Contact photographer Fride Jansson
On January 23, 2013, a Ryanair Boeing 737-8AS wasn en route from Valencia to Bergamo Orio al Serio when the plane developed cabin pressure problems.
Oxygen masks were deployed, which panicked the passengers. The pilots descended the plane to 9,000 feet, and diverted to Christoforo Colombia Genova airport. Emergency services (ground staff of the port of Genoa) were deployed— teams of firefighters and ambulances.
They made an emergency landing. Of the 93 passengers, two women reported injury, one with an ear problem who was sent to the hospital of San Martino, and one in the chest who went to “Villa Scassi” Sampierdarena.
Genoa air traffic was halted to allow for the emergency.
The uninjured passengers were taken to Bergamo aboard buses.
Ryanair’s official statement was that the pilots followed standard operating procedure after the warning light indicated depressurization. “In line with standard operating procedures, the commander has deployed oxygen masks and initiated an emergency descent controlled at an altitude non-pressurized, normally before landing in Genoa at about 9.50.”
“The passengers were transported by bus to Milan in order to minimize the delay while Ryanair engineers are now inspecting the aircraft before putting it back in service.”
Since U.S. and Japanese authorities have ordered the grounding of Boeing 787s, All Nippon Airways is canceling 177 flights beginning Wednesday. Considering that weather is expected to be grounding European flights anyway, the grounding could not have come at a better time. Plus, any time the precautions come before the fatalities, it is a good day.
GS Yuasa Corporation in Kyoto makes the “notorious” lithium-ion battery in the Japan Airlines Co. (9201) plane and an emergency landing by an All Nippon Airways Co. (9202) jet. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency will be running battery tests. An NTSB group of four officials and two Japan transport officials will be on hand. To be the fly on the wall of that test!
The ANA pilot received 3 warnings that the battery was overheating. This suggests the safety components were working.
Investigators were sent to the U.K. to investigate a valve actuator maker for the 787. The company was not identified. If a problem is found, the name of the company will soon be public knowledge
The technology has a damning history: Securaplane’s Tucson, Arizona-based unit made the battery charger on the jet that was in the Boston fire on Jan. 7. Whistleblower Michael Leon was employed at Securaplane when he wrote a report (2006) saying that the battery technology was risky and that substitute battery technology should be used on the 787, after which a battery test went wrong and burnt down a Securaplane building. Leon refused to ship a battery assembly to Boeing for the 787 and that battery later malfunctioned in a prototype. Why haven’t we heard this story before? Was the system Michael Leon objected to the same one that is causing problems now?
The Seattle Times reported that hot chemicals sprayed out of the battery on the 787 Dreamliner that made an emergency landing in Japan, leaving a gooey dark residue—a different malfunction from the incident in Boston. The plot thickens. More than one problem? Which is the onetime event, and which is the chronic issue (if at all)? That is the factor that will be significant for Boeing and the future of the Dreamliner.
Boeing stands by the 4 battery circuits, because they stopped the overheating before a fire started.
On January 21, 2012, a Southwest Airlines 737 with 76 passengers and five crew aboard was en route from Kansas to Houston when it developed smoke in the cockpit.
Pilots diverted to Tulsa and made a safe landing (but probably hard and fast since reportedly three tires blew) with emergency services on standby at about 9:15 a.m.. No injuries were reported. Passengers were provided alternative transport to Houston.
The plane has been removed from service and will be inspected in Tulsa.
I’m not an expert but there are aspects to this Lithium Ion battery story which concern me. I completely understand why these planes are grounded as this battery situation is examined, and applaud that solutions are being considered even as I write this. I cannot help but wonder what the actual time-frame will be. When I start wondering, I start asking —and quoting—the experts available to me and my company.
The FAA maintains a database of Service Difficulty Reports (SDR’s) for US Registered airlines. There’s a long ignominious history recorded of fire and smoke events previously examined by the FAA in the unique category that the fires are hidden, i.e. in locations inaccessible or unknown to crew: mundane items the public never heard of–such as the built-in Halon 1301 trash receptacle extinguishers that failed to extinguish trash fires– were found and fixed or replaced. Battery ground cables have been known to arc (Northwest Airlines DC-10, March 1988), insulation blankets to burn (April of 1988, a Continental 737), overheated fluorescent light ballasts smoked (115 incidents way back in 1991).
