced-to-return-to-Boston

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2013, 02:30:09 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 18, 2013, 07:40:48 pmNo, I don't think so. According to this article, the batteries in question were lithium manganese dioxide:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/18/heathrow-fire-boeing-dreamliner-batteryLithium manganese dioxide is the chemistry used in CR123A batteries, the kind originally used in cameras and more recently in flashlights (torches) especially those made by Surefire.In case you weren't aware, the primary LiMnO2chemistry is much more volatile and much less safe than rechargeable lithium ion batteries. The only failure mode of lithium ion is overheating due to short circuit and possible ignition of the flammable electrolyte. In contrast, primary lithium batteries such as the LiMnO2variety contain metallic lithium and can go up like incendiary grenades. The only thing that stops them going off like a bomb when you least expect it is careful attention to composition and purity of ingredients and strict quality control in manufacturing.There have been many instances of CR123A batteries exploding unannounced when they were obtained from less mainstream factories where costs were cut.I honestly thought the batteries in this transmitter would be LiSOCl2(lithium thionyl chloride). I am astonished to read that someone would put a lithium manganese dioxide battery on a plane in an inaccessible place. Presumably, design safety certifications have parted company with common sense. If that is an example of how a plane can be certified safe to fly, I am now certain I never want to get on board a B787

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2013, 06:59:53 am
content: I didn't realise that.QuoteI'm not sure if I like "consumer", "low cost" and "maximum 60°C" for a safety system.If the aircraft is parked on the ground, in sunny weather, in the roof cabin, is it plausible 60°C could be exceeded?What about a fire which brings the aircraft down? Is it possible the beacon won't function after being heated? I thought they had to survive very high temperatures, like the "black box".It seems that they're trying to save money at the expense of safety. Perhaps all the bells and whistles like composite material and carbon fibre has eaten up their budget for safety systems.

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2013, 07:13:00 am
content: ELT is used for all different types. Each one is used for different reasons. As far as I have read the Thor of ELT hasn't been said.Not all types are intended to survive a fire. From the location I could be anyone of the 5 types.Only a hardhold FDR CPI needs to withstand a fire.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2013, 10:50:14 am
content: Quote from: IanB on July 19, 2013, 02:30:09 amAgreed. Thionyl is the usual choice for high-rel applications (although they have their own special handling precautions too.)

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 01:14:36 pm
content: Report on the London Dreamliner fire:http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S4-2014%20ET-AOP.pdfBattery wires crossed and caught in the cover plate of the battery compartment on the ELT. I have not read it in detail, but like all these things shorted wires should not have set an aircraft on fire and in any event I assume the damage would have been a lot less (if any) on a traditional airframe.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 02:26:48 pm
content: Am I being too naive in assuming that were it designed so that the battery pack was connected not via a wire and separate connector but an integrated one similar to that used on laptops and mobile phones, it would have prevented this short-circuiting issue completely?Also the diagram in Figure 4 with the cell connections so close to each other and at the same end looks too easy to short...

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 02:44:10 pm
content: From the details given, a pack of 5 standard D cells (Honeywell branded Ultralife) with a poly fuse on the negative with a wire and connector. Figure 3 shows a un burnt battery.

author: DJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 02:44:18 pm
content: Honeywell design built by Canadian outfithttp://www.instrumar.com/beacon.htmuses d-cell LiMnO2http://ultralifecorporation.com/be-commercial/products/cr-cylindrical-limno2/Class 9 hazmat (ie fedex ground vs air, see p108)images.fedex.com/us/services/pdf/HazmatShippingGuide.pdfIn any case, pinching a wire is a mix of possibly poor design, unskilled assembly, little qa oversight. Not uncommon, sadly. The bbc says airlines still are queuing up, for fuel cost reasons. Good, cheap, fast. Some things never change.Think I'll drive. (not gm)

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 03:15:29 pm
content: Quote from: Towger on June 19, 2014, 02:44:10 pmHad to read that thrice before I realised it wasn't Ultrafire.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 03:44:19 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on June 19, 2014, 02:26:48 pmDo you really want a safety device relying on a spring contact between 2 heavy lumps after crashing?

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 04:14:00 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 19, 2014, 03:44:19 pmLike this

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2014, 04:52:52 pm
content: Only one part is heavy, so no risk of them coming apart from each other, and it's well sealed to reduce risk of surface contamination. Soldered/crimped/welded wires all the way is usually going to be more reliable (as long as you don't trap them under the cover of course).

author: WarSim
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2014, 02:00:55 am
content: Quote from: Towger on June 19, 2014, 04:14:00 pmYou are using a pinger (UAB) to compare to an ELT?A pinger is for water landings and require testing after a hard landing let alone a crash. An ELT is for both water and land. Design regulation are different between ELTs and pingers.Yes there are approved battery clamps for ELTs. Just not the style shown on that pinger.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 07:53:19 pm
content: Make of it what you will...Al Jazeera Investigates - Broken Dreams: The Boeing 787<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rvkEpstd9os?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen</iframe>

author: ignator
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 09:34:18 pm
content: Quote from: Towger onTodayat 02:53:19 PMThis looks more like a broken union, and a news agency that just wants to beat Boeing down.There have been no battery failures since the Service Bulletin that released the airworthiness directive was implemented.The Boeing machinist union and engineering union both are broken unions that were pissed when Boeing opened a new assembly plant outside of their control.The complaining insiders all had a "chip on their shoulder", so from my watch of this 'news story' it did not paint a honest view of Boeing and the 787. This includes the undercover employee video taping the 'skilled' labor.I worked for a company that provided Avionics to Boeing since the 1960s. Yes Boeing has outsourced lots of engineering with this aircraft, hence the engineering union and former employees making negative statements. Understand that Boeing wanted to have components sourced from many countries, as this was a complaint of USA manufactured aircraft, by world wide customers. Airbus is making this same change, as we never had content on any of their aircraft until the A380.This just seems like an anti-American news story by Al Jazeera, which I'm sure has no reason to do this.......Towger, what ever happened to Shorts Brothers? They were located in Ireland. We used to provide avionics to their Shorts 330/360 airframes. I flew on one for the job interview in 1984.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2014, 09:52:27 am
content: Quote from: ignator on September 11, 2014, 09:34:18 pmThey are still there Bombardier bought the company, but AFAIK is still operates and is locally known as 'Shorts'.http://www.belfast.aero.bombardier.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Brothers