Report on Boeing 787 Dreamliner Battery Flaws Finds Lapses at Multiple Points

Defect testing in the manufacturing industry is not enough, and understanding of innovative batteries is not enough, which has led to the Boeing 787 fleet last year, a jet at Boston airport caught fire and another accident in Japan, according to a report released by regulators on Monday.
The report of the National Transportation Safety Commission pointed out in the most severe terms the responsibility for the 78 7 battery problem.
For the first time, the safety committee investigating the Boston incident recommended that manufacturing defects introduce defects that cause battery failure, although the committee did not reach a clear conclusion.
The failure of the battery affects other batteries, causing the battery to consume itself in fire and smoke.
The incident occurred on January after a Japanese airline flight from Tokyo landed at Boston Logan International Airport.
2013. all the passengers left the plane.
The ground crew detected smoke from the electrical cabin of the aircraft and was eventually traced to two of its lithium-ion batteries.
In the following week, a second episode of 787 Dreamliner took place in Japan.
A smoking battery forced an emergency landing.
Prompting regulators to ban these flights before the problem is resolved.
The board found a wide range of defects in manufacturers and regulators.
The board found that the battery manufacturer GS Yuasa in Japan used manufacturing methods that might introduce potential defects, but its inspection method failed to detect the problem.
Boeing engineers did not consider and test the worst.
It says case assumptions related to possible battery failures.
According to the report, the Federal Aviation Administration did not recognize the potential danger and did not require proper testing during the certification process.
Battery problems highlight concerns about the use of new potentially dangerous technologies on commercial passenger planes --
Powerful lithiumion batteries —
What steps should aircraft manufacturers and regulators take to ensure their safety.
The aircraft were allowed to fly again after Boeing introduced new safety features.
It maintains the basic design of the battery, but adds internal components to reduce the chance of overheating and burning.
To convince regulators to allow the aircraft to return to the air, Boeing also installed each of these two batteries in a new steel box to contain any fires and prevent them from spreading.
Boeing spokesman Doug Alder said the company is still confident in the improvement and safety of the battery system.
He said Boeing agreed \"the reasons that could be found in the report --
Short circuit inside a battery leads to ventilation and battery-to-
The battery that causes the battery to malfunction spreads.
\"This is the first lithium battery.
Ion batteries were used on a commercial jet.
787 there are two, one for auxiliary power units, or. P. U.
, A second to open the flight deck computer.
Boeing initially determined that a battery could fail during 10 million flight hours.
On the contrary, according to the Security Council, when the two episodes occurred, the 787 fleet in service recorded less than 52,000 hours.
\"The incident was due to Boeing\'s failure to incorporate design requirements to mitigate the most serious impact of A short internal circuit. P. U.
\"Battery,\" the report said.
It also accused F. A. A.
Failed to identify design issues.
\"Boeing should adopt a more conservative approach in safety analysis,\" Boeing said . \". The N. T. S. B.
It has been concluded that the battery failure came from an internal short circuit of battery 5 or battery 6 and caused a fire spreading to other batteries
Called heat out of control.
But the damage to the battery was too serious, and experts couldn\'t figure out what caused the internal short circuit at first.
However, the company\'s investigation found that there are defects in the manufacturing process that may lead to internal short circuit.
It said that GS Yuasa \"did not test the battery in the worst conditions possible to use, and the test battery was different from the final battery design installed on the aircraft.
Shortly after the report was released, GS Yuasa issued a statement through the United States --
And defend its manufacturing methods.
\"We thank and respect the United Nations. T. S. B.
\"Although the root cause of this internal short circuit is still elusive,\" GS Yuasa said in a statement . \".
\"However, we are still full of confidence in the quality and safety of our batteries, our conditionthe-
We have professional skills and trained staff.
Industry research on lithium
According to the safety board, ion Hazard finds that battery failures in other industries are caused by internal failures during manufacturing.
But GS Yuasa said in the report that it does not have a formal inspection process that can reliably identify any defects.
Boeing and GS Yuasa also underestimated the risk of catastrophic failure.
They rely on a single test called a nail penetration test to simulate a short circuit to understand under what circumstances the battery may ignite.
The test was conducted in November 2006, and Boeing concluded that a short circuit inside one of the battery cells would be limited to the release of smoke, and that the temperature of the battery would rise, but that \"no heat loss would spread to adjacent cells, in the case of damage to the battery, fire or explosion, \"according to N. T. S. B.
In a series of proposals, the security committee said that,A. A.
Should work with lithium
Battery experts study battery technology and identify conditions that could lead to another such fire.
In a statement, F. A. A.
He said the Boston fire gave it a better idea of lithium. ion batteries. “The F. A. A.
Many of N have been implemented. T. S. B.
\"Suggestions for testing, safety standards and design modifications,\" the agency said . \".