Here’s an example of why I am concerned:
At least twenty-nine fires have been identified as being ignited by electrical short circuits in/from flammable acoustic blankets. One of these flammable circuit types that was identified back in a 1991 report is permitted in Boeing products until 2016.
When the solution to the battery problem is determined, what time frame will the Airworthiness Directives require? Will compliance be to exchange, replace or modify the battery system or to put it off till later? ADs are issued with overly generous compliance times in years.
Will a temporary measure be taken along with a compliance date set years from now?
Regardless of whether the bottom-line business of aviation is wrestling with the expense of safety, a dicey potential fire starter component is a problem that should be addressed.
If the Dreamliner is going to be in service for the next 40 years, an issue causing a component to cause a fire should not be covered with 40 years of bandaids. It should be fixed now.
During an early inspection of the 787 in Takamatsu by Japanese officials, the battery’s electrolyte had leaked from the lithium-ion battery.
The charred insides of the battery show the battery received voltage in excess of its design limits.
In October 2011, the FAA issued an emergency order requiring lithium ion batteries in 42 Cessna Citation CJ4 to be replaced with nickel-cadmium or lead-acid batteries, after a connection with a ground power station led to overcharging and a fire.
Wait…was this human error and not battery error? Or a combination of both?
On January 17, 2012, at Miami International Airport at 5:45 pm, an Aerolineas Argentinas Airbus with 240 passengers aboard was taxiing when it struck an Air France 777-300 with 350 passengers at the gate. Impact occurred between Concourses J and H.
A passenger aboard the Air France plane said the impact felt like an earthquake.
The Aerolineas Argentinas flight hand just arrived from Argentina Passengers disembarked at the gate.
The Air France passengers disembarked, collected their luggage and had to reschedule.
The planes’ damage was limited to a wingtip of one (Airbus) and the tail of the Boeing. (Which is which has not been verified, but assuming it was the Airbus that was taxiing, i.e. moving, it is more likely to be the wingtip of the moving plane that struck the stationary Boeing at the gate.)
Damage to the planes was minimal. Damage to the patience of the Air France Passengers having to reschedule? Not so much.
On Jan 16, 2013, an ANA All Nippon Airways Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner was en route from Yamaguchi-Ube Airport to Tokyo-Haneda Airport when smoke in the forward electrical compartment developed. Also, an unusual smell was detected.
The flight made an emergency landing.
There were 137 passengers aboard.One passenger was injured in the evacuation. The firefighters did not find any fire.
The NTSB sent out a release that said “The National Transportation Safety Board is sending an investigator to Japan to assist in the investigation of an emergency landing of an ANA Boeing 787 that occurred yesterday. Initial reports indicate that the crew received multiple messages in the cockpit concerning the battery and other systems that were affected, and also reported smoke in the cockpit and an odor in the cabin. The airplane subsequently landed, and passengers and crew evacuated via emergency slides.”
Investigator Lorenda Ward is the U. S. accredited representative to the JTSB’s investigation and will work alongside reps from the FAA and Boeing.
We should remember this auxiliary battery failed after the passengers had disembarked. As the experts explain it, the battery is an auxiliary. This particular failure wouldn’t be likely to happen in the air, which technically makes it non-life threatening, although a tech or firefighter who was injured when the fire was extinguished might feel differently. I’m not trying to minimize the problem, but passengers’ lives were not threatened.
Nevertheless, I’m looking forward to Boeing’s solution to this. All the experts tell me this is what happens with new planes. Just a matter of getting the kinks out. While it’s not unexpected that new approaches (replacing the hydraulics with high powered electrics) need some ironing out, we’ll all sleep a lot better, and fly a lot easier when the situation is addressed.
NTSB Provides Second Investigative Update on Boeing 787 Battery Fire in Boston
January 14, 2013
WASHINGTON – The National Transportation Safety Board today released a second update on its investigation into the Jan. 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston.
