Lithium Ion Batteries - Houston, We Have A Problem
I have been reading with great interest about the ongoing issues with the lithium-ion batteries in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. I was fortunate to stand in line at Oshkosh two years ago to see this beautiful aircraft. From the ramp, the aircraft is probably one of the most attractive and revolutionary pieces of art to come out of Boeing in a long time. After reading more and more about the battery incidents that have plagued the 787, many questions came to my mind. For example, why did Boeing go with an un-proven battery design from a manufacturer who has little or no experience in aviation batteries?
The questions kept increasing, as other lithium-ion-related aircraft applications have had problems over the last several years as well.
Cessna certified the Citation CJ4 in March 2010 as the first civil aircraft with a lithium-ion main battery. Cessna sang the battery’ praises, as the battery only weighed 54 pounds (typical sealed aircraft battery of this size is around 90 pounds). Unfortunately, the praises were short lived. While at a service center, an A&P reportedly hooked up a power cart to a CJ4, which used the new lithium-ion batteries. Somehow, the technician bypassed a safety mechanism, which caused the main ship battery to catch fire. As a result, the FAA issued an emergency AD 2011-21-51, requiring the mandatory replacement of the lithium-ion battery with either a Ni-Cad or lead-acid battery within 10 flight hours or seven days.
Gulfstream, which is known far and wide for building some of the best business jets on earth (and has regularly received rewards for top-notch product support), seems to be one of the only airframe manufacturers that is really paying attention to history. Although Meggitt’s Securaplane division announced it had won approval to supply its lithium-ion battery for the Gulfstream G650 in 2008, Gulfstream reportedly decided not to go the lithium-ion batteries because its own internal tests revealed that this lithium-ion configuration would not be the best fit for certifying the aircraft. Some sources at Gulfstream are now saying that operators have the option of using Ni-Cad or lead-acid batteries.
If you look at the many of the major players in the aircraft battery market, you will notice that by and large they are not offering lithium-ion batteries to the general aviation, corporate or airline fleets.
These aviation battery manufacturers have collectively built millions of batteries that have performed in every corner of the globe. These manufactures employ bright engineers who have learned what it takes for a battery to withstand aviation’s abusive operating environment. It is interesting that these reputable companies are not building lithium-ion batteries for the masses.
Concorde has been building a lithium-ion battery for the CH53K military helicopter since 2006. The important point here is that the CH53K was a newer redesign with electronics specifically geared to control and monitor this type of battery configuration. By and large, lithium-ion batteries like this are not the type of thing that can be dropped in your A36 Bonanza during your weekly Saturday morning hangar visit. You can bet all of these companies are working on lithium-related chemistry batteries for wider markets.
Shipping lithium batteries has also caused havoc in the airline cargo industry. We have heard of instances where lithium batteries in cell phones have exploded or caught fire on a passenger airliner. Last year, the U.S. Postal Service banned the shipment of lithium batteries until the ruling was reversed in November. Cathay Pacific and British Airways recently discussed banning the shipment of any related lithium-ion battery devices in their cargo holds. It is worthy to take a look and see what has been going on with lithium-related fires in the air cargo industry.
There is so much concern in the industry over onboard fires related to lithium ion that the FAA released a Safety Alert for Operators called “SAFO 10017” dated Oct. 8, 2010. The title is “Risks in Transporting Lithium Batteries in Cargo by Aircraft.” This letter was released shortly after a friend of my family perished while flying a UPS 747 out of Dubai International Airport. UAE investigators found evidence that led them to believe that a lithium-ion battery fire may have contributed to the crash. This event was mentioned in the FAA SAFO 10017 document.
If you read this document yourself, you might arrive at the same conclusion that I did. The FAA research paper reflects a real concern for the safe carriage of lithium-ion batteries onboard passenger aircraft. The document references research and testing done at the FAA Tech Center shows that encased lithium-ion batteries pose a safety risk, and Halon 1301 is ineffective in fighting a lithium-related fire. If a lithium battery cell is exposed to intense heat, or external abuse, the likelihood of thermal runaway is greatly increased thus causing a fire. One may ask, if these batteries are hazardous and so dangerous to be carried onboard a cargo aircraft, should we be in such a rush to install these as a main ship battery for our aircraft?
When I looked at recent pictures of the Yuasa-manufactured Dreamliner battery that caught fire, my first impression was one of surprise. I have never seen an aircraft battery (Ni-cad or lead acid) that looked that bad due to thermal runaway.
The most recent lithium battery incident occurred in a Japan Airlines 787 that had just landed at Boston Logan Airport. Reportedly, a line technician noticed smoke coming from a cargo door in the belly of the aircraft. Firefighters that responded to the scene mentioned that this was a significant fire which took 40 minutes to extinguish. Although the investigation is ongoing, NTSB Chairwomen Deborah Hersman has already publicly stated the battery cell No. 6 had short circuited, causing the fire to spread from cell to cell. The NTSB is unsure of the reason as of yet. This JAL event follows on the heels of an ANA 787 flight that recently made an emergency landing in Takamatsu airport Japan because of a battery alarm signal. Passengers complained of a burning smell in the aircrafts cabin.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the evolution of lithium-ion batteries in aviation. Airbus had announced that they would be using a Saft-manufactured lithium-ion battery manufactured for the new A350 airliner. Although they have publically supported the new configuration, most analysts have been told that Airbus already developed a backup plan in the event that new Lithium-Ion batteries would ever become a problem during the aircraft certification process. Several new up and coming suppliers such as Eagle Picher technologies are working to integrate new safety measures to make Lithium battery technologies safe. What becomes of this investigation, and the implications this has for certifying Lithium-Ion batteries for certified aircraft use is anyone’s guess.
Norman Chance is president and CEO of Chance Aviation, an international aircraft parts distributor headquartered in Indianapolis. He has a degree in aircraft maintenance from Vincennes University and a degree in aeronautics from Embry-Riddle University. He holds an FAA A&P certificate.