Discussion:
Update on 787 Battery Problems
(too old to reply)
Joe Gwinn
2013-03-24 14:45:07 UTC
Permalink
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.

What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.

Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one
self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of
smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of
black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time.

Joe Gwinn

<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_
p28-559071.xml>
John Larkin
2013-03-24 15:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Jeroen
2013-03-24 15:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?

I hope.

Jeroen Belleman
Jeff Liebermann
2013-03-24 16:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Investigators report and details on the burning of the building and
the alleged culprit or scapegoat depending on your point of view:
<http://cdn.nextgov.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/012213bb1a.pdf>
<http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66f459f8-4d6b-452b-961a-6b80dc4830a1>
However, I know nothing about how the battery assemblies were
subsequently tested.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
John Larkin
2013-03-24 17:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Jeff Liebermann
2013-03-24 17:17:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
<http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx>

<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml>
The agency's investigation found among other things no record of
the final production-standard charging system having been tested
with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB
report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the
unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery.
The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier
suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing.
Yikes...
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
tm
2013-03-24 17:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
<http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx>
<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml>
The agency's investigation found among other things no record of
the final production-standard charging system having been tested
with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB
report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the
unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery.
The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier
suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing.
Yikes...
--
Sure would feel a lot safer if they would throw a few car batteries in
there. I mean, it is just used to start a small APU turbine, right? This
must be a political need to help save the failing Lithium (car) battery
industry, right?
John Larkin
2013-03-24 17:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by tm
Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
<http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx>
<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml>
The agency's investigation found among other things no record of
the final production-standard charging system having been tested
with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB
report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the
unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery.
The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier
suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing.
Yikes...
--
Sure would feel a lot safer if they would throw a few car batteries in
there. I mean, it is just used to start a small APU turbine, right? This
must be a political need to help save the failing Lithium (car) battery
industry, right?
To save weight and fuel. Every pound costs something absurd like a million
dollars over the life of a plane.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Uwe Hercksen
2013-03-25 15:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by tm
Sure would feel a lot safer if they would throw a few car batteries in
there. I mean, it is just used to start a small APU turbine, right?
Hello,

the small APU turbine needs about 7 to 9 kW power for starting.

Bye
tm
2013-03-25 15:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uwe Hercksen
Post by tm
Sure would feel a lot safer if they would throw a few car batteries in
there. I mean, it is just used to start a small APU turbine, right?
Hello,
the small APU turbine needs about 7 to 9 kW power for starting.
Bye
I doubt that is true. 9 kW would be 375 amps at 24 volts. The connectors and
wiring on the battery in the pictures do not seem big enough for that amount
of current.

tm
Neon John
2013-03-26 03:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by tm
I doubt that is true. 9 kW would be 375 amps at 24 volts. The connectors and
wiring on the battery in the pictures do not seem big enough for that amount
of current.
That's about the current that my small military APU drew during the
~20 second starting cycle. Mine was a small one that I could pick up
and carry around. I doubt the Boeing one is that small.

John
"get to know all your neighbors - fire off an APU in your back yard!"
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.fluxeon.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address
Jeff Liebermann
2013-03-26 03:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neon John
That's about the current that my small military APU drew during the
~20 second starting cycle. Mine was a small one that I could pick up
and carry around. I doubt the Boeing one is that small.
John
"get to know all your neighbors - fire off an APU in your back yard!"
Ummm, was that a gas turbine APU?
<http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/standards/areas/apu.html>
Yep... you'll certainly attact plenty of attention with one of those.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
tm
2013-03-26 04:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by Neon John
That's about the current that my small military APU drew during the
~20 second starting cycle. Mine was a small one that I could pick up
and carry around. I doubt the Boeing one is that small.
John
"get to know all your neighbors - fire off an APU in your back yard!"
Ummm, was that a gas turbine APU?
<http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/standards/areas/apu.html>
Yep... you'll certainly attact plenty of attention with one of those.
--
It is amazingly small. I used to know what the HP output for the turbine
was. I wonder what the rating of the AC generator is?

Looks like three phase.

tm
John Larkin
2013-03-24 17:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
<http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx>
<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml>
The agency's investigation found among other things no record of
the final production-standard charging system having been tested
with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB
report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the
unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery.
The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier
suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing.
Yikes...
Yikes squared. I tell all my engineers and test people that when something weird
happens, even if it goes away, Investigate! It will probably happen again.

NASA lost two shuttles by looking away from problems.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
tm
2013-03-24 17:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
<http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx>
<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml>
The agency's investigation found among other things no record of
the final production-standard charging system having been tested
with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB
report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the
unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery.
The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier
suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing.
Yikes...
Yikes squared. I tell all my engineers and test people that when something weird
happens, even if it goes away, Investigate! It will probably happen again.
NASA lost two shuttles by looking away from problems.
--
NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers.

Any business run the same way would have long failed.
Michael A. Terrell
2013-03-25 03:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by tm
NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers.
Any business run the same way would have long failed.
Name one comparable business.
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :(
tm
2013-03-25 04:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by tm
NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers.
Any business run the same way would have long failed.
Name one comparable business.
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.
Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :(
GM?
josephkk
2013-03-29 03:30:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:49:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by tm
NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers.
Any business run the same way would have long failed.
Name one comparable business.
Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love Canal
(and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away essentially
scot-free.

?-)
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-29 10:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by josephkk
Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love Canal
(and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away essentially
scot-free.
Do you mean Johns Manville? They're still going strong and part of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway empire.
Spehro Pefhany
2013-03-29 15:08:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:30:35 -0700, the renowned josephkk
Post by josephkk
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:49:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by tm
NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers.
Any business run the same way would have long failed.
Name one comparable business.
Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love Canal
(and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away essentially
scot-free.
?-)
Love Canal was Hooker Chemical, not UC, and what they did was legal at
the time, and their sale of the property contained proper notification
and liability clauses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

The government incompetents got off scott free.