The lithium-ion battery that powered the auxiliary power unit on the airplane was removed and transported back to the NTSB Materials Laboratory in Washington on Jan. 10. The battery is currently being examined by NTSB investigators, who plan to disassemble it this week.
In advance of that work, under the direction of the NTSB, radiographic examinations of the incident battery and an exemplar battery were conducted this past weekend at an independent test facility. The digital radiographs and computed tomography scans generated from this examination allowed the team to document the internal condition of the battery prior to disassembling it.
In addition, investigators took possession of burned wire bundles, the APU battery charger, and several memory modules. The maintenance and APU controller memory modules will be downloaded to obtain any available data. Investigators also documented the entire aft electronics bay including the APU battery and the nearby affected structure where components and wire bundles were located.
The airplane’s two combined flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder units were transported to NTSB headquarters and have been successfully downloaded. The information is currently being analyzed by the investigative team.
The airport emergency response group documented the airport rescue and firefighting efforts to extinguish the fire, which included interviews with first responders. Fire and rescue personnel were able to contain the fire using a clean agent (Halotron), however, they reported experiencing difficulty accessing the battery for removal during extinguishing efforts. All fire and rescue personnel responding to the incident had previously received aircraft familiarization training on the Boeing 787.
NTSB photo of the burned auxiliary power unit battery from a JAL Boeing 787 that caught fire on Jan. 7 at Boston’s Logan International Airport. The dimensions are 19×13.2×10.2 inches and it weighs approximately 63 pounds (new).
In accordance with international investigative treaties, the Japan Transport Safety Board and French Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile have appointed accredited representatives to the investigation. The NTSB-led investigative team is comprised of subject matter groups in the areas of airplane systems, fire, airport emergency response, and data recorders and includes experts from the Federal Aviation Administration, The Boeing Company, US Naval Surface Warfare Center’s Carderock Division, Japan Airlines (aircraft operator), GS Yuasa (battery manufacturer), and Thales Avionics Electrical Systems (APU battery/charger system).
photographer Andy Egloff
On Jan 8 2013, a Delta Airlines Boeing 777-232LR was en route from Johannesburg to Atlanta when one of the engines developed problems.
The pilots dumped fuel and diverted to the island of Ascension where they made a safe landing. Passengers say the plane swerved and fuel came pouring out. The crew was handling problems but did not make a lot of explanations to bewildered and hysterical passengers.
There is a British Air Force Base on the island, and the island is a British territory.
The good news is that the pilots made a rough but safe landing on Ascension. The bad news is that Ascension is a volcanic island in the South Atlantic Ocean about halfway between Recife Brazil and Luanda Angola.
Other sources say that a replacement 777-200 was flown in to Ascension, and that stranded passengers return to Atlanta was delayed less than 24 hours.
WASHINGTON – In light of a series of recent events, the FAA will conduct a comprehensive review of the Boeing 787 critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly. The purpose of the review is to validate the work conducted during the certification process and further ensure that the aircraft meets the FAA’s high level of safety.
“The safety of the traveling public is our top priority,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “This review will help us look at the root causes and do everything we can to safeguard against similar events in the future.”
A team of FAA and Boeing engineers and inspectors wi
ll conduct this joint review, with an emphasis on the aircraft’s electrical power and distribution system. The review will also examine how the electrical and mechanical systems interact with each other.
“We are confident that the aircraft is safe.
But we need to have a complete understanding of what is happening,” said FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta. “We are conducting the review to further ensure that the aircraft meets our high safety standards.”
The review will be structured to provide a broader view of design, manufacturing and assembly and will not focus exclusively on individual events. The review is expected to begin in Seattle, but may expand to other locations over the course of several months.
FAA technical experts logged 200,000 hours of work during the 787 type certification and flew on numerous test flights. The FAA reviews 787 in-service events as part of our continued operational safety process.
United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes delivered. The worldwide in-service fleet includes 50 aircraft.
On January 9, 2013. an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 Dreamliner at Ube Yamaguchi Japan was taxiing for takeoff to Tokyo when the plane developed brake problems. This was Boeing’s third Dreamliner incident in three days.
In the cockpit of the All Nippon Airways 787, an error message indicated brake parts in the left undercarriage needed attention.
The 98 passengers aboard the plane disembarked and were provided alternative transportation to Tokyo.
