This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/business/global/boeing-787-battery-was-not-overcharged-japanese-investigators-say.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Boeing’s Battery Problems Cast Doubt on Appraisal of New Technologies Boeing’s Battery Problems Cast Doubt on Appraisal of New Technologies
(about 20 hours later)
In December 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration allowed Airbus, the European plane maker, to use 14-ounce lithium-ion batteries to provide standby power for the emergency lighting system of its new A380 jumbo jet.In December 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration allowed Airbus, the European plane maker, to use 14-ounce lithium-ion batteries to provide standby power for the emergency lighting system of its new A380 jumbo jet.
Ten months later, the agency allowed Boeing to use the same volatile type of battery on its new 787 plane. But in Boeing’s case, the batteries weighed 63 pounds each, were to be used in critical flight systems as well as to provide backup power, and would be charged and discharged much more often. Yet the agency’s ruling used identical language — it could have been just cut and pasted — in laying out the broad safeguards for using the batteries that it had given Airbus to follow.Ten months later, the agency allowed Boeing to use the same volatile type of battery on its new 787 plane. But in Boeing’s case, the batteries weighed 63 pounds each, were to be used in critical flight systems as well as to provide backup power, and would be charged and discharged much more often. Yet the agency’s ruling used identical language — it could have been just cut and pasted — in laying out the broad safeguards for using the batteries that it had given Airbus to follow.
The use of lithium batteries in the 787 is at the center of the difficulties involving Boeing. The plane maker has staked its reputation on the success of the 787, an aircraft it nicknamed the Dreamliner. All 50 787s delivered to airlines worldwide were grounded last week until investigators in the United States and Japan find out why two lithium batteries failed in recent weeks, causing a fire on one 787 and damage to another that led to an emergency landing.The use of lithium batteries in the 787 is at the center of the difficulties involving Boeing. The plane maker has staked its reputation on the success of the 787, an aircraft it nicknamed the Dreamliner. All 50 787s delivered to airlines worldwide were grounded last week until investigators in the United States and Japan find out why two lithium batteries failed in recent weeks, causing a fire on one 787 and damage to another that led to an emergency landing.
It also raises fundamental questions about how federal regulators certify new technology and how they balance advances in airplane design and engineering with ensuring safety in commercial flying. In addition to finding out what went wrong, these issues will be examined in a federal investigation and at future Senate hearings.It also raises fundamental questions about how federal regulators certify new technology and how they balance advances in airplane design and engineering with ensuring safety in commercial flying. In addition to finding out what went wrong, these issues will be examined in a federal investigation and at future Senate hearings.
When it approved Boeing’s request in 2007, the F.A.A. said it had limited experience with the use of lithium-ion batteries in commercial airplanes, though it acknowledged that the batteries themselves were more prone to fire than traditional nickel-cadmium or lead-acid batteries.When it approved Boeing’s request in 2007, the F.A.A. said it had limited experience with the use of lithium-ion batteries in commercial airplanes, though it acknowledged that the batteries themselves were more prone to fire than traditional nickel-cadmium or lead-acid batteries.
Still, the agency approved the technology on the assumption that Boeing could make the batteries work and that computer controls could prevent batteries from overcharging or overheating. The agency also specified that any fire or toxic leak be contained and not damage any surrounding electrical systems.Still, the agency approved the technology on the assumption that Boeing could make the batteries work and that computer controls could prevent batteries from overcharging or overheating. The agency also specified that any fire or toxic leak be contained and not damage any surrounding electrical systems.
At the same time, the agency brushed off concerns raised in 2006 and 2007 by the Air Line Pilots Association that a fire in flight would be difficult to extinguish and that flight crews should be given extra training.At the same time, the agency brushed off concerns raised in 2006 and 2007 by the Air Line Pilots Association that a fire in flight would be difficult to extinguish and that flight crews should be given extra training.
“We have concluded that providing a means for controlling or extinguishing a fire — such as stopping the flow of fluids, shutting down equipment, or fireproof equipment” was an “adequate alternative to requiring the flight or cabin crew to use extinguishing agents,” the agency said in its 2006 decision about the Airbus A380.“We have concluded that providing a means for controlling or extinguishing a fire — such as stopping the flow of fluids, shutting down equipment, or fireproof equipment” was an “adequate alternative to requiring the flight or cabin crew to use extinguishing agents,” the agency said in its 2006 decision about the Airbus A380.
Experts said that regardless of the cause of the 787’s problems, the charred remains of the battery that caught fire earlier this month in a plane in Boston raised the question of whether the safeguards functioned properly.Experts said that regardless of the cause of the 787’s problems, the charred remains of the battery that caught fire earlier this month in a plane in Boston raised the question of whether the safeguards functioned properly.
