報告公布波音787電池起火細節
, 聯合報道 2013年03月09日
Mark Garfinkel/Boston Herald, via Polaris
1月7日，消防員在波士頓撲滅了一架波音787客機上的火情。國家運輸安全委員會的一份報告闡述了事故的細節。
乘客和機組人員一離開降落在波士頓洛根國際機場(Logan
International
Airport)的那架波音787客機後幾分鐘，故障的先兆就出現了。一名清潔工在機艙後部注意到有“一股電氣設備燃燒的氣味和煙”。其他管理人員也報告
說煙霧“濃烈”，而且“氣味刺鼻”。
國家運輸安全委員會(National Transportation Safety Board)周四公布的一份報告稱，一名機械師去電子艙檢查，發現裝着飛機鋰離子電池的那個箱子的前端，有兩處三英寸（約合8厘米）長的起火點。
消防員很快就接到火警，他們趕來後發現，電池發出“白色的光，向外散發著熱氣”。電池嘶嘶作響，聲音很大，還有液體漏出來，似乎要再次點燃。標準的滅火劑幾乎沒有效果。一名消防隊長說，電池“爆炸”時，燒傷了他的脖子。
發生電池起火事故的這架787型飛機技術先進，1月7日降落在洛根機場，之後起火。運輸安全委員會的初步報告給出了這次機上起火事故的最新細節以及目前為止關於這次事故最全面的描述。
這份長達48頁的報告，有近500頁技術文件支持，詳細闡述了調查的前後過程，並配合圖表描述了飛機上發生的事情。然而，報告沒有指出，電池單元起火是由什麼原因導致的。
報告還給出了更多細節，描述了波音公司(Boeing)在民航客機上首次大規模使用鋰電池，採取了哪些測試和認證。部分細節促使人們追問，波音為什麼對風險做出了錯誤的判斷。
這份報告基本同運輸安全委員會主席德博拉·A·P·赫斯曼(Deborah A. P. Hersman)上個月告訴記者的情況相符。她當時說，問題似乎源於電池組，電池組的八個電池單元中有一個發生了短路，火勢蔓延到了其餘的電池單元。
發生在波士頓的這起事故，是787型客機所用的新電池存在問題的第一個嚴重跡象。九天後，全日空航空公司(All Nippon Airways)運營的另外一架787客機飛行員聞到煙味，在日本迫降。隨後，投入使用的50架787型客機全部停飛。日本的調查機構正在對那起事故進行 調查。
在安全委員會公布這份報告的前一天，聯邦官員表示，聯邦航空管理局(Federal Aviation Administration)即將批准波音為解決電池問題而提出的一系列解決方案。聯邦航空管理局可能會在下周作出這一決定，測試可能會立即開始。
波音公司表示，他們已經找到了電池出故障最有可能的原因。他們聲稱，提出的改進措施會把將來發生事故的幾率降到最低，並在出現問題時保護飛機和乘客的安全。同時，安全委員會計劃還在繼續調查，而且在周四表示，委員會將於下月就鋰離子電池的危險舉行聽證會。
報告稱，在波士頓發生事故的那架飛機是波音公司在12月20日交付給日本航空公司(Japan Airlines)的。發生起火事故時，這架飛機已經飛行了169小時，完成了22個起降周期。
這架飛機是從日本成田起飛的，上午10點降落在波士頓。
飛行數據記錄器顯示，上午10點04分，飛行員開啟了輔助動力裝置，這個裝置是在飛機降落後為飛機供電的，飛機上有兩塊鋰電池，其中的一塊為這個裝置供電。
為輔助動力裝置供電的這個電池位於電子艙，電子艙就在座艙下面，位於飛機中部附近。另一個鋰電子電池位於飛機前部，為駕駛艙供電。在日本發生的那起事故中，冒煙的便是這塊為駕駛艙供電的電池。
在這款先進的飛機上有可能發生火情，令人十分意外，以至於這家航空公司在波士頓的航站經理“船長”三好步（Ayumu Skip Miyoshi，音譯）一開始都不敢相信來自維護人員的無線電呼叫，後者報告稱在座艙里發現了冒煙現象。
他在一份證詞中說，“我不太確定他是什麼意思，所以問他，‘你的意思是有乘客在廁所里抽煙了嗎？’ ”接着，他衝出辦公室，試圖進入座艙，可是煙太濃了，在門口只能看到10英尺（約合3米）遠。
同時，飛機上一個用於在出現故障時避免煙氣進入座艙的關鍵安全機制，也未能正常工作。在輔助動力裝置關閉後，排風系統也失去了電力。
最後消防人員花了80分鐘，才控制住火勢，並從飛機上取下了焦黑的電池。
波音公司重新設計電池的計劃包括，在電池組的八個單元之間，加上隔絕設施，將短路故障蔓延到多數單元甚至全部單元的風險降到最低。波音公司還提出， 添加一些系統，監測各電池單元內部的溫度和活動。波音將把電池放進更堅固的鋼質箱子里從而在起火時限制火勢蔓延，還會安裝一些管道，將危險氣體排到飛機外 面去。
如果實驗室測試和飛行測試中發現問題，FAA仍然可能會要求波音對新提出的電池設計作出修改。實驗室測試和飛行測試將耗時數周。不過，批准測試將是波音公司讓這款飛機重返藍天的重要一步。
波音公司管理人員表示，一旦新設計得到批准，公司可以很快在這些飛機上更換電池。這款飛機對波音公司至關重要，這也是首款主要用輕型複合材料製造的商用噴氣機。波音已經接到了另外800架飛機的訂單。
波音的計劃還需要得到FAA局長邁克爾·P·胡爾塔(Michael P. Huerta)和美國交通部長雷·拉胡德(Ray LaHood)的批准，拉胡德將在未來幾天內聽取關於此事的彙報。
拉胡德在1月表示，“只有當我們百分之一千地確信飛機能夠安全飛行時”，飛機“才會上天”。交通部官員說，改進方案擬定過程中，波音公司在細節上一直與拉胡德和胡爾塔保持着通氣，預計他們會簽字批准該方案。