All three events appear to be from different routine situations rather than stemming from a single issue. The brake issue and fuel spill are routine events, not on par with the lithium battery fire at Logan Airport, which is a problem which requires serious investigation.
SEATTLE, Jan. 8, 2013 – Regarding Monday’s event onboard a Japan Airlines (JAL) 787 at Boston Logan Airport, we are working closely with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), our customer and other government agencies. JAL has reported that smoke detected while a 787 was on the ground after passengers disembarked and during cleaning was traced to the battery used to start the auxiliary power unit (APU).
As is standard practice within the industry, it would be premature to discuss additional details at this stage as the investigation is ongoing. However, nothing that we’ve seen in this case indicates a relationship to any previous 787 power system events, which involved power panel faults elsewhere in the aft electrical equipment bay. Information about the prior events has been shared with the NTSB and they are aware of the details.
Boeing is cooperating with the NTSB in the investigation of this incident. Before providing more detail, we will give our technical teams the time they need to do a thorough job and ensure we are dealing with facts, not speculation.
On January 7, 2013, a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner Japan-Boston had already landed in Boston, and all 184 passengers had safely disembarked when smoke filled the cabin.
A fire was found in a battery aboard the plane. Boston Firefighters arrived at 10:40 a.m. and put out the fire.
Passengers were provided alternative transportation and overnight accommodations.
Electrical issues in the avionics bay where the battery is located are a known issue in this type of plane, which uses electrical motors instead of hydraulics in certain areas. The auxiliary battery in the compartment kicks in after the engine kicks off. That’s what happened on test flights, and from what I have heard, that is what happened here.
In George’s Point of View
Let’s slow down with this great plane. Let’s get the kinks out of it before we put humans on too many of these Dreamliners. Let them stay Dreamliner and not become Nightmareliners. United is starting service but are these planes really ready? There have been engine problems and some spooky events. We don’t read too much about them, but I know they have occurred. I love this plane, I want to fly all over the world in it, and if I live long enough, I will, but, is it ready?
According to the NTSB report below, the NTSB seems to agree with me that incidents like this warrant investigation.
Press Release
WASHINGTON– Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board are gathering information regarding reports of smoke aboard a Boeing 787 at Boston’s Logan Airport today.
The Japan Airlines 787 was on the ground and empty of passengers at the time of the incident.
The NTSB has dispatched an investigator to Boston. Based on a review of the factual information gathered, the NTSB will determine the extent of its investigation. Video Below
On Friday January 4, 2012, Delta flight 65 en route from Atlanta to Las Vegas experienced engine problems and had to divert to sky Harbor.
The Boeing 757-200 made a safe landing minus one engine with emergency services on standby. An inspection determined there had been a fuel leak. Passengers were provided an alternative flight and were scheduled to land in Las Vegas before 8:30 pm.’
United Airlines is offering Boeing 787 Dreamliner is now offering daily nonstop service between Los Angeles International Airport and Tokyo Narita, with 36 seats in United BusinessFirst, 70 seats in United Economy Plus, and 113 seats in United Economy.
UA 787 service will be offered between its Houston hub and Lagos, Nigeria, five days a week, beginning on January 7, 2013.
What: NordStar Airlines Boeing 737-8K5 (WL)en route frm Sharm El Sheikh t Moscow
Where: Antalya Turkey
When: Jan 3, 2013
Who: no injuries
Why: The Nordstar Airlines flight was en route over the Mediterranean sea when the plane lost cabin pressure.
Pilots diverted the flight to Anatalya where they made a safe landing with emergency services on standby at 12:22.
What: Kenya Airways Boeing 737-700 en route from Khartoum to Cairo
Where: Sudan
When: January 2, 2013
Who: 56 passengers, 7 crew
Why: On January 1, 2013, Kenya Airways flight KQ320 was en route when it developed engine problems.
Online sources said that there may have been an engine fire handled by an engine fire suppression system while other sources denied a fire. Passengers reported fire shooting from the left engine.
After less than half an hour in the air, pilots returned to Khartoum where they made a safe landing.
Passengers were provided alternative transportation (Wednesday).