On Wednesday, the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the battery fire in Boston, said that all eight cells in the battery had sustained “varying degrees of thermal damage.” Six of them have been scanned and disassembled for further examination.On Wednesday, the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the battery fire in Boston, said that all eight cells in the battery had sustained “varying degrees of thermal damage.” Six of them have been scanned and disassembled for further examination.
Many battery experts said they viewed Boeing’s decision to use lithium-ion batteries as a reasonable one and pointed out that lithium-ion batteries had also been used in expensive space satellites since around 2000 without serious problems. They said that track record would have added to the confidence Boeing and federal regulators had about using them in commercial airliners.Many battery experts said they viewed Boeing’s decision to use lithium-ion batteries as a reasonable one and pointed out that lithium-ion batteries had also been used in expensive space satellites since around 2000 without serious problems. They said that track record would have added to the confidence Boeing and federal regulators had about using them in commercial airliners.
Jay F. Whitacre, an associate professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, said GS Yuasa, the Japanese company that built the 787 batteries, told the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in a 2008 presentation that it had already supplied batteries for six satellites and had contracts for 50 more. GS Yuasa also said that its satellite batteries had never had a shorting incident in more than 10 years of production.Jay F. Whitacre, an associate professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, said GS Yuasa, the Japanese company that built the 787 batteries, told the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in a 2008 presentation that it had already supplied batteries for six satellites and had contracts for 50 more. GS Yuasa also said that its satellite batteries had never had a shorting incident in more than 10 years of production.
“That’s pretty compelling,” Professor Whitacre said. “If I had all that data and saw that they were making batteries for 50 more satellites, I’d say that was a reasonable risk to take. My sense is that Boeing did a fairly decent job of picking the right company.”“That’s pretty compelling,” Professor Whitacre said. “If I had all that data and saw that they were making batteries for 50 more satellites, I’d say that was a reasonable risk to take. My sense is that Boeing did a fairly decent job of picking the right company.”
But another battery expert, Donald Sadoway, a materials chemistry professor at M.I.T., disagreed. He said that sticking with an older type of battery instead of the lighter lithium battery would not have made a huge difference to the 787, adding about 40 pounds, or the equivalent of an extra suitcase per battery.But another battery expert, Donald Sadoway, a materials chemistry professor at M.I.T., disagreed. He said that sticking with an older type of battery instead of the lighter lithium battery would not have made a huge difference to the 787, adding about 40 pounds, or the equivalent of an extra suitcase per battery.
“So you will risk the plane for something that’s tantamount to one guy’s suitcase?” Mr. Sadoway said. “Who’s making the calculation here? It’s absurd. It doesn’t add up.”“So you will risk the plane for something that’s tantamount to one guy’s suitcase?” Mr. Sadoway said. “Who’s making the calculation here? It’s absurd. It doesn’t add up.”
With plane makers pushing the envelope on new technology, safety experts have questioned whether federal regulators had the expertise or the manpower to properly oversee those developments.With plane makers pushing the envelope on new technology, safety experts have questioned whether federal regulators had the expertise or the manpower to properly oversee those developments.
Michael P. Huerta, the F.A.A.’s administrator, on Wednesday defended his agency’s handling of the process as well as its expertise to assess new technology in airplanes. The agency, he said, also has the ability to call in outside experts, if needed. He added that federal regulators would not lift the 787’s grounding order until they had fully reviewed its critical systems and understood why the batteries had failed.Michael P. Huerta, the F.A.A.’s administrator, on Wednesday defended his agency’s handling of the process as well as its expertise to assess new technology in airplanes. The agency, he said, also has the ability to call in outside experts, if needed. He added that federal regulators would not lift the 787’s grounding order until they had fully reviewed its critical systems and understood why the batteries had failed.
“Aviation from its very beginning has stretched technological boundaries,” Mr. Huerta told reporters. “For more than five decades, the F.A.A. has compiled a proven track record of safely introducing new technology and new aircraft.”“Aviation from its very beginning has stretched technological boundaries,” Mr. Huerta told reporters. “For more than five decades, the F.A.A. has compiled a proven track record of safely introducing new technology and new aircraft.”
He added, “We have the ability to establish rigorous safety standards and to make sure that aircraft meet them.”He added, “We have the ability to establish rigorous safety standards and to make sure that aircraft meet them.”
Lithium-ion batteries have many advantages over traditional batteries. They are lighter, can be recharged faster and more often, and provide substantially more power than other batteries of the same size.Lithium-ion batteries have many advantages over traditional batteries. They are lighter, can be recharged faster and more often, and provide substantially more power than other batteries of the same size.