There was government incompetence involved in the UC Bhopal disaster
as well.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
***@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
josephkk
2013-03-30 12:45:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:08:57 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
Post by Spehro Pefhany
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:30:35 -0700, the renowned josephkk
Post by josephkk
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:49:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by tm
NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers.
Any business run the same way would have long failed.
Name one comparable business.
Union Carbide? Jones-Manvillle? The assholes responsible for Love Canal
(and eleventy-seventeen more superfund sites). All got away essentially
scot-free.
?-)
Love Canal was Hooker Chemical, not UC, and what they did was legal at
the time, and their sale of the property contained proper notification
and liability clauses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal
The government incompetents got off scott free.
There was government incompetence involved in the UC Bhopal disaster
as well.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Thanks for the lookup on Love Canal. It was obviously easy enough to get
that additional specific one right. I also wanted to make the point about
all the superfund sites which you helped with a bit.

?-)
MrTallyman
2013-03-29 03:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by tm
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test
the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
<http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx>
<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml>
The agency's investigation found among other things no record of
the final production-standard charging system having been tested
with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB
report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the
unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery.
The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier
suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing.
Yikes...
Yikes squared. I tell all my engineers and test people that when something weird
happens, even if it goes away, Investigate! It will probably happen again.
NASA lost two shuttles by looking away from problems.
--
NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers.
You are both absolute retards. Their contributions outweigh any claim
of failure by several orders of magnitude. Especially the perceived
failure(s) dumbfucks like you dream up.
Post by tm
Any business run the same way would have long failed.
Yeah, and you hang out with Branson. Sure.

If things there were the same way, your mother would have had the sense
to flush you, right after she plopped you into the toilet bowl.

I doubt you know the first thing about how "things" are run at NASA.

Less still about the tax coffers. Face it, you're clueless.
d***@yahoo.com
2013-03-29 13:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by tm
NASA's failures makes for a long list and a very high cost to taxpayers.
  You are both absolute retards.  Their contributions outweigh any claim
of failure by several orders of magnitude.  Especially the perceived
failure(s) dumbfucks like you dream up.
Post by tm
Any business run the same way would have long failed.
  Yeah, and you hang out with Branson.  Sure.
  If things there were the same way, your mother would have had the sense
to flush you, right after she plopped you into the toilet bowl.
  I doubt you know the first thing about how "things" are run at NASA.
I have a buddy who worked there. He identified a mission-critical
race condition in a spacecraft's computer and refused to sign off on a
subsystem. He explained the circuit in detail--dreadful engineering.
It a) was absolutely unreliable under prime conditions, and b) created
a catastrophic non-recoverable single-point failure that defeated the
craft's redundant safety systems.

But, correcting the problem would've upset the schedule. Something
about budget heat and not wanting to get cut.

They couldn't fire him outright without a scandal over the design, so
they re-assigned him to make-work in no-man's land and tried to get
him to quit. But, since he had nothing to do, the other engineers kept
bringing him broken stuff on the sly, and that made him impossible to
fire--they needed him.

The managers were selected by sex and race over competences, leading
to a ma$$ive money bleed. Big projects + dumb architectures based on
NIH, politics. All sorts of stories. If n(NASA)>10%, I'd be amazed.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-30 14:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The managers were selected by sex and race over competences, leading
to a ma$$ive money bleed.
That's pervasive throughout U.S. government, but, although managers were NEVER selected on the basis of competence or real achievement in the past, today it is no exaggeration to say the level of intelligence and capability are subhuman. The Republicans in Congress must push the government into default if necessary to put this atrocity out of business.
Uwe Hercksen
2013-03-25 15:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
NASA lost two shuttles by looking away from problems.
Hello,

they also lost three astronauts in Apollo 1 by looking away from the
problems of a pure oxygen atmosphere on ground.

Bye
josephkk
2013-03-29 03:26:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:42:40 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
<http://www.aviationweek.com/topicsevents/Boeing787.aspx>
<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_p28-559071.xml>
The agency's investigation found among other things no record of
the final production-standard charging system having been tested
with the actual GS Yuasa-made battery. According to the NTSB
report, Securiplane, the charging system developer, tested the
unit with a simulated electric load instead of an actual battery.
The company apparently took this precaution after having earlier
suffered a fire at its facility during battery testing.
Yikes...
Yikes squared. I tell all my engineers and test people that when something weird
happens, even if it goes away, Investigate! It will probably happen again.
NASA lost two shuttles by looking away from problems.
Worse the second shuttle loss was caused by an incorrect and inappropriate
solution to the first loss. Totally disgusting.

?-)
Jeroen
2013-03-24 18:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
Wow! The mind boggles. Here they have a flaming demonstration that
something's seriously wrong and they decide to look the other way!
Astonishing. Simply unbelievably stupid.

Jeroen Belleman
Spehro Pefhany
2013-03-24 19:17:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:33:25 +0100, the renowned Jeroen
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
Wow! The mind boggles. Here they have a flaming demonstration that
something's seriously wrong and they decide to look the other way!
Astonishing. Simply unbelievably stupid.
Jeroen Belleman
Did anyone other than Boeing have the responsibility for verifying the
battery/charger system?

Presumably Securaplane verified that the charger met all the ICD
specifications that they were given. It's not really their problem if
the particular battery sample they had caught fire or exploded when
the ICD was followed (other than the ethical necessity of notifying
Boeing or whoever they were working directly with of the anomaly).

It's looking like some folks at Boeing should be out of a job real
soon now.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
***@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Jeff Liebermann
2013-03-24 22:46:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:17:16 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
Post by Spehro Pefhany
It's looking like some folks at Boeing should be out of a job real
soon now.
Nope. The American way is to promote the guilty (to get them out of
the way) and to persecute the innocent. However, this will take some
time. We're still in the witch hunt for a guilty culprit phase of the
project.

This might offer a clue of things to come on the 787 line::
<http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2012/06/22/in-a-mans-world-3-women-run-boeing.html?page=all>
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-25 01:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
Wow! The mind boggles. Here they have a flaming demonstration that
something's seriously wrong and they decide to look the other way!
Astonishing. Simply unbelievably stupid.
Jeroen Belleman
Must have been people internally transplaced from their Defense Systems division...
Jim Thompson
2013-03-25 01:36:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:29:48 -0700 (PDT),
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
Wow! The mind boggles. Here they have a flaming demonstration that
something's seriously wrong and they decide to look the other way!
Astonishing. Simply unbelievably stupid.
Jeroen Belleman
Must have been people internally transplaced from their Defense Systems division...
Former ICE employees ?:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-25 16:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Thompson
Former ICE employees ?:-}
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/gmd/

They'll try to milk this for a cool trillion $ before they're finished...