為期兩個月的調查沒有發現與電池相連的電氣元件有任何異常，而且所有電氣元件都是經過測試的。這些組件包括電池充電器、監控單元和輔助動力裝置的啟動器。
安全委員會也在調查FAA在2007年10月為什麼確認電池安全，當時波音的設計、測試，以及對特別防護要求的遵守情況顯然並不充分。波音最初的測試顯示，只有過度充電後電池才會着火，而波士頓事件中電池並未充電過度。
波音最初測試時，也沒有發現有證據表明，起火後會從一個電池單元蔓延到另一個單元。並且試驗得出的結論是，電池冒煙的概率低於每1000萬個飛行小時一次。
然而，投入運行後，飛機在完成了5.2萬個小時的民航飛行後，電池就出現了兩次過熱和冒煙的情況，還有一次造成了起火。
而安全委員會的一份文件顯示，雖然波音公司的負責人加入了一個委員會，在2008年3月制定鋰離子電池的新安全標準，但是波音卻一直沒有更新過它的設計，儘管首批787客機直到2011年末才交付給航空公司。
國家運輸安全委員會(National Transportation Safety Board)周四公布的一份報告稱，一名機械師去電子艙檢查，發現裝着飛機鋰離子電池的那個箱子的前端，有兩處三英寸（約合8厘米）長的起火點。
消防員很快就接到火警，他們趕來後發現，電池發出“白色的光，向外散發著熱氣”。電池嘶嘶作響，聲音很大，還有液體漏出來，似乎要再次點燃。標準的滅火劑幾乎沒有效果。一名消防隊長說，電池“爆炸”時，燒傷了他的脖子。
發生電池起火事故的這架787型飛機技術先進，1月7日降落在洛根機場，之後起火。運輸安全委員會的初步報告給出了這次機上起火事故的最新細節以及目前為止關於這次事故最全面的描述。
這份長達48頁的報告，有近500頁技術文件支持，詳細闡述了調查的前後過程，並配合圖表描述了飛機上發生的事情。然而，報告沒有指出，電池單元起火是由什麼原因導致的。
報告還給出了更多細節，描述了波音公司(Boeing)在民航客機上首次大規模使用鋰電池，採取了哪些測試和認證。部分細節促使人們追問，波音為什麼對風險做出了錯誤的判斷。
這份報告基本同運輸安全委員會主席德博拉·A·P·赫斯曼(Deborah A. P. Hersman)上個月告訴記者的情況相符。她當時說，問題似乎源於電池組，電池組的八個電池單元中有一個發生了短路，火勢蔓延到了其餘的電池單元。
發生在波士頓的這起事故，是787型客機所用的新電池存在問題的第一個嚴重跡象。九天後，全日空航空公司(All Nippon Airways)運營的另外一架787客機飛行員聞到煙味，在日本迫降。隨後，投入使用的50架787型客機全部停飛。日本的調查機構正在對那起事故進行 調查。
在安全委員會公布這份報告的前一天，聯邦官員表示，聯邦航空管理局(Federal Aviation Administration)即將批准波音為解決電池問題而提出的一系列解決方案。聯邦航空管理局可能會在下周作出這一決定，測試可能會立即開始。
波音公司表示，他們已經找到了電池出故障最有可能的原因。他們聲稱，提出的改進措施會把將來發生事故的幾率降到最低，並在出現問題時保護飛機和乘客的安全。同時，安全委員會計劃還在繼續調查，而且在周四表示，委員會將於下月就鋰離子電池的危險舉行聽證會。
報告稱，在波士頓發生事故的那架飛機是波音公司在12月20日交付給日本航空公司(Japan Airlines)的。發生起火事故時，這架飛機已經飛行了169小時，完成了22個起降周期。
這架飛機是從日本成田起飛的，上午10點降落在波士頓。
飛行數據記錄器顯示，上午10點04分，飛行員開啟了輔助動力裝置，這個裝置是在飛機降落後為飛機供電的，飛機上有兩塊鋰電池，其中的一塊為這個裝置供電。
為輔助動力裝置供電的這個電池位於電子艙，電子艙就在座艙下面，位於飛機中部附近。另一個鋰電子電池位於飛機前部，為駕駛艙供電。在日本發生的那起事故中，冒煙的便是這塊為駕駛艙供電的電池。
在這款先進的飛機上有可能發生火情，令人十分意外，以至於這家航空公司在波士頓的航站經理“船長”三好步（Ayumu Skip Miyoshi，音譯）一開始都不敢相信來自維護人員的無線電呼叫，後者報告稱在座艙里發現了冒煙現象。
他在一份證詞中說，“我不太確定他是什麼意思，所以問他，‘你的意思是有乘客在廁所里抽煙了嗎？’ ”接着，他衝出辦公室，試圖進入座艙，可是煙太濃了，在門口只能看到10英尺（約合3米）遠。
同時，飛機上一個用於在出現故障時避免煙氣進入座艙的關鍵安全機制，也未能正常工作。在輔助動力裝置關閉後，排風系統也失去了電力。
最後消防人員花了80分鐘，才控制住火勢，並從飛機上取下了焦黑的電池。
波音公司重新設計電池的計劃包括，在電池組的八個單元之間，加上隔絕設施，將短路故障蔓延到多數單元甚至全部單元的風險降到最低。波音公司還提出， 添加一些系統，監測各電池單元內部的溫度和活動。波音將把電池放進更堅固的鋼質箱子里從而在起火時限制火勢蔓延，還會安裝一些管道，將危險氣體排到飛機外 面去。
如果實驗室測試和飛行測試中發現問題，FAA仍然可能會要求波音對新提出的電池設計作出修改。實驗室測試和飛行測試將耗時數周。不過，批准測試將是波音公司讓這款飛機重返藍天的重要一步。
波音公司管理人員表示，一旦新設計得到批准，公司可以很快在這些飛機上更換電池。這款飛機對波音公司至關重要，這也是首款主要用輕型複合材料製造的商用噴氣機。波音已經接到了另外800架飛機的訂單。
