UPS 747 Crash from 2010, Conclusion. Cause was Lithium Batteries

So they have made all these changes (fire resistant containers, better smoke masks etc) but the fact that lithium batteries have a nasty habit of combusting, the 800lb gorilla in the room, is kind of skipped over.
 
jhugz said:
The FAA continues to show how little of a damn they give about cargo pilots.
Click to expand...

It's not just cargo pilots for this one. Passenger airlines may not take pallets of the things, but there is no restriction on loading them in the cargo bin for us either.
 
BobDDuck said:
So they have made all these changes (fire resistant containers, better smoke masks etc) but the fact that lithium batteries have a nasty habit of combusting, the 800lb gorilla in the room, is kind of skipped over.
Click to expand...

The 76 still doesn't have full face masks or EVAS, but they are working on it. They are also trying to get a can with fire suppression certified.

What I can't figure out is why not just build the damn batteries here or put them on a boat? Air Cargo is super expensive. I know stuff is built in China cause it's cheaper but I wonder how much more Lithium batteries would cost if they just built them here?

Here is the press release from the IPA:

UPS PILOTS: FATAL CRASH REPORT SPURS INNOVATION


UPS, Pilots Cooperate in Developing New Air Cargo Fire Safety Technology Following 2010 Crash; Union President Calls for Quick Adoption

Louisville, KY, July 24, 2013 – The General Civil Aviation Authority (United Arab Emirates) today released its final report concerning the fatal crash of a United Parcel Service (UPS) B747-400 in Dubai on September 3, 2010. The report details facts concerning the accident, and makes recommendations addressing air cargo fire safety.

“Nearly three years following this tragic accident, UPS pilots welcome the release of this final report,” said Independent Pilots Association (IPA) President Robert Travis. “Some of the GCAA’s recommendations are already being addressed by a joint company and pilot union group, the IPA/UPS Safety Task Force, created shortly after the accident,” he stated.

Travis said the union has worked with UPS to design, build, test and demonstrate for the FAA and NTSB an active fire suppression system capable of suppressing and containing a fire for up to four (4) hours. The technologies incorporated in that container, known as the Unit Load Device, consist of improved materials and a potassium based aerosol suppressant.

“We encourage the FAA and UPS to move quickly and deliberately in approving and fully implementing this new technology,” added Travis.

Prior to the release of the GCAA’s final report, the UPS/IPA Safety Task Force recommended other safety measures that are being implemented by UPS including EVAS (Emergency Vision Assurance System), and quick donning full-face oxygen masks for all UPS aircraft. Both provide significant improvements on the flight deck during an onboard smoke, fire or fume event.

“We tragically lost two of our best pilots in the Dubai crash. As UPS pilots, we are determined to do everything in our power to minimize the risk associated with on-board smoke and fire events,” said Travis. “This includes proper regulations governing the carriage of hazardous materials including lithium batteries.”


​
 
DE727UPS said:
The 76 still doesn't have full face masks or EVAS, but they are working on it. They are also trying to get a can with fire suppression certified.

What I can't figure out is why not just build the damn batteries here or put them on a boat? Air Cargo is super expensive. I know stuff is built in China cause it's cheaper but I wonder how much more Lithium batteries would cost if they just built them here?

Here is the press release from the IPA:

UPS PILOTS: FATAL CRASH REPORT SPURS INNOVATION

​
UPS, Pilots Cooperate in Developing New Air Cargo Fire Safety Technology Following 2010 Crash; Union President Calls for Quick Adoption​
​
Louisville, KY, July 24, 2013 – The General Civil Aviation Authority (United Arab Emirates) today released its final report concerning the fatal crash of a United Parcel Service (UPS) B747-400 in Dubai on September 3, 2010. The report details facts concerning the accident, and makes recommendations addressing air cargo fire safety.​
​
“Nearly three years following this tragic accident, UPS pilots welcome the release of this final report,” said Independent Pilots Association (IPA) President Robert Travis. “Some of the GCAA’s recommendations are already being addressed by a joint company and pilot union group, the IPA/UPS Safety Task Force, created shortly after the accident,” he stated.​
​
Travis said the union has worked with UPS to design, build, test and demonstrate for the FAA and NTSB an active fire suppression system capable of suppressing and containing a fire for up to four (4) hours. The technologies incorporated in that container, known as the Unit Load Device, consist of improved materials and a potassium based aerosol suppressant.​
​
“We encourage the FAA and UPS to move quickly and deliberately in approving and fully implementing this new technology,” added Travis.​
​
Prior to the release of the GCAA’s final report, the UPS/IPA Safety Task Force recommended other safety measures that are being implemented by UPS including EVAS (Emergency Vision Assurance System), and quick donning full-face oxygen masks for all UPS aircraft. Both provide significant improvements on the flight deck during an onboard smoke, fire or fume event.​
​
“We tragically lost two of our best pilots in the Dubai crash. As UPS pilots, we are determined to do everything in our power to minimize the risk associated with on-board smoke and fire events,” said Travis. “This includes proper regulations governing the carriage of hazardous materials including lithium batteries.”​
​
​
​
Click to expand...