For that reason, lithium-ion cells have become the norm in rechargeable consumer electronics. But in 2006, manufacturing defects in some batteries that caused them to catch fire led computer makers to recall nearly 10 million laptopsFor that reason, lithium-ion cells have become the norm in rechargeable consumer electronics. But in 2006, manufacturing defects in some batteries that caused them to catch fire led computer makers to recall nearly 10 million laptops
Safety regulators, however, were more worried about the instances when the batteries caught fire in the cargo hold of an aircraft, or while being carried by passengers. Federal authorities in 2004 prohibited nonrechargeable lithium-ion batteries from being transported aboard passenger planes as cargo. That ruling was reinforced in August 2007, just two months before the Boeing request was approved.Safety regulators, however, were more worried about the instances when the batteries caught fire in the cargo hold of an aircraft, or while being carried by passengers. Federal authorities in 2004 prohibited nonrechargeable lithium-ion batteries from being transported aboard passenger planes as cargo. That ruling was reinforced in August 2007, just two months before the Boeing request was approved.
There were 132 safety problems involving batteries carried by passengers or in cargo holds from March 1991 to October 2012, according to the F.A.A.There were 132 safety problems involving batteries carried by passengers or in cargo holds from March 1991 to October 2012, according to the F.A.A.
Professor Whitacre of Carnegie Mellon said that even though laptop battery packs were banned as loose cargo, that did not mean that lithium-ion batteries could not be used safely when integrated into the plane’s electrical system with computerized controls and other measures.Professor Whitacre of Carnegie Mellon said that even though laptop battery packs were banned as loose cargo, that did not mean that lithium-ion batteries could not be used safely when integrated into the plane’s electrical system with computerized controls and other measures.
F.A.A. officials said they oversaw Boeing’s laboratory tests of the new batteries. Boeing has said that its military business had begun a program to select lithium-ion batteries for its satellites in 2003 and that its engineers felt they understood the potential hazards.F.A.A. officials said they oversaw Boeing’s laboratory tests of the new batteries. Boeing has said that its military business had begun a program to select lithium-ion batteries for its satellites in 2003 and that its engineers felt they understood the potential hazards.
Mike Sinnett, Boeing’s top engineer on the 787 program, said recently that the company had built a system with multiple layers of protection that it thought would keep the batteries from overheating and contain any problem.Mike Sinnett, Boeing’s top engineer on the 787 program, said recently that the company had built a system with multiple layers of protection that it thought would keep the batteries from overheating and contain any problem.
The computerized controls are supposed to shut down the battery if it develops a problem, and the battery is supposed to keep a short in any one of its eight cells from spreading to the others. If any fumes or flames escape, Boeing said, the pressurized air system will help keep smoke out of the cabin and vent it outside.The computerized controls are supposed to shut down the battery if it develops a problem, and the battery is supposed to keep a short in any one of its eight cells from spreading to the others. If any fumes or flames escape, Boeing said, the pressurized air system will help keep smoke out of the cabin and vent it outside.
But neither the F.A.A. nor Boeing made any changes with the 787 when Cessna replaced the lithium-ion batteries on its CJ4 business jet with nickel-cadmium ones after a battery fire in October 2011, three weeks before the first 787 made its inaugural airline flight.But neither the F.A.A. nor Boeing made any changes with the 787 when Cessna replaced the lithium-ion batteries on its CJ4 business jet with nickel-cadmium ones after a battery fire in October 2011, three weeks before the first 787 made its inaugural airline flight.
“It is reasonable to understand their risk and put in engineering design to make up for these risks,” said Jeffrey P. Chamberlain, a battery expert at the Argonne National Laboratory. “I will remind you that the wings are full of jet fuel. And the same thing for the car you drive all day. In general, when you adopt a new technology, is it good to account for risk. The reverse would be terrifying.”“It is reasonable to understand their risk and put in engineering design to make up for these risks,” said Jeffrey P. Chamberlain, a battery expert at the Argonne National Laboratory. “I will remind you that the wings are full of jet fuel. And the same thing for the car you drive all day. In general, when you adopt a new technology, is it good to account for risk. The reverse would be terrifying.”

Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting from Washington.

Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting from Washington.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: January 25, 2013

A chart on Thursday with an article about problems with batteries aboard airplanes misidentified the battery type involved in a 1995 incident and omitted two incidents in 1997. The 1995 incident involved a wet-cell battery, not a lithium battery. And the two 1997 incidents occurred on cargo planes and also involved non-lithium batteries.