波音的計劃還需要得到FAA局長邁克爾·P·胡爾塔(Michael P. Huerta)和美國交通部長雷·拉胡德(Ray LaHood)的批准，拉胡德將在未來幾天內聽取關於此事的彙報。
拉胡德在1月表示，“只有當我們百分之一千地確信飛機能夠安全飛行時”，飛機“才會上天”。交通部官員說，改進方案擬定過程中，波音公司在細節上一直與拉胡德和胡爾塔保持着通氣，預計他們會簽字批准該方案。
為期兩個月的調查沒有發現與電池相連的電氣元件有任何異常，而且所有電氣元件都是經過測試的。這些組件包括電池充電器、監控單元和輔助動力裝置的啟動器。
安全委員會也在調查FAA在2007年10月為什麼確認電池安全，當時波音的設計、測試，以及對特別防護要求的遵守情況顯然並不充分。波音最初的測試顯示，只有過度充電後電池才會着火，而波士頓事件中電池並未充電過度。
波音最初測試時，也沒有發現有證據表明，起火後會從一個電池單元蔓延到另一個單元。並且試驗得出的結論是，電池冒煙的概率低於每1000萬個飛行小時一次。
然而，投入運行後，飛機在完成了5.2萬個小時的民航飛行後，電池就出現了兩次過熱和冒煙的情況，還有一次造成了起火。
而安全委員會的一份文件顯示，雖然波音公司的負責人加入了一個委員會，在2008年3月制定鋰離子電池的新安全標準，但是波音卻一直沒有更新過它的設計，儘管首批787客機直到2011年末才交付給航空公司。
Safety Board Reports New Details on Battery Fire, but Not on Its Cause
March 09, 2013
(Firefighters put out a fire on a Boeing 787
jet in Boston on Jan. 7. Details about the incident were outlined in a
report from the N.T.S.B.)
The first hint of trouble came just minutes after passengers and crew left the Boeing
787 jet that had just landed at Logan International Airport in Boston. A
cleaning worker noticed “an electrical burning smell and smoke” in the
back of the cabin. Other managers reported smoke that was “intense” and
“caustic smelling.”
A mechanic who went to the electronics bay to investigate saw two distinct flames about three inches long at the front of the case holding the plane’s lithium-ion battery, according to a report released Thursday by the National Transportation Safety Board.
Firefighters, who were quickly called, found “a white glow with
radiant heat waves” coming from the battery. The battery was hissing
loudly and leaking liquids, and it seemed to be reigniting. Standard
fire suppressants had little effect. A fire captain’s neck was burned,
he said, when the battery “exploded.”
The new details about the fire aboard the technologically advanced aircraft were in a preliminary report from the safety board that provided the most comprehensive picture so far of the battery fire in the 787 that was parked at the airport and burst into flame on Jan. 7.
The 48-page report, supported by nearly 500 pages of technical documents, gave a detailed chronology of the investigation, and graphic descriptions of what took place aboard the airplane. What it did not say, however, is what caused the fires in the battery cell in the first place.