Build a bomb shelter.
josephkk
2013-03-29 03:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
Wow! The mind boggles. Here they have a flaming demonstration that
something's seriously wrong and they decide to look the other way!
Astonishing. Simply unbelievably stupid.
Jeroen Belleman
Yep; there is a short anglo-sxon monosyllable that covers it.

?-)
Joe Gwinn
2013-03-24 18:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
I recall reading that as well. Thanks for reminding me.

Guess they should have done a root-cause analysis.

Joe Gwinn
John Larkin
2013-03-25 03:05:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:06:59 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Sorry, no joke. I read that in Aviation Week, a very reliable source.
And don't call me Shirley.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Phil Hobbs
2013-03-25 01:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by Jeroen
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Securaplane Technologies, the people who built the charger, did test the charger
and the battery together, once. The battery caught fire, so they used a battery
simulator after that.
Surely you are joking?
I hope.
Jeroen Belleman
Investigators report and details on the burning of the building and
<http://cdn.nextgov.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/012213bb1a.pdf>
<http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66f459f8-4d6b-452b-961a-6b80dc4830a1>
However, I know nothing about how the battery assemblies were
subsequently tested.
That guy sounds like all the bad-attitude folks I've ever seen on the
job, and more besides, rolled into one with sprinkles on top.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Jeff Liebermann
2013-03-25 03:33:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:24:15 -0400, Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Investigators report and details on the burning of the building and
<http://cdn.nextgov.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/012213bb1a.pdf>
<http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66f459f8-4d6b-452b-961a-6b80dc4830a1>
That guy sounds like all the bad-attitude folks I've ever seen on the
job, and more besides, rolled into one with sprinkles on top.
Yep. However, there are some unanswered questions which bother me. I
try to look for what such reports leave out, or what's missing:

1. On Pg 40, it says
"Leon worked a total of 2,564.19 hours in calendar year 2006."
It doesn't say how many days per year he worked, so I'll make a
guess(tm):
Hrs/day Working days per year
13 197
12 214
11 233
10 256
9 284
8 320
There are about 200 working days per year, or 260 non-weekend days.
If the 2564 hrs figure is true, Leon either was working 6 days per
week continuously, or working long hours on the traditional 200
working days plan, or his time card was "padded" with extra hours.
Either time schedule is guaranteed to create fatigue from overwork. In
2006, he was the model employee with exemplary performance. In 2007,
he was the employee from hell. Something changed him, and this might
be why.

2. I was wondering how the administration building could burn down,
when presumably the battery testing was done in another building. So
much for accurate news reporting. Apparently, it was all one
building:
<http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=5647597>
<http://azstarnet.com/news/local/multicell-battery-causes--alarm-fire/article_f82af55f-30d9-5998-8ba9-f9acf6bc87fa.html>
"A worker put out the fire, but there was another explosion.
That's when the worker got out."
So, if the first fire was out, what caused the 2nd explosion? Other
batteries? 10,000 sq ft for 50 employees is 200 sq-ft per employee.
That's about right if there's nothing stored on site:
<http://operationstech.about.com/od/startinganoffice/a/OffSpaceCalc.htm>
However, this was a manufacturing business, which presumably stored
parts and finished goods in the building. At a liberal 50% for
storage, that brings it down to 100 sq-ft per employee, which is
seriously cramped.

Anyone who has ever worked with explosive devices knows better than to
store potentially explosive materials in an assembly or test area.
Securaplane looks too well organized to make such a fundamental safety
mistake. However, the same company also doesn't seem to understand
the need for a system test, so perhaps all the due diligence sprinkled
throughout the report is a smoke screen? Dunno.

The building looks like mostly concrete block construction and steel
roof. So, what's burning to justify a 3 alarm fire? The
yellow-orange color comes from incandescence of unburnt carbon
particles, which covers too many possibilities.

Also, the fire started at about 9AM, presumably about an hour after
Leon arrived. Most industrial accidents occur later in the day, when
people are more tired and less careful.

3. The chronology of Leon's employment at Securaplane seems too well
documented. There are no holes, no lapses of memory, no
inconsistencies, and little in Leon's favor. Leon appears as evil
incarnate, but that's rarely the case with such employees. Even the
worst employee has their good points, which are suppose to be
documented in such investigations. It's just too neat and clean.

There are several other oddities that bother me, but as in the three
I've itemized, there's nothing substantial. Just oddities that make
me suspicious of the investigation report.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Phil Hobbs
2013-03-25 03:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:24:15 -0400, Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Investigators report and details on the burning of the building and
<http://cdn.nextgov.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/012213bb1a.pdf>
<http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66f459f8-4d6b-452b-961a-6b80dc4830a1>
That guy sounds like all the bad-attitude folks I've ever seen on the
job, and more besides, rolled into one with sprinkles on top.
Yep. However, there are some unanswered questions which bother me. I
1. On Pg 40, it says
"Leon worked a total of 2,564.19 hours in calendar year 2006."
It doesn't say how many days per year he worked, so I'll make a
Hrs/day Working days per year
13 197
12 214
11 233
10 256
9 284
8 320
There are about 200 working days per year, or 260 non-weekend days.
If the 2564 hrs figure is true, Leon either was working 6 days per
week continuously, or working long hours on the traditional 200
working days plan, or his time card was "padded" with extra hours.
Either time schedule is guaranteed to create fatigue from overwork. In
2006, he was the model employee with exemplary performance. In 2007,
he was the employee from hell. Something changed him, and this might
be why.
2. I was wondering how the administration building could burn down,
when presumably the battery testing was done in another building. So
much for accurate news reporting. Apparently, it was all one
<http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=5647597>
<http://azstarnet.com/news/local/multicell-battery-causes--alarm-fire/article_f82af55f-30d9-5998-8ba9-f9acf6bc87fa.html>
"A worker put out the fire, but there was another explosion.
That's when the worker got out."
So, if the first fire was out, what caused the 2nd explosion? Other
batteries? 10,000 sq ft for 50 employees is 200 sq-ft per employee.
<http://operationstech.about.com/od/startinganoffice/a/OffSpaceCalc.htm>
However, this was a manufacturing business, which presumably stored
parts and finished goods in the building. At a liberal 50% for
storage, that brings it down to 100 sq-ft per employee, which is
seriously cramped.
Anyone who has ever worked with explosive devices knows better than to
store potentially explosive materials in an assembly or test area.
Securaplane looks too well organized to make such a fundamental safety
mistake. However, the same company also doesn't seem to understand
the need for a system test, so perhaps all the due diligence sprinkled
throughout the report is a smoke screen? Dunno.
The building looks like mostly concrete block construction and steel
roof. So, what's burning to justify a 3 alarm fire? The
yellow-orange color comes from incandescence of unburnt carbon
particles, which covers too many possibilities.
Also, the fire started at about 9AM, presumably about an hour after
Leon arrived. Most industrial accidents occur later in the day, when
people are more tired and less careful.
3. The chronology of Leon's employment at Securaplane seems too well
documented. There are no holes, no lapses of memory, no
inconsistencies, and little in Leon's favor. Leon appears as evil
incarnate, but that's rarely the case with such employees. Even the
worst employee has their good points, which are suppose to be
documented in such investigations. It's just too neat and clean.
There are several other oddities that bother me, but as in the three
I've itemized, there's nothing substantial. Just oddities that make
me suspicious of the investigation report.
The fact that he represented himself more or less guarantees that his
case wasn't presented well. And being the guy who, rightly or wrongly,
got blamed for burning down the building isn't going to help the
atmosphere any either. But I don't think that working 50-hour weeks is
likely to have that marked an effect. I've done that some years, as
probably a lot of SED regulars have. And of course there's another
explanation: the guy was a technician, and so probably non-exempt. That
means he was making time and a half for all those extra hours, an income
increase of roughly 40% vs. a 2000-hour year.

