pictures of the battery would indicate that there was fire. of course we don't know if it was or not b/c we are only told what we are told. pictures
however indicate the batteries did have fire at one point
Wait, you're talking about the JAL fire? You should go back and fact check then. That fire didn't start until after they landed and the passengers
were off. It was thirty minutes after the last passenger left when the first indications of fire were noticed, which put it at over an hour AFTER
There hasn't been a single instance of a battery fire in flight on a Dreamliner.
edit on 9/12/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason
The rudder changes to the 737 were exactly as described if you read aviation pages. Just as this fire is exactly as described.
Contrary to what you believe not everything is a conspiracy. Things change in the aviation industry as more information becomes available. That's why
accident reports frequently take two or three years to complete.
There is no way this battery caught fire before landing and no one noticed it was burning until an hour after landing. Lithium ion batteries don't go
out on their own. There would have been flames burning through the floor if it had been burning that long.
edit on 9/12/2014 by Zaphod58
because: (no reason given)
we're only told what they want us to hear and that's the issue, hence why the pr guy stopped the interview when the memo was displayed. one would
hope all the issues are fixed, but we continue to hear rumblings about workmanship from SC.
they can't even find a buyer for plane #3 so it's going to the museum of flight. or maybe it's #4
The first aircraft are usually retired on ANY new aircraft. The first four or five aircraft are not built to production aircraft standards, as
they're test articles. Number one and four are currently sitting at Palmdale sans engines and other pieces, as both were too expensive to refit to
No company is required to divulge every single detail of what they're doing or any internal problems they have.
Contrary to what you or luxordelphi believe, or want others to believe, the Dreamliner is growing into a very good aircraft, and will only get better.
Here is what Cynthia Cole, former President of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) had to say in 2009, when the
Dreamliner first flew:
“Today’s flight is a testament to the skill, hard work and diligence Boeing employees put in to get this airplane ready to fly,” SPEEA
President Cynthia Cole said in a news release. “Boeing returned to engineering, and that’s what made today possible and successful.”
Yet, in the documentary, she says:
that Boeing “shortchanged the engineering process.”
So which is it? Did they return to the engineering process, or did they shortchange it? And why the sudden flipflop?
one was when she was employed by boeing and the other is after retirement.
boeing would have found a way to fire her had she made that statement in 2009. of course the union would have filed a grievance and boeing would have
denied the grievance. it then would have gone to an arbitrator.
if the arbitrator rules in favor of the employee they would get their job back and usually all back wages and benefits. of course this would take a
minimum of 2 years, during which she wouldn't have a job.
now considering she is at the end of her career in 2009 and would not want to lose her pension if she were fired, they could deny it if fired, what do
you think would be the statement?
yes they could deny the pension and she would have gotten it back through the whole grievance process, but that would take at least 2 years also.
The chemistry Boeing are using is somewhat old at this point, and has usually been replaced with others that have in general better safety
characteristics. Also the battery is only about 2 kWh and 29.6 V. Most EVs are around 22 kWh and 350 V (the Tesla Model S is 85 kWh!). I'm betting
automotive batteries are subjected to worse conditions than those inside the 787 - and with far less fires. In my experience the newer batteries can
take a fairly large amount of abuse before damage. It would be interesting to see a detailed design of the battery (to critique it).
Perhaps one issue is using a small number of very large cells (65 Ah) in close proximity, without electrical and thermal insulation between them and
perhaps without proper venting. I'm only speculating but a small issue could result in catastrophic failure in that case. Usually you want to separate
the battery into smaller segments with contactors between them, separated by a fire resistant material. Any problem and the contactors open, so
hopefully the problem will be limited to a small section.
Some interesting videos:
It's also interesting, that, instead of simply designing a proper Lithium battery, Airbus have instead elected to use NiMH. Aviation is a conservative
edit on 17/9/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
Right, so instead, lie about it, and throw your credibility out the window for later. Because the fact that she changed her story will be brought up
if she's ever considered for a consulting job, or anything else now that she's retired from Boeing, and it's going to look bad for her.
that's your point of view, that she lied, but did she really or did she just omit her personal point of view and then express that point of view in
that report. because that's more the reality of what happened.
if there were no issues than that point of view would just be a disgruntled worker, but since there have been issues, documented ones of poor
workmanship coming out of SC, then it is the no so much that of a disgruntled worker but someone under pressure to put on a good face for the company
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.