The report also gave more details about the steps Boeing took to test and certify the first large-scale use of lithium batteries aboard a commercial passenger jet. Some of those details raised questions about how Boeing could have misjudged the risks.
In broad terms, the report echoed what Deborah A. P. Hersman, the board’s chairwoman, told reporters last month — that the problems seemed to have originated in the battery, where one of the eight cells had a short circuit and the fire spread to the rest of the cells.
The incident in Boston was the first serious sign of trouble with the new batteries on the 787. All 50 planes in service were grounded nine days later after another aircraft, operated by All Nippon Airways, made an emergency landing in Japan when the pilots smelled smoke. The inquiry into that incident is being conducted by Japanese investigators.
The safety board released its report a day after federal officials said that the Federal Aviation Administration was close to approving the testing of battery fixes that were proposed by Boeing. That decision is likely to be made next week, and the tests could begin immediately.
Boeing officials said they had identified the most likely ways in which the batteries could fail. They contend that the proposed changes would minimize the odds of future incidents and protect the plane and its passengers if a problem does arise. Meanwhile, the safety board plans to continue its investigation, and said Thursday that it would hold a hearing on the hazards of lithium-ion batteries next month.
The report said the airplane involved in the Boston incident was delivered to Japan Airlines on Dec. 20. At the time of the fire, it had logged 169 flight hours and 22 flight cycles.
The plane had flown from Narita, Japan, and touched down in Boston at 10 a.m.
The flight data recorder showed that at 10:04 a.m., the pilots started the auxiliary power unit, which provides power while the plane is on the ground and is energized by one of the plane’s two lithium batteries.
That battery is in the electronics bay, which is under the main cabin, near the middle of the plane. The other lithium-ion battery, located in the front of the plane, provides power to the cockpit. It was that battery that emitted smoke in the incident in Japan.