On December 27, 2012, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 was navigating the Islip Long Island tarmac when it went off the pavement into ground and got stuck.
None of the 129 passengers aboard were injured. Passengers exited to the tarmac and were bussed to the gate where they were provided with alternative flights.
December 25, 2012, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 en route from Denver to Kansas City International diverted to Omaha and made a safe landing at Omaha’s Eppley Airfield. None of the 109 passengers and five crew members were injured.
The plane developed a fuel valve problem while en route.
What: Transaero Airlines Boeing 777-312 Moscow – Khabarovsk Where: Yemelyanovo International Airport When: Dec 13, 2012 Who: 1 fatality Why: While en route, a five year old child, Jaroslav Zaripov who was suffering from cancer, became ill. The pilot dumped fuel in order to land.
The pilot diverted to Krasnoyarsk but the child died as the plane was landing. He has a twin who is cancer free, and who had not yet been told his brother died.
The West Siberian Transport Investigative Committee is investigating.
What: British Airways Boeing 767 en route from Edinburgh to London Where: Sanquhar When: Dec 11, 2012 12:45 Who: crew (2 pilots) Why: Fifteen minutes after taking off, the BAE flight developed smoke in the cockpit and returned to Edinburgh. No passengers were aboard the flight.
What: Alaskan Airlines Boeing 737 en route from Seattle to Las Vegas Where: Sacramento When: Dec 10, 2012 4:42 Who: 152 passengers and crew Why: While the flight was en route, smoke “unidentified fumes in the plane “developed in the cabin. Pilots diverted to Sacramento where they made a safe landing at 4:42 pm. with emergency services on standby.
There were no injuries although there was a report of a crew member getting oxygen.
Passengers said the problem appeared to be electrical, and that a stewardess had “burning in her eyes and throat.”
Passengers disembarked and were provided an alternative flight. The affected plane is slated for a Tuesday return to Seattle.
What: Cathay Pacific Boeing 777-367ER en route from Hong Kong International Airport to Heathrow Where: Wuhan China When: Dec 9 2012 Who: 235 passengers, 12 crew Why: The flight was en route when the captain detected smoke in the cockpit at 1:45 a.m.. The pilot diverted to Wuhan Tianhe International Airport. The flight landed at 2:07 a.m. with emergency services on standby, nine fire engines, three ambulances.
Passengers disembarked by stairs. No injuries were reported.
Alternative transportation was provided.
The Civil Aviation Administration of China and the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department will be investigating
What: Nordwind Airlines Boeing 767 en route from Krasnoyarsk to Phuket Where: Krasnoyarsk Airport When: Dec 9 2012 Who: 279 passengers Why: While en route, the Boeing flight from Krasnoyarsk to Phuket developed flaps problem. After an alarm indicated the problem, the pilot returned to Krasnoyarsk and made a safe landing at 15:35. The plane was examined, and passengers were “sent to the Phucket reserve board.” (We take this to mean they were pointed to alternative flights to their destination.)
There were no reported injuries. The incident is under investigation by the Yenisei transport office.
What: SpiceJet Boeing 737-800 en route from Delhi to Hyderabad Where: Delhi-Indira Gandhi International Airport When: Dec 6 2012 Who: 142 aboard Why: During taxi, the plane’s wing struck a lamp post, canceling the flight for 142 passengers. A damaged wing will require inspection before the plane can return to service.
Spicejet issued a statement that the accident was minor.
According to reports, 142 passengers were aboard at the time, many of them quite disturbed by the incident. The collision damaged a wing.
An inquiry has been ordered. Action may be taken against the pilot and those who were directing the pilot. Spicejet’s attitude is that this is a minor incident. That attitude is being interpreted by officials that the safety of passengers is not of primary concern to Spicejet. This may be considered a case of negligence.
The NTSB sent out a release that said “The National Transportation Safety Board is sending an investigator to Japan to assist in the investigation of an emergency landing of an ANA Boeing 787 that occurred yesterday. Initial reports indicate that the crew received multiple messages in the cockpit concerning the battery and other systems that were affected, and also reported smoke in the cockpit and an odor in the cabin. The airplane subsequently landed, and passengers and crew evacuated via emergency slides.”
