Automobile版 - 787 Dreamliner's Jap battery still has big problem |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W***n
发帖数: 11530 | | W***n
发帖数: 11530 | 2 they couldn't fix it for good | W***n
发帖数: 11530 | 3 go buy jap overpriced tincans | W***n
发帖数: 11530 | | W***n
发帖数: 11530 | 5 DEC 1, 2017 @ 11:16 AM 58,591
Boeing Dreamliner's Lithium-Ion Battery Fails On United Flight To Paris
A United Airlines Boeing 787 experienced a lithium-ion battery failure on
approach to Charles de Gaulle Airport on November 13. United Flight 915 was
at the end of a seven-hour flight from Washington's Dulles Airport when
pilots received a warning that the main battery was overheating. United
spokesman Charles Hobart confirmed the event, which was first reported by
the Aviation Herald.
On landing, technicians discovered the battery “venting fluid,” with fluid
dripping from the forward vent relief system, the titanium box and pipes
Boeing installed after the airplane was grounded in 2013.
Hobart would not answer other questions but the Aviation Herald reported the
airplane was in Paris for four days and brought to Denver, where it
remained on the ground for another two days before returning to service.
Paul Bergman, a spokesman for Boeing said "the plane experienced a fault
with a single cell," adding that it was not a safety of flight issue.
This is not the first Dreamliner battery to go haywire in the three and a
half years since the plane was released from its four-month, fleet-wide
safety grounding by the Federal Aviation Administration in 2013. That came
after battery malfunctions on two Japanese-operated 787s within two weeks of
each other destroyed the breadbox sized batteries and the area in which
they sat, prompting three safety investigations.
An ANA 787 after an emergency landing at Takamastu, Japan in January 2013
The Dreamliner was only allowed back in the air in April 2013, when Boeing
got approval to move the batteries into a housing designed to contain the
toxic fumes and high temperature fire that occur when a lithium-ion battery
goes into thermal runaway.
The housing did not change the characteristics of the battery and this most
recent event on a United flight is a clear sign that it still flies with an
undiagnosed and unresolved problem.
In January 2014, a battery cell on another Japan Airlines 787 vented as the
plane sat on the ground at Narita Airport. Later that year in October, a
Qatar Airways 787 was forced to divert because of a battery malfunction. And
while I was told there were two other diversions resulting from batteries
going bad in flight in the first 18 months after the plane began flying
again, neither Boeing nor the FAA would provide details.
When I asked again today if Boeing would provide a list of battery failures
since the resumption of 787 flights, Bergman declined. "More than 2.7
billion revenue miles have been flown by the approximately six hundred 787
Dreamliners currently in service," he said in an email.
Battery failures on those 600 airplanes are only knowable to Boeing because
the FAA previously said it does not require notification; not from Boeing
not from the Dreamliner's operators because the titanium housing removes the
safety threat from thermal runaways.
Battery experts disagree. After the Qatar diversion, Jeff Dahn, a physics
professor at Canada's Dalhousie University told me that battery failures are
an indication of a problem within the cells.
“Normally they will do nothing unless they are being mechanically abused or
electrically abused. Since they are in the box, they are probably not being
mechanically abused, so there is something going on with those cells.”
Now that Dreamliner battery failures have been deemed "non-reportable" by
aviation safety authorities, it is impossible gauge the size or the scope of
the problem and that's how some folks seem to want it. The question is "why
?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