The possibility that there could be a fire in the advanced plane was so surprising that the airline’s station manager in Boston, Ayumu Skip Miyoshi, could not initially believe the radio call he got from a maintenance employee who reported smoke in the cabin.
“I wasn’t sure what he meant, therefore I replied, ‘So you mean one passenger smoked in the lavatory?’ ” he said in a witness statement. He rushed from his office and tried to enter the cabin but could not see more than 10 feet from the door because the smoke was so intense.
Meanwhile, one of the plane’s crucial safety mechanism intended to keep smoke out of the cabin in case of a problem did not work. The venting system had lost power after the auxiliary power unit shut down.
It eventually took firefighters 80 minutes to contain the fire and remove the charred battery from the plane.
Boeing’s plan to redesign the battery would add insulation among the eight cells in the battery to minimize the risk of a short circuit cascading through most or all of them. The company also proposed adding systems to monitor the temperature and activity in each cell. It would enclose the batteries in sturdier steel boxes to contain any fire, and it would create tubes to vent hazardous gases outside the plane.
The F.A.A. could still demand changes in the proposed battery design if problems develop in the laboratory and flight tests, which will take several weeks. But the decision to start the tests will be a major step in Boeing’s efforts to get the jets back in the air.
Boeing officials said the company could replace the batteries quickly once a new design was approved. The company has much at stake with the plane, the first commercial jet to be built mostly of lightweight composite materials. Boeing has orders for 800 more of the planes.
Boeing’s plan is still subject to approval by Michael P. Huerta, the head of the F.A.A., and Ray LaHood, the transportation secretary, who will be briefed on it within several days.
Mr. LaHood said in January that the planes “won’t fly until we’re 1,000 percent sure they are safe to fly.” Department officials said he and Mr. Huerta had been kept informed of the details of the proposal as it was created, and were expected to sign off on it.
The two-month investigation found nothing unusual in any of the electrical components linked to the battery, which were all tested. These include the battery charger, its monitoring unit and a starter for the auxiliary power unit.
The safety board is also looking into how the F.A.A. certified the batteries as safe in October 2007 when Boeing’s design and testing and its adherence to required special precautions were clearly deficient. Boeing’s original tests showed that the batteries could catch fire only if they overcharged, which did not happen in the Boston incident.
Boeing also found no evidence that a fire could cascade from one cell to another, and it concluded that the batteries were likely to emit smoke less than once in every 10 million flight hours.
Once the planes were placed in service, the batteries overheated and emitted smoke twice, and caused one fire, after 52,000 hours of commercial flights.
But one safety board document also suggested that while Boeing officials sat on a committee that created new minimum safety standards for lithium-ion batteries in March 2008, Boeing did not update its design even though the first 787s were not delivered to airlines until late 2011.
A mechanic who went to the electronics bay to investigate saw two distinct flames about three inches long at the front of the case holding the plane’s lithium-ion battery, according to a report released Thursday by the National Transportation Safety Board.
The new details about the fire aboard the technologically advanced aircraft were in a preliminary report from the safety board that provided the most comprehensive picture so far of the battery fire in the 787 that was parked at the airport and burst into flame on Jan. 7.
The 48-page report, supported by nearly 500 pages of technical documents, gave a detailed chronology of the investigation, and graphic descriptions of what took place aboard the airplane. What it did not say, however, is what caused the fires in the battery cell in the first place.
The report also gave more details about the steps Boeing took to test and certify the first large-scale use of lithium batteries aboard a commercial passenger jet. Some of those details raised questions about how Boeing could have misjudged the risks.
In broad terms, the report echoed what Deborah A. P. Hersman, the board’s chairwoman, told reporters last month — that the problems seemed to have originated in the battery, where one of the eight cells had a short circuit and the fire spread to the rest of the cells.
The incident in Boston was the first serious sign of trouble with the new batteries on the 787. All 50 planes in service were grounded nine days later after another aircraft, operated by All Nippon Airways, made an emergency landing in Japan when the pilots smelled smoke. The inquiry into that incident is being conducted by Japanese investigators.
The safety board released its report a day after federal officials said that the Federal Aviation Administration was close to approving the testing of battery fixes that were proposed by Boeing. That decision is likely to be made next week, and the tests could begin immediately.