The idea that they shipped a safety-critical system on which no
realistic testing was done is pretty damning, and the stated rationale
for the guy's objection is pretty well nonsense.

But it's hard to figure out what went on, due to the CYA behaviour of
both sides.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Jeff Liebermann
2013-03-25 05:02:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:54:23 -0400, Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
But it's hard to figure out what went on, due to the CYA behaviour of
both sides.
It's actually fairly easy to tell with online videos.
Start by watching this TED video:
"Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar"
<http://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar.html>

Then watch the various Boeing press conferences, video press releases
and webcasts. Never mind the one's delivered by a professional PR
person or spokesperson. The ones to watch are those delivered by the
Boeing managers who really know what's going on behind the curtain,
and are probably hiding something. Extra credit if you have voice
stress analysis software running.

An example is the recent Tokyo press conference
<http://787updates.newairplane.com/certification/webcast> (90 min)[1]
where several managers did a rather poor job of trying to convince the
press that there was no fire, and that it was just "venting batteries
producing smoke". Duz this look like venting smoke?
<Loading Image...>

I could mark the times where I think they're lying or covering up
something, but I don't want to get into a debate over such subtleties.
I don't have the time. Watch the video carefully and decide for
yourself if the speaker believes his own rhetoric.

More:
<http://www.boeing.com/787-media-resource/>
<http://www.youtube.com/user/Boeing/videos?query=787>
<http://787updates.newairplane.com/>

[1] I never made it through to the end of the webcast. If you watch
the audience mix, neither did some of those present.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
josephkk
2013-03-29 03:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
The building looks like mostly concrete block construction and steel
roof. So, what's burning to justify a 3 alarm fire? The
yellow-orange color comes from incandescence of unburnt carbon
particles, which covers too many possibilities.
Also, the fire started at about 9AM, presumably about an hour after
Leon arrived. Most industrial accidents occur later in the day, when
people are more tired and less careful.
3. The chronology of Leon's employment at Securaplane seems too well
documented. There are no holes, no lapses of memory, no
inconsistencies, and little in Leon's favor. Leon appears as evil
incarnate, but that's rarely the case with such employees. Even the
worst employee has their good points, which are suppose to be
documented in such investigations. It's just too neat and clean.
There are several other oddities that bother me, but as in the three
I've itemized, there's nothing substantial. Just oddities that make
me suspicious of the investigation report.
That is pretty much the way i read it as well.

Management often gets a "piece of the action" on some big contracts, like
this one. Severe self interest for there to be "no problem" with the
product.

?-)
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-25 16:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Hobbs
That guy sounds like all the bad-attitude folks I've ever seen on the
job, and more besides, rolled into one with sprinkles on top.
Oh sure....Securaplane was outright victimized by him. He may even be responsible for sabotaging the BCU, possibly on Airbus payroll, sexually deviant, may need to be investigated for advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government as well materially contributing to international terrorism, defrauding the company of overtime not actually worked, stealing company property, falisfying test data, falsifying government compliance records,...no end to all the stuff he did. He was positively manic in his non-stop fevered malfeasance of every conceivable kind and degree.
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-25 16:37:55 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, March 25, 2013 12:36:31 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:

