Investigators: Short circuit in Dreamliner's lithium ion battery led to fire

(CBS News) WASHINGTON, D.C. - Late Thursday, the FAA gave Boeing the go-ahead to conduct limited test flights of the grounded 787 Dreamliner. On that same day, a Boeing flew an empty 787 from Texas back to its factory in Washington state. The planes were grounded three weeks ago after batteries overheated twice; one of the batteries caught fire.

Federal investigators revealed the fire aboard the Dreamliner in Boston last month began with a short circuit in one of the lithium ion battery's eight cells. That caused a dangerous condition known as "thermal runaway," where a short spreads to other cells in an uncontrolled chemical chain reaction. The fire topped 500 degrees Fahrenheit.

It's something Boeing's development studies didn't predict.

Deborah Hersman, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said Boeing was also incorrect in estimating a Dreamliner battery would heat up and smoke less than once in 10 million flight hours.

Boeing flying 787 Dreamliner from Texas to Wash.
787 Dreamliner battery approval should be reconsidered, NTSB chief says
Dreamliner's batteries not certified under current federal guidelines: Should they be?

"We have seen two events on two aircraft less than two weeks apart," she said.

Hersman said that's good reason to question the entire process the FAA used to certify the Dreamliner's battery system as safe and airworthy.

When the Dreamliner was developed, federal guidelines for its planned use of lithium ion batteries didn't exist. So the FAA issued what's called "special conditions," and relied largely on Boeing's own studies to approve the plane.

Eventually, guidelines for the batteries were created in 2008. They require specific technical tests to prove the battery's safety casing would contain any fire and prevent a possible explosion.

But the Dreamliner was grandfathered in and didn't have to meet them.

Former National Transportation Safety Board member John Goglia said that may change. On whether Boeing have to go back in light of the questions and meet the standard that's in effect, he said: "Now that they're in a certification review, the FAA may very well hold them to the highest standard," he said

Boeing late Thursday said it "will not hesitate to make changes that lead to improved testing products and processes." As far as the investigation, investigators said they are now focused on the battery charger, battery design and construction, and also possible manufacturing defects.

[2Panache2]

So who at BOEING is in charge of doing "what ifs"? Totally, absolutely unacceptable that such an obvious possible such situation with clearly dire consequences was not tested for (or perhaps more likely not documented in any way). I'll fly the older planes for a while.

[ammo17]

too much heat melts the insulation and you get a short circuit.did ray lahood get a job with boeing?or is that a rumor?

[Uneed2BWeened]

Johnny 5 is alive.

[smithejm]

As a former EE working on system development, one would expect that Boeing's comprehensive testing of the battery would have included off normal testing that would reveal the likelihood of the runaway thermal conditions such as those that were experienced in the aborted flight problems. One would expect that Boeing would not risk its reputation and treasure unless the issue was carefully scrutinized and that they were sure that there would not be such a problem. One could see where an extremely low probability event might slip by testing, but a problem which has manifested itself so significantly and frequently is shocking.

[jumkey]

One would expect nothing of the sort.

One would expect exactly what occurred, namely that Boeing overstated the advantages of Li-Ion batteries when balanced against the risk to passenger safety.

When it became apparent that the new batteries were significantly more problematic than the older type the FAA created regulations to address this but then grandfathered in the already in-production faulty engineering, wholly for political and economic reasons (the design didn't suddenly become safe when it was grandfathered in).

This is a perfect example of why the "run-government-like-a-business" model Americans love is so flawed and dangerous. Boeing will short-sightedly compromise passenger safety as they are incapable of doing any analysis except cost vs. human life, and internally there will *always* be pressures to err of the side of profit - it is the nature of business. The regulators who are supposed to mitigate this instinct have been compromised by close political ties to the businesses they regulate, and so they are not able to function effectively and then look the other way and allow corners to be cut to maintain corporate profits.

This is a recipe for disaster, and hopefully one has been averted, but another one is on it's way if we don't change our incestuous, ineffective and dangerous regulatory model.

[Swingmanic]

Boeing says it "will not hesitate to make changes that lead to improved testing of products and processes."..Hmmmmm!..it strikes me that it's a bit late for that!!..What about the numerous batteries that have been replaced that didn't catch fire?..What's the excuse there?..Maybe they should stick pins in dozens of lemons for a power source, that at least would go with the flow of the one they've created!!!

[ohboy231]

Most computer software receives more rigorous and long-term testing than Boeing did on thee batteries, and in most cases no one dies if software fails.

[We_The_Sheeple]

Grandfather clauses are very scary. I hope safety rules are not being excempted by too many grandfather rules, I'd rather ride the Greyhound cross country than fly one of these.

[jmrtsus]

Still have to find the cause of the failure before they can fix it. This will take a long time and hurt Boeing badly in future sales.

[podboq]

"But the Dreamliner was grandfathered in and didn't have to meet them..... 'Now that they're in a certification review, the FAA may very well hold them to the highest standard.'"

Indeed they should, primarily for peoples' safety, but also so Boeing can compete with Airbus... Boeing is a huge company that provides 10s of 1000s of jobs across the nation and around the world. Confidence in a safe product is key.