Boeing officials said they had identified the most likely ways in which the batteries could fail. They contend that the proposed changes would minimize the odds of future incidents and protect the plane and its passengers if a problem does arise. Meanwhile, the safety board plans to continue its investigation, and said Thursday that it would hold a hearing on the hazards of lithium-ion batteries next month.
The report said the airplane involved in the Boston incident was delivered to Japan Airlines on Dec. 20. At the time of the fire, it had logged 169 flight hours and 22 flight cycles.
The plane had flown from Narita, Japan, and touched down in Boston at 10 a.m.
The flight data recorder showed that at 10:04 a.m., the pilots started the auxiliary power unit, which provides power while the plane is on the ground and is energized by one of the plane’s two lithium batteries.
That battery is in the electronics bay, which is under the main cabin, near the middle of the plane. The other lithium-ion battery, located in the front of the plane, provides power to the cockpit. It was that battery that emitted smoke in the incident in Japan.
The possibility that there could be a fire in the advanced plane was so surprising that the airline’s station manager in Boston, Ayumu Skip Miyoshi, could not initially believe the radio call he got from a maintenance employee who reported smoke in the cabin.
“I wasn’t sure what he meant, therefore I replied, ‘So you mean one passenger smoked in the lavatory?’ ” he said in a witness statement. He rushed from his office and tried to enter the cabin but could not see more than 10 feet from the door because the smoke was so intense.
Meanwhile, one of the plane’s crucial safety mechanism intended to keep smoke out of the cabin in case of a problem did not work. The venting system had lost power after the auxiliary power unit shut down.
It eventually took firefighters 80 minutes to contain the fire and remove the charred battery from the plane.
Boeing’s plan to redesign the battery would add insulation among the eight cells in the battery to minimize the risk of a short circuit cascading through most or all of them. The company also proposed adding systems to monitor the temperature and activity in each cell. It would enclose the batteries in sturdier steel boxes to contain any fire, and it would create tubes to vent hazardous gases outside the plane.
The F.A.A. could still demand changes in the proposed battery design if problems develop in the laboratory and flight tests, which will take several weeks. But the decision to start the tests will be a major step in Boeing’s efforts to get the jets back in the air.
Boeing officials said the company could replace the batteries quickly once a new design was approved. The company has much at stake with the plane, the first commercial jet to be built mostly of lightweight composite materials. Boeing has orders for 800 more of the planes.
Boeing’s plan is still subject to approval by Michael P. Huerta, the head of the F.A.A., and Ray LaHood, the transportation secretary, who will be briefed on it within several days.
Mr. LaHood said in January that the planes “won’t fly until we’re 1,000 percent sure they are safe to fly.” Department officials said he and Mr. Huerta had been kept informed of the details of the proposal as it was created, and were expected to sign off on it.
The two-month investigation found nothing unusual in any of the electrical components linked to the battery, which were all tested. These include the battery charger, its monitoring unit and a starter for the auxiliary power unit.
The safety board is also looking into how the F.A.A. certified the batteries as safe in October 2007 when Boeing’s design and testing and its adherence to required special precautions were clearly deficient. Boeing’s original tests showed that the batteries could catch fire only if they overcharged, which did not happen in the Boston incident.
Boeing also found no evidence that a fire could cascade from one cell to another, and it concluded that the batteries were likely to emit smoke less than once in every 10 million flight hours.
Once the planes were placed in service, the batteries overheated and emitted smoke twice, and caused one fire, after 52,000 hours of commercial flights.
But one safety board document also suggested that while Boeing officials sat on a committee that created new minimum safety standards for lithium-ion batteries in March 2008, Boeing did not update its design even though the first 787s were not delivered to airlines until late 2011.