Then there was the matter of the arson he committed, burning down the entire facility in a rage of self-serving narcissism.
Phil Hobbs
2013-03-25 17:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Phil Hobbs
That guy sounds like all the bad-attitude folks I've ever seen on the
job, and more besides, rolled into one with sprinkles on top.
Oh sure....Securaplane was outright victimized by him. He may even be responsible for sabotaging the BCU, possibly on Airbus payroll, sexually deviant, may need to be investigated for advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government as well materially contributing to international terrorism, defrauding the company of overtime not actually worked, stealing company property, falisfying test data, falsifying government compliance records,...no end to all the stuff he did. He was positively manic in his non-stop fevered malfeasance of every conceivable kind and degree.
Re-read what the judge said about the way he behaved in the hearing.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-26 04:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Hobbs
Re-read what the judge said about the way he behaved in the hearing.
Yeah, the idiot self-confirmed all the allegations leveled against him by Securaplane.
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-26 04:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
<http://cdn.nextgov.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/012213bb1a.pdf>
So after two years the DoL ALJ dismissed his AIR complaint on July 15, 2011. Leon had 10 days to appeal to DoL Review Board, which he did in rambling incoherent nonsense on July 25, 2011. In the meantime he brought suit against Securaplane in Pima County Arizona Superior Court Case No. C20091791 for Defamation/Invasion of Privacy/False Light, which was dismissed on motion for summary judgment by Securaplane ( dunno why, probably for lack of evidence). He appealed to Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two, 2 CA-CV 2011-0154, where it was dismissed March 29, 2012, for the simple reason that Mr. Leon failed to issue formal objection during the Superior Court hearing when the judge granted motion summary judgment, which is a pretty fundamental error,you can't base an appeal upon anything you didn't object to during trial, the hazards of pro se and the court's intolerance of people who don't know what they're doing. Leon will be dead by the time the DoL Board of Review gets through with his appeal.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
<http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66f459f8-4d6b-452b-961a-6b80dc4830a1>
However, I know nothing about how the battery assemblies were
subsequently tested.
All of these people are reporting the story with the worst incompetence imaginable. According to Securaplane lead electronics designer, Leon wasn't even supposed to be using the battery for the BCU testing when it exploded, he was supposed to be using an active load. He was NOT performing any kind of testing on the battery-period- he was there to acceptance test the BCU in a way that did not require a live battery. Then the jackass, by his own admission, left the BMS cabling disconnected during his so-called testing just prior to the explosion. So all this junk about Leon discovering dangerous battery technology is pure horse manure. You add up all the other stuff like failing to inform the lead engineer of discrepancies in control drawings (like he was supposed to), but making a big deal of it to immediate group supervisors ( so he could be the big hero indispensable employee), the complaints about having to use a suspected damaged battery going unheeded immediately followed by the fire incident ( for the I told you so revenge), the obvious affectation of remorse over not being able to extinguish the fire ( which I know he deliberately started but bit off more than he could chew ), compounded by his screwy behavior, lack of cooperation , and outright disruption of the root-cause analysis investigation and demonstration, and you have yourself the typical sociopathic American worker. I've seen worse than this actually. The only thing Securaplane did wrong was to be in total ignorance of this kind of psychopathy and not firing this worthless bum sooner. The group leaders, HR, and all else involved in catering to the pathetic riffraff need to go, and it looks like they have since they're no longer at Securaplane.
This whole story about Boeing being warned earlier about how dangerous the battery was is a creation of the press, most of whom are uneducated minimum-wage drama queen trash, who don't have a clue in hell what they're talking about.
Spehro Pefhany
2013-03-26 04:10:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:01:31 -0700 (PDT), the renowned
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Jeff Liebermann
<http://cdn.nextgov.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/012213bb1a.pdf>
So after two years the DoL ALJ dismissed his AIR complaint on July 15, 2011. Leon had 10 days to appeal to DoL Review Board, which he did in rambling incoherent nonsense on July 25, 2011. In the meantime he brought suit against Securaplane in Pima County Arizona Superior Court Case No. C20091791 for Defamation/Invasion of Privacy/False Light, which was dismissed on motion for summary judgment by Securaplane ( dunno why, probably for lack of evidence). He appealed to Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two, 2 CA-CV 2011-0154, where it was dismissed March 29, 2012, for the simple reason that Mr. Leon failed to issue formal objection during the Superior Court hearing when the judge granted motion summary judgment, which is a pretty fundamental error,you can't base an appeal upon anything you didn't object to during trial, the hazards of pro se and the court's intolerance of people who don't know what they're doing. Leon will be dead by the time the DoL Board of Review gets through with
his appeal.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
<http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66f459f8-4d6b-452b-961a-6b80dc4830a1>
However, I know nothing about how the battery assemblies were
subsequently tested.
All of these people are reporting the story with the worst incompetence imaginable. According to Securaplane lead electronics designer, Leon wasn't even supposed to be using the battery for the BCU testing when it exploded, he was supposed to be using an active load. He was NOT performing any kind of testing on the battery-period- he was there to acceptance test the BCU in a way that did not require a live battery. Then the jackass, by his own admission, left the BMS cabling disconnected during his so-called testing just prior to the explosion. So all this junk about Leon discovering dangerous battery technology is pure horse manure. You add up all the other stuff like failing to inform the lead engineer of discrepancies in control drawings (like he was supposed to), but making a big deal of it to immediate group supervisors ( so he could be the big hero indispensable employee), the complaints about having to use a suspected damaged battery going unheeded immediately followed by the
fire incident ( for the I told you so revenge), the obvious affectation of remorse over not being able to extinguish the fire ( which I know he deliberately started but bit off more than he could chew ), compounded by his screwy behavior, lack of cooperation , and outright disruption of the root-cause analysis investigation and demonstration, and you have yourself the typical sociopathic American worker. I've seen worse than this actually. The only thing Securaplane did wrong was to be in total ignorance of this kind of psychopathy and not firing this worthless bum sooner. The group leaders, HR, and all else involved in catering to the pathetic riffraff need to go, and it looks like they have since they're no longer at Securaplane.
This whole story about Boeing being warned earlier about how dangerous the battery was is a creation of the press, most of whom are uneducated minimum-wage drama queen trash, who don't have a clue in hell what they're talking about.
Oh, for *** sake.

Thanks for digging this stuff out.

--sp


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
***@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Jeff Liebermann
2013-03-26 04:29:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:01:31 -0700 (PDT),
***@gmail.com wrote:

(...)
Perhaps a photo might answer a few questions:
<Loading Image...>
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-26 04:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spehro Pefhany
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:01:31 -0700 (PDT),
(...)
<http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/nappi11/imgs/3/d/3db96073.jpg>
--
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Uh-huh, kind of out there in left field ...and not in a good way.
Spehro Pefhany
2013-03-26 04:35:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:29:21 -0700, the renowned Jeff Liebermann
Post by Spehro Pefhany
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:01:31 -0700 (PDT),
(...)
<http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/nappi11/imgs/3/d/3db96073.jpg>
He certainly looks like a nutbar.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
***@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Michael A. Terrell
2013-03-26 06:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spehro Pefhany
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:29:21 -0700, the renowned Jeff Liebermann
Post by Spehro Pefhany
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:01:31 -0700 (PDT),
(...)
<http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/nappi11/imgs/3/d/3db96073.jpg>
He certainly looks like a nutbar.
The irony! The photo name starts with 3db. Sounds like he's half a
load short. ;-)
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :(
Jan Panteltje
2013-03-26 10:58:02 UTC
Permalink
On a sunny day (Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:29:21 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
Post by Spehro Pefhany
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:01:31 -0700 (PDT),
(...)
<http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/nappi11/imgs/3/d/3db96073.jpg>
Seems like a good chap,
pity he ain't black, THEN 0bama would start a re-investigation,
press would jump on it, an new judge would be assigned,
and that company would be sued for racism.

