As I predicted, BA is taking a two part solution, first containment so battery failures no longer represent a fire danger to the aircraft, and turn battery failure into reliability issue, after all once the plane is running it doesn't need the battery to fly. I have to wonder if BA in the first place had considered a containment system like they are now proposing, but for cost and weight reasons decided against it.
Next will be to find a solution to keep the batteries from having catastrophic failures, and keep them working safely through there intended lifespans. Which will likely center around a new BMS (battery management system), which from some of what I have heard, I suspect it lacked the sophistication needed to protect the battery fully to the cell level such a powerful battery needs for safe reliable operation.
After all one item BA already said they are considering is adding temperature monitoring for the individual cells, something that should have been there from day one. As a mater of fact I think if they had had that in the first place the LI batteries may have never become the issue they have become. The fact is most of the time one of the time a single cell starting to overheat will be the first sign something is going wrong, and if you are monitoring it the BMS can shut down the charger to let it cool down before it melts down. You have to in hindsight ask why they didn't do this in the first place?
So this is a implied admission that the FAA, Boeing and the battery system makers do not understand the way the batteries perform over the long term. No oversight or insight. Thus, the FAA is functionally impotent - just another "regulator" in industry's pocket. More fallout from the Cheney/Bush legacy.
Just boggles my mind.....We've known for a while that lithium batteries are a fire/explosive hazard (Laptops).
In fact, they're not even allowed to be transported by air!
Why even consider using them on planes??????
Sentiment: Strong Sell
I agree LI batteries are a fire hazard, and BA should have treated them as if catastrophic failures are to be expected by incasing them in a case the can 100% contain the fire, and vent the fumes outside the aircraft from day one. Also I think BA under estimated the task of keeping a LI battery with 10 cells operating safely. The fact is the more cells a LI battery has the harder it is to keep one cell from going into an unsafe condition. This is why cell phones which use a single cell LI battery hardly ever go up in smoke compared to laptops which use 3 to 4 cell LI batteries despite the fact there are way more cell phones. Also as the battery size gets larger, the chance of it going up in flames grows from failures, another reason a laptop LI battery is for more prone to a failure induced fire.
I do think LI batteries can be made safe enough for aircraft use, but containment is only part of the solution. BA needs to go back to the drawing board, and completely redesign the battery management system. This time it needs to monitor every aspect of every cell it the battery. Voltages, temperatures, charging rate, discharge rates, charge capacity, of each cell in the battery. So that a failing cell can be detected early enough that the battery can be removed from service before it has a major failure. The big question is by the time you add the weight of the containment system, the more sophisticated battery management system, and the added cost, are the LI batteries still cost effective?
You do not need to tell everyone how stupid you are. Keep it between you and your mom.
Nobody is going to fly on a plane that has been modified to contain a fire. This idea is as stupid as
you. The Dreamliner is a BILLION dollar mess that is getting ready to BLOW UP.
The dreamliner will not fly untiil 2104 with new batteries.
The engines have a rip roaring fire going on in them during flight, one that makes the fire of a battery meltdown look like a match to a blow torch. Guess until they find a way not to have a controlled fire propelling a plane, they should ground all of them.