2013.1.19
波音787故障事件 日擬委託第三方調查
而美國 國家運輸安全委員會（ＮＴＳＢ）、美國聯邦航空總署（ＦＡＡ）等派遣的調查團，十八日抵達日本香川縣高松機場，進行事故調查。肇事鋰電池的日本製造商湯淺 公司，也派遣三名工程師前往高松協助調查，日本運輸安全員委會也將與美方的調查團共享資訊，以利調查客機出狀況的原因。
全日空這架波音七八七客機十六日在飛行途中，儀器感應到煙霧，機長隨即將客機緊急迫降高松機場。由於日航所屬的同型客機，本月初在降落美國波士頓機場後，也發生電池冒煙起火事故，兩起事故狀況類似，也引起了電池設備不良的質疑。
根據日方初步的調查，起火的電池是位於駕駛座附近地板下電子設備艙內的主電池，也就是由日本湯淺公司製造的鋰電池，原本重達廿八公斤的電池，大概減輕五公斤，疑因內部可燃性電解液，在過熱或沸騰的情況下噴出，這也是導致電池冒煙起火的原因。
日官員︰調查時間可能長達一年
日媒也報導，為了解開鋰電池詳細的肇事原因，運輸安全員委會有意委託公正第三者機構進行調查，官員透露，調查時間可能長達九個月到一年，若果如此，七八七的停飛時間恐怕將拖長。
目前日美及歐盟等國，已指示各航空公司在電池安全性得到確認前停航同型客機。美方有意根據調查團的調查結果，儘早判斷是否恢復通航。
*****
日本發生波音787夢幻客機因電池問題迫降事故後，美國聯邦航空管理局發出「適航指令」，下令美國所有航空公司停飛這款客機。
美國目前只有聯合航空在使用波音787客機。聯邦航空管理局表明，航空公司必須證明飛機的電池安全無虞方可恢復飛行。此前，日本兩大航空公司——日本航空和全日空——已經因為飛機電池所引發的事故而宣佈停飛波音787。
在最新一起事故中，全日空一架夢幻客機星期三（1月16日）從山口縣宇部機場起飛後不久電池發生故障，迫降高松市機場。
美國聯邦航空管理局表示，787夢幻客機所使用的鋰離子電池在發生故障時釋放出易燃電解質、明火和濃煙，但故障原因仍在調查當中。
當局稱，這個問題可能危害飛機關鍵系統運作。他們將與飛機生產商合作解決問題，盡快讓波音787飛機安全恢復運營。
受夢幻客機問題影響，波音在美國華爾街的股價星期三下跌超過3%。
Top Airlines in Japan Grounding Boeing 787s
By HIROKO TABUCHI and JAD MOUAWAD
TOKYO — Japan’s two largest airlines they would ground their fleets of
Boeing’s new 787 aircraft after one operated by All Nippon Airways made
an emergency landing in western Japan.
美國下令對波音787客機全面安檢
更新時間 2013年1月11日, 格林尼治標準時間18:16F
Boeing 787 漏油問題
Boston Globe 在其網站上報導稱﹐週二午間一架波音公司(Boeing) 787夢想飛機(Dreamliner)在飛往東京前因漏油問題返回波士頓Logan國際機場的航站樓。這架飛機由日本航空(Japan Airlines)運營。
報導援引機場人士的話報導稱﹐搭承此次航班的178名乘客仍在飛機上。事故尚未造成人員傷亡。機場新聞發言人Matthew Brelis稱﹐地勤人員正在控制漏油。目前漏油原因正在受到調查。
2013年 01月 10日 07:25
波音高管為787夢想飛機的可靠性辯護
波
音公司(Boeing Co., BA)週三對787夢想飛機(Dreamliner)的安全性和可靠性進行了辯護。此前該型飛機發生了一系列事故﹐其中包括週一日本航空(Japan Airlines Co., 9201.TO)一架波音787飛機發生的機艙著火事故。波音787項目副總裁兼首席工程師Mike Sinnett在電話中向記者們表示﹐波音787的可靠性與公司上一次推出的全新產品波音777處於同等水平。
Sinnett表示﹐他百分之一百確信波音787可以安全飛行。
他還稱﹐波音公司正與客戶和監管機構合作﹐改善現役787飛機的可靠性。
Sinnett未對週一飛機火災引發的調查進行正面置評。
他還稱﹐卡塔爾航空(Qatar Airways)和美國聯合美國大陸控股有限公司(United Continental Holdings Inc., UAL)波音787在去年12月份發生電子設備問題的原因已逐漸浮出水面﹐認為聯合技術公司(United Technologies Corp., UTX)旗下航空子公司生產的電氣板中的一些電子線路板可能存在問題。
沒有留言:
張貼留言