He should use black paint?


Maybe he is homosexual? Would that help?

:-)
Michael A. Terrell
2013-03-26 23:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:29:21 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
Post by Spehro Pefhany
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:01:31 -0700 (PDT),
(...)
<http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/nappi11/imgs/3/d/3db96073.jpg>
Seems like a good chap,
pity he ain't black, THEN 0bama would start a re-investigation,
press would jump on it, an new judge would be assigned,
and that company would be sued for racism.
He should use black paint?
Maybe he is homosexual? Would that help?
Why would you care, or even bring it up? Are you looking for a
playmate?
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :(
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2013-03-24 16:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and
proposed fixes.
What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that
there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with
the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested
independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested
together.
Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one
self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of
smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of
black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time.
Joe Gwinn
<http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_18_2013_
p28-559071.xml>
Your is the best response in the entire thread.

Design a battery, and give it a set of specs that it "meets or beats".
Except with batteries, they usually do not have a very wide window past
"meets".

So, then one buys or designs a battery charging and maintenance system
that meets the full rate charging requisite specs for the battery on
grounded craft. Then you lock that rate out when flying and program an
in-flight maximum sustaining charge rate.

OR, you design a charger that is for in flight only and it NEVER can be
made to charge at a greater than an optimal while-in-use rate, and make
the full rate charger a ground only piece of gear.



But hell... NEVER test the two as bought, as built devices together!

Never put *THAT* system through deep cycling or high current draw use,
much less failure mode tests! NO... DO NOT DO THAT!!!
Greegor
2013-03-25 07:02:29 UTC
Permalink
I found it particularly interesting that Securaplane and
the Labor Department blew off Leon, but to a huge
extent, history has vindicated his claim that the
charging systems were unsafe on aircraft.

I see Leon's complaint to the FAA as similar
to Markopolos complaint to the SEC about Madoff in 2005.

In both cases the regulators blew off the complaints
with monumentally tragic historical results.

Considering the numerous near tragedies I think
the Labor Department and Securaplane owe Leon
a giant public apology and probably more.

As for being a pain in the ass, I applaud Leon.

People SHOULD be a pain in the ass when
they object to producing a product that can
directly cause harm to a large number of people.

He was a prick about how the schematics
didn't match. He was absolutely right to be.

He saw his work turn into a huge fireball on the
ground. I bet he had nightmares about the
next fireballs being in the air and killing hundreds.

I'd be amazed if he hasn't been suffering from
daily PTSD like nightmares since 2007, seeing
hundreds of people die in a fireball.
Greegor
2013-03-26 17:50:07 UTC
Permalink
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100406310

Whistleblower Says Dreamliner Batteries Could ‘Explode’
Thursday, 24 Jan 2013 | 7:31 PM ET By: Philip LeBeau
CNBC Auto and Airline Industry Reporter

Michael Leon is adamant about his fear about the use of lithium-ion
batteries on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

"These lithium-ion batteries are heat intolerant. Too much heat on
those things, they will go into a thermal runaway, they will explode,
it will be a nightmare," he said.

Article Continues Below
Play VideoSecuraplane Whistleblower on 787 Batteries
CNBC's Phil LeBeau reports on the serious safety concerns for 787
Dreamliner, and shares what former Securaplane employee Michael Leon
had to say about DETAILLeon is a former employee of Securaplane
Technologies in Tucson, Arizona. He was fired in 2007 for repeated
misconduct. He says it was in retaliation for voicing concerns about
the batteries but when he took Securaplane to court, he lost. A
federal administrative court judge ruled in favor of Securaplane.

Today, Securaplane manufactures the charging system for lithium-ion
batteries used on 787 Dreamliners. Its plant in Tucson is one of the
locations visited by investigators from the National Transportation
Safety Board as they try to determine what went wrong with two
Dreamliners earlier this month.

"There is a lot more work to be done before we can determine a cause,"
said Debbie Hersman, Chairman of the NTSB.

(Read More: Still No Timetable for Returning Boeing 787 to Flight)

This Battery 'Just Decided to Explode'

Michael Leon was a senior engineering technician at Securaplane in
2006 conducting tests for the charging units that work with the
lithium-ion batteries in the Dreamliner. Leon said what happened one
day is a scene he will never forget.

"My BCU wasn't running and this lithium-ion battery just decided to
explode," said Leon. "The magnitude of energy that came out of this
battery, I cannot quantify it. I ran out of there and armed myself
with 30 pounds of Halon and I ran back into the inferno. By then all
the walls were on fire."

The fire at Securaplane in 2006 was well documented at the time.
Boeing said it was the result of a test set up improperly, and it was
not a case where a lithium-ion battery simply exploded for no reason.

Securaplane said its charging unit has been successfully tested in the
Dreamliner. It disputes Leon's allegations.

"There was a fire in the facility in 2006 during one test of a
prototype of the battery-charging unit. However, the current Boeing
787 investigation is unrelated to the 2006 fire," said Fiona Greig,
spokeswoman for Securaplane. "There is no connection between the
Dreamliner battery issue and the dismissal of Michael Leon from
Meggitt's US-based subsidiary, Securaplane."

PHOTO
Saul Loeb | AFP | Getty Images
The damaged battery case from a fire aboard a Japan Airlines (JAL)
Boeing 787 Dreamliner airplane at Logan International Airport in
Boston is displayed inside an investigation lab at National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Headquarters in Washington, DC.Ever
since the FAA grounded Boeing's Dreamliner, there have been renewed
questions about the safety of using lithium-ion batteries to provide
power on the 787. The primary concern is the potential flammability of
the batteries.

(Read More: Japan to Investigate Boeing 787 Battery Maker)

Leon fears the worst for the Dreamliner if questions surrounding the
787's lithium-ion batteries are not resolved. "What concerns me is if
this happens on the aircraft and they are flying over the ocean or
something, everybody is going to die," he said.