Excellent post. I take issue with "putting them on a boat" simply because a massive container ship full of them, ablaze, would be a mess - and cargo ships have larger crews than planes. That said, they don't really belong on planes either and I agree that they need to be built here. Lithium Ion batts are what power my cochlear implants. One of the large challenges with any medical device is the power source. All the manufacturers are currently working on a device that is 100% implantable (as opposed to some implanted, and external pieces as is the current standard). My concern is "Does anyone really want a battery implanted in their head that close to their brain?". We've looked at locating in the chest muscles with a wire, and other "remote" locations - but the battery issue is one of the main complexities in some parts of biotech.
 
I don't understand his whole Lithium Ion battery issue.. From my professional aspect of the dangers/hazmat awareness of them, I get that! However, using and transporting them in boats, planes and trains!

Point I'm getting at, are there no other options for using something else for aircraft batteries, such as the 787? Or, was the 787 built around that particular battery to operate this aircraft? What do Boeing aircraft uses as battery power on the later model planes, I'm guessing planes built late 90's and later? And if it isn't Lithium, why can't a aircraft, like the 787 use something similar?

And if they seem to be such a potent danger of catching fire, either in operation or transport, why haven't measures been pushed to cease using them period until other ideas come about, on how to fix this?

Y'all, forgive me on the silly question, but I have zero understanding regarding these batteries, Boeing's love fest with them, and their uses within a aircraft system! I'm just trying to learn something!
 
Area 5150 said:
I don't understand his whole Lithium Ion battery issues. From my professional aspect of the dangers/hazmat awareness of them, I get that! However, using and transporting them in boats, planes and trains!

Point I'm getting at, are there no other options for using something else for aircraft batteries, such as the 787? Or, was the 787 built around that particular battery to operate this aircraft? What do Boeing aircraft uses as battery power on the later model planes, I'm guessing planes built late 90's and later? And if it isn't Lithium, why can't a product like the 787 use something similar?

And if they seem to be such a potent danger of catching fire, either in operation or transport, why haven't measures been pushed to cease using them period until other ideas come about, on how to fix this?

Y'all, forgive me on the silly question, but I have zero understanding regarding these batteries, Boeing love fest with them, and their uses within a aircraft system! I'm just trying to learn something!
Click to expand...

Lithium ion batteries are significantly lighter than their lead acid counterparts, in addition to being smaller. That's one of the major benefits. In addition, I believe they have a longer service life, and I've heard (cannot corroborate this), but all told, they are more environmentally friendly than lead acid.
 
They store more power. 787 moved a lot of equipment from hydraulic to electric and the electrical use, thus the storage required for fail-over, is significantly greater than the older models.
 
WacoFan said:
I take issue with "putting them on a boat" simply because a massive container ship full of them, ablaze, would be a mess - and cargo ships have larger crews than planes.
Click to expand...

Plenty of water on a boat to keep a battery in thermal runaway cool. Not so much on a plane. Also, you can always dump the cargo over the side on a container ship. Not so easy to do in a plane.
 
I am surprised FedEx/UPS don't make some sort of standard themselves for labeling and transport requirements.
 
BobDDuck said:
Plenty of water on a boat to keep a battery in thermal runaway cool. Not so much on a plane. Also, you can always dump the cargo over the side on a container ship. Not so easy to do in a plane.
Click to expand...
Only if the batteries are near the top. There are also containers stored beneath the main deck. It would take a long time to get to those.
 
Maurus said:
I am surprised FedEx/UPS don't make some sort of standard themselves for labeling and transport requirements.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of money to be made with sticking to the status quo. See the cargo cutout. We are just pawns in a big corporate game of stock value and quarterly earnings. The li-on battery lobby is very powerful and challenges every finding with respect to safety.

As posted above, some measures are being taken, but we still have to carry the damn things for now. I think I know what will happen to the first Capt that refuses the cargo...
 
DE727UPS said:
There is a lot of money to be made with sticking to the status quo. See the cargo cutout. We are just pawns in a big corporate game of stock value and quarterly earnings. The li-on battery lobby is very powerful and challenges every finding with respect to safety.

As posted above, some measures are being taken, but we still have to carry the damn things for now. I think I know what will happen to the first Capt that refuses the cargo...
Click to expand...

Too bad they can't engineer pylon assemblies in-between the #1 & #2 engines, and in-between the #3 & #4 engines, where cargo like this could be carried in a streamlined "drop tank" style pod that wouldn't be a major weight/drag penalty, but at the same time can be jettisoned were something to go wrong.
 
MikeD said:
Too bad they can't engineer pylon assemblies in-between the #1 & #2 engines, and in-between the #3 & #4 engines, where cargo like this could be carried in a streamlined "drop tank" style pod that wouldn't be a major weight/drag penalty, but at the same time can be jettisoned were something to go wrong.
Click to expand...

Take the 747 fire bomber design to drop the cargo as needed?
 
I never thought of that. Seems like a cool idea. Or we could tow a HAZMAT glider behind us. If planes keep burning up you should talk to an aero engineer about the idea. Or, just get a bunch of C-17's and if you get a cargo fire open the back hatch and pitch the nose up.

Still don't see why we can't just manufacturer them over here.

I keep hearing how China's labor costs keep going up and offshored industries are starting to come back.
 
When I spent a few months in a cargo warehouse building up and breaking down air freight for various carriers, these batteries were one of the most popular shipments on pretty much every carrier. Between this and the Asiana Cargo crash, hopefully the buck stops here.
 
The biggest thing is production capabilities. Even with the cost of transport it is more cost effective to send our Lithium overseas to be made into batteries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top