AviationBanter - View Single Post

**Daryl[_2_]**

On 3/22/2013 12:55 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
|
| Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
| out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
| (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
| Board spokesman said.
|
| Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
| Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
| within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
| said today in response to questions about the issue.
| ...
| Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
| the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
| flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
| indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
| battery failure.
|
| A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
| inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
| battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
| temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
| preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
| ...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery

--bks

Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/

Yes, the 787 is a failure.

Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
NEVER fly on one - ever.

And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.

Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....

The conventional Batteries are sometimes called Sealed Lead Acid
Batteries but they are actually AGM batteries. Less time between
replacements, requires a heated and cooled area but is the most
dependable. If that is all that is keeping the 787 from flying, it's a
pretty simple fix.

Daryl