Still Searching for a Cause

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., Hersman said the NTSB is still trying
to determine the exact cause for two Dreamliner batteries catching on
fire. One incident happened after a Japan Airlines 787 landed in
Boston Jan. 7. The other happened during an All Nippon Airways flight
in Japan on Jan. 16. In both cases, nobody was hurt.

"We know that the lithium-ion battery experienced a thermal runaway,
we know that there were short circuits and we know there was a fire,"
Hersman said. What the NTSB does not know at this point is what
exactly prompted the battery malfunctions.

(Read More: 787 Design Flaw Could Be Serious Trouble for Boeing:
Aviation Expert)

In briefing reporters, Hersman declined to say if she would feel
comfortable clearing the Dreamliner to fly again. That decision will
ultimately be made by the Federal Aviation Administration. While
Hersman was careful not to call the Dreamliner unsafe, she made it
clear the significance of battery problems on two Dreamliners cannot
be overstated.

"This is an unprecedented event. We are very concerned," she said. "We
do not expect to see fire events onboard aircraft. This is a very
serious air safety concern and the FAA has taken very serious
action."

People Will Flock to This Plane

One week after the FAA grounded the fleet of 50 Dreamliners currently
in service, the eight airlines flying those planes remain supportive
of Boeing and the eventual return of the 787. That includes United
Airlines, the only U.S. carrier to fly the plane.

(Read More: Airlines Stick With Boeing 787, Despite Problems)

After reporting fourth-quarter earnings Wednesday morning, United
Airlines CEO Jeff Smisek held a conference call with reporters. When
asked if he's worried about customers avoiding flights on the
Dreamliner when the grounding is ultimately lifted, Smisek said no.

"The aircraft is a terrific aircraft and customers love the airplane,"
Smisek said. "I have no doubt that customers will flock back to that
airplane as soon as we get it back up again."

Investors also believe Boeing will eventually get past the Dreamliner
grounding. One week after the FAA banned flights of the 787, shares of
Boeing have gone up — a sign Wall Street and investors believe the
Dreamliner will not ground Boeing's profitability.


Many more related links on that web page.

Still No Word When Dreamliner Will Return to Flight
Japan to Investigate Boeing 787 Battery Maker
Hang on to Boeing Stock: Pros
Airlines Stick With Boeing 787, Despite Problems
Boeing Could Be in 'Deep Flavored Yogurt:' Expert
Boeing Triggers Over 450 Flight Cancellations for ANA
Follow Phil LeBeau on Twitter
Securaplane Whistleblower on 787 Batteries


Apparently the historical outcome has put
some wind in Michael Leon's legal sails! LOL

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/4:2013cv00111/760630/

Leon v. Meggitt PLC et al
More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on googlebuzzShare on
emailPlaintiff: Michael A Leon
Defendants: Meggitt PLC, Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials
Company (California) LLC, Boeing, Fiona Grieg, Securaplane
Technologies Incorporated and Unknown Parties

Case Number: 4:2013cv00111
Filed: February 25, 2013

Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: Cindy K Jorgenson

Nature of Suit: Other - Other Statutes: False Claims Act
Cause: 31:3729 False Claims Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff


Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case
on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court
Filings (ECF) System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-26 21:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greegor
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/4:2013cv00111/760630/
Leon v. Meggitt PLC et al
More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on googlebuzzShare on
emailPlaintiff: Michael A Leon
Defendants: Meggitt PLC, Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials
Company (California) LLC, Boeing, Fiona Grieg, Securaplane
Technologies Incorporated and Unknown Parties
Case Number: 4:2013cv00111
Filed: February 25, 2013
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: Cindy K Jorgenson
Nature of Suit: Other - Other Statutes: False Claims Act
Cause: 31:3729 False Claims Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
This instantiates the kind of thing the English common law wanted to avoid by prohibiting laypeople from "reading" the law. The False Claims Act is about defrauding the U.S. Government of something it bought and paid for, it has nothing to do with misrepresenting test results ( which the jackass can't prove or comprehend). So unless the government somehow paid for development testing of the 787, the idiot is misunderstanding "false claims" too literally. Looks like the many decades of smoking peyote and weed have finally culminated in the idiot becoming a complete medically certifiable imbecile.
Jim Thompson
2013-03-26 21:32:19 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:10:52 -0700 (PDT),
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Greegor
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/4:2013cv00111/760630/
Leon v. Meggitt PLC et al
More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on googlebuzzShare on
emailPlaintiff: Michael A Leon
Defendants: Meggitt PLC, Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials
Company (California) LLC, Boeing, Fiona Grieg, Securaplane
Technologies Incorporated and Unknown Parties
Case Number: 4:2013cv00111
Filed: February 25, 2013
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: Cindy K Jorgenson
Nature of Suit: Other - Other Statutes: False Claims Act
Cause: 31:3729 False Claims Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
This instantiates the kind of thing the English common law wanted to avoid by prohibiting laypeople from "reading" the law. The False Claims Act is about defrauding the U.S. Government of something it bought and paid for, it has nothing to do with misrepresenting test results ( which the jackass can't prove or comprehend). So unless the government somehow paid for development testing of the 787, the idiot is misunderstanding "false claims" too literally. Looks like the many decades of smoking peyote and weed have finally culminated in the idiot becoming a complete medically certifiable imbecile.
Another Ian Field or krw ?>:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-27 02:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Thompson
Another Ian Field or krw ?>:-}
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
The Mental Deficiency Act of 1913 (U.K.)

The bill was passed in 1913 with only three MPs voting against it. It established the Board of Control for Lunacy and Mental Deficiency to oversee the implementation of provisions for the care and management of four classes of people,

a) Idiots. Those so deeply defective as to be unable to guard themselves against common physical dangers.

b) Imbeciles. Whose defectiveness does not amount to idiocy, but is so pronounced that they are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, or, in the case of children, of being taught to do so.

c) Feeble-minded persons. Whose weakness does not amount to imbecility, yet who require care, supervision, or control, for their protection or for the protection of others, or, in the case of children, are incapable of receiving benefit from the instruction in ordinary schools.

d) Moral Imbeciles. Displaying mental weakness coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities, and on whom punishment has little or no deterrent effect.

I'd say the moral imbeciles have taken over the world.
Greegor
2013-03-27 04:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Even after Leon was out of the picture, how
could Securaplane have that kind of huge
fireball of plant destruction and not insist
on rigorous torture testing with several of
the real Li-Ion batteries?

