787 probe puts spotlight on Arizona battery firm

After the fire, a former Securaplane employee named Michael Leon filed a cl aim for federal whistleblower protection, alleging that he was fired for ra ising security concerns about the design of the charger and discrepancies b etween assembly documents for the chargers and the finished chargers.

formatting link
B320130121

Reply to
recyclebinned
Loading thread data ...

The fire being referred to was in a Securaplane building and burned that building to the ground. It was not a fire aboard an airplane.

And that same article goes on to say:

So, it's not like this Michael Leon fella got fired because he complained when he discovered the Securaplane company was doing something wrong. I wish it were that simple so that Mr. Leon could simply tell Boeing what was done wrong and Boeing can finally solve the problem with the 787. Unfortunately, this smells more like a case of Michael Leon getting himself fired, and then as so often happens, the disgruntled employee then looking for a way to screw the company that fired him, and finding it in the whistleblower protection legislation. This happens all the time, it's just that Securaplane is under the spotlight as the company that made the charging system for the troubled

787, and so Michael Leon's case is getting far more notariety than most. But, I don't think they're going to find much more under this rock than notariety.
Reply to
nestork

Curious why this is on alt.home.repair group and not on the sci.electronics.design or sci.electronics.repair groups.

Hermetic sealing can get really important even inside a cabin.

Is the fire-prone battery assembly inside the cabin pressurized areas?

Reply to
Robert Macy

There are two batteries, both are in eqpt bays underneath, one near the nose, other below the wings. They are not part of the cabin.

Reply to
trader4

Define "part of the cabin".

Reply to
krw

te:

I think the usual definition of cabin is the area used for passengers, flight attendants, rest rooms, galleys, etc.

Reply to
trader4

rote:

It is my understanding that after some dramatic incidences, and follow- on lawsuits, that the cargo holds [where all the luggage is stored] is heated and pressurized.

Reply to
Robert Macy

Yes, I think that's true. They do put animals in there for example. But it's still a seperate area and not part of the cabin, at least in my definition. I'd call it what you just did, ie the cargo hold, cargo bay, etc.

Reply to
trader4

formatting link

Reply to
recyclebinned

Not always.

The pilot has a device, called the "Dead Dog Switch", that he flips if there is an animal in the cargo hold. If no animal, the airline saves fuel by not climatizing the area.

You can put this information to good use.

When the flight attendant asks you if there's anything you need, look up at her with a pained expression and a tear in your eye and say: "This airline froze my dog to death (sniff)."

You'll almost always get a free drink.

Reply to
HeyBub

The other common definition is inside the pressurized/heated portion of the airframe. It matters which. The fumes from anything burning in the hold will get into the cabin/cockpit.

Reply to
krw

I don't believe that's true, at least in modern aircraft. The floor won't like the pressure differential. The round structure of the fuselage is the pressure vessel.

...or "help" from the TSA master-groupers.

Reply to
krw

Are you sure about that? Like how do you know that the pressurization systems are common, that the air supplies are shared? The 787 in particular in Boston that had the battery fire, I didn't hear any mention of smoke showing up in the passenger cabin.

Reply to
trader4

Can't you spell? Idiot!

formatting link

Reply to
Clifford Clavin

I believe it is pressurised but only optionally heated.

Reply to
harry

Doing some googling, I believe you are correct. So the areas where the batteries are most likely are pressurized. But it's not clear what the specific issue then is. I would think even if it's pressurized, the air systems would probably be seperate from the passenger sections. Not saying that some smoke would not make it to the passenger part, but it would seem like a really bad idea to have a system where air from the cargo holds gets sent into the rest of the plane. That would make the whole plane susceptible to anything that any of the cargo could accidentally emit.

Reply to
trader4

Virtually always kept above freezing - which at 30,000 ft plus definitely requires heating. Without heat at 30,000 ft it is about 120 degrees colder than ground level

Reply to
clare

yet, surprisingly, the 'temperature' of the air molecules is hotter. just not enough of them to keep a person warm.

Reply to
Robert Macy

I think on some aircraft, the hold can be accessed (in flight) from the cabin. Dunno about the 787. But the door would be fire smoke roof.

Reply to
harry

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.