They had FIVE YEARS after they got rid
of Leon, to investigate and redesign, yet
history shows that Securaplane failed.

The legal phrase
"knew or should have known"
comes to mind.

Somebody posted a link to a failure
analysis report on Li-Ion batteries in
here a month or so back.

It detailed several of the reasons that
Li-Ion batteries fail spontaneously and
spectacularly, whether brand new or
after some amount of physical shock.

It's worse for bigger batteries, either
bigger cells or larger number of cells.

Huge Li-Ion batteries are a disaster
waiting to happen, a confluence of
statistical probabilities compounded.

Anybody reading that report would
have to be amazed that somebody
would design Huge Li-Ion batteries
into any aviation application.

Judging from that same failure analysis
report it appears that even a charging
system that does cell-by-cell monitoring
can't help when any one cell reaches
the point of thermal runaway.

Batteries connected to absolutely nothing
have a history of single cells having thermal
runaway melt downs and igniting the
rest of the pack.

If you tried to design a bomb proof
battery compartment to contain these
things, it would be heavier than if they
had used more conventional batteries
in the first place.

Maybe the battery compartment should
be an "outrigger" or nacelle out on a spar
so that when it burns it can look like they're
roasting a really big weenie on a stick?

Ironically, the very first "Lithium" battery
I ever heard of was used in a self contained
emergency locator used in a Beechcraft
Bonanza ( V tail ) about 1976.
( walkie talkie form factor kept in pocket behind seat ).

Would that have been Li-Ion or some other
"Lithium" battery chemistry back then?
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-27 06:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greegor
If you tried to design a bomb proof
battery compartment to contain these
things, it would be heavier than if they
had used more conventional batteries
in the first place.
That's just a bunch of hysteria. Boeing is adapting a containment enclosure Eagle-Picher developed to enable Cessna to get their business jets sporting a LiFePO4 back into the air with FAA approval. They have a demo video of a 30AH battery explosion and it is a non-event with their container.
Greegor
2013-03-31 06:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
That's just a bunch of hysteria.
Not when it comes to Lithium-Ion.
Have you seen footage of Li-Ion
or Lipo fires? Even the tiny little ones
used by RC model fans make some
pretty amazing fires!
Post by b***@gmail.com
Boeing is
adapting a containment enclosure
Eagle-Picher developed to enable Cessna
to get their business jets sporting a
LiFePO4 back into the air with FAA
approval. They have a demo video of a
30AH battery explosion and it is a
non-event with their container.
Are you changing goalposts here or is Boeing?

How much heavier per Amp-Hour is the
less volatile LiFePO4 chemistry?

"EaglePicher Technologies, of Joplin, Missouri, passed tests modeled
on DO-311, but used a less volatile chemistry than Boeing, known as
lithium-iron phosphate.

"To successfully pass the containment (test), we needed iron
phosphate," Ron Nowlin, general manager of aerospace systems for
EaglePicher, said in an interview earlier this year."
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-31 15:21:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, March 31, 2013 2:12:32 AM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:

Don't worry yourself to death over it, and let Boeing take care of it. I'm sure whatever they come up with will be tested to the extreme....
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-27 06:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greegor
I found it particularly interesting that Securaplane and
the Labor Department blew off Leon, but to a huge
extent, history has vindicated his claim that the
charging systems were unsafe on aircraft.
Really? Show us where any investigation has found anything at all wrong the charging system.
Greegor
2013-03-31 06:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Greegor
I found it particularly interesting that Securaplane and
the Labor Department blew off Leon, but to a huge
extent, history has vindicated his claim that the
charging systems were unsafe on aircraft.
Really? Show us where any investigation
has found anything at all wrong the
charging system.
Leon pointed out a SNAFU with the
BCU schematics.

Securaplane acknowledged the SNAFU
with the schematics.

A schematic SNAFU up would halt a
military aviation contract wouldn't it?

Isn't that enough to be a fail in aviation
electronics going on a 300 to 400 seat airliner?
b***@gmail.com
2013-03-31 15:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greegor
Leon pointed out a SNAFU with the
BCU schematics.
Securaplane acknowledged the SNAFU
with the schematics.
A schematic SNAFU up would halt a
military aviation contract wouldn't it?
Isn't that enough to be a fail in aviation
electronics going on a 300 to 400 seat airliner?
That's something else about that freak. He is the first and one and only person to find the crazy "error" , a dead short, on the schematic, that somehow and mysteriously was absent from board and assembly drawings. How much plainer does it have to be before anyone realizes the freak was responsible for it!
Greegor
2013-04-01 04:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Don't worry yourself to death over it,
and let Boeing take care of it. I'm sure
whatever they come up with will be
tested to the extreme....
Yeah, Boeing would never rush it to delivery
to Japan Airlines unless it was working
perfectly! (sarcasm)

G > Leon pointed out a SNAFU with the
G > BCU schematics.
G > Securaplane acknowledged the SNAFU
G > with the schematics.
G > A schematic SNAFU up would halt a
G > military aviation contract wouldn't it?
G > Isn't that enough to be a fail in aviation
G > electronics going on a 300 to 400 seat airliner?
Post by b***@gmail.com
That's something else about that freak.
He is the first and one and only person
to find the crazy "error" , a dead short,
on the schematic, that somehow and
mysteriously was absent from board
and assembly drawings.
Later revisions, after he was gone, sure!
But they admitted that the revisions he
was talking about had the short.
Post by b***@gmail.com
How much plainer does it have to be
before anyone realizes the freak was
responsible for it!
You've got to be really obsessed with
hating Leon to use such pretzel logic
to badmouth him.

Have you looked at any of the Youtube
videos of Lipo fires?

Even the little RC ones go up like magnesium flares!

One of the fixes proposed isolating
individual cells, but that idea seems
to backfire in that once a thermal
runaway begins in even one cell, the
exothermic reaction, light and heat
resemble a magnesium flare so
containment is close to impossible.

Long story short, somebody at Boeing
truly and royally screwed up big time by
specifying Lithium-Ion battery chemistry.

They should have known better back
in 2005 when they specified it.

They should have reconsidered after
the big fire in 2007.

But it actually made it onto runways!

Was that you, Fred Bloggs?

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...