Battery types

asicer said:
If something was burned but there was no flame visible, is it considered a fire?
Click to expand...
Haven't looked into it, but seems like the NTSB is pretty good at differentiating from melting (due to heat) and ignition. But if you're flying along and smoke starts pouring out from behind the panel, it's not a difference that will matter much....

Huckster79 said:
well that speaks pretty good to them then as the “scare ya” YouTube fires seem as such it would be difficult to not report as they would melt a plane and it would never be able to land fatality free...
Click to expand...
Actually, I was actually surprised by the (relatively) low fatality rate for inflight fires...about 25%, the same as any other homebuilt accident. People will deny a low-fuel situation, but when the smoke starts, pilots are REAL interested in getting to the ground quickly.

Huckster79 said:
So I gotta say it doesn’t look like EarthX batteries are burning pilots to death in any measurable amount...
Click to expand...
Well, this is only homebuilts, and only through 2017. Until October 2018, the 737 Max looked pretty good, too.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Huckster79 said:
So the question is what FSDOs would field approve these? Would one need to find a mechanic in that area to do it then? Fly there n get it done?
Click to expand...

Call your FSDO and ask them. It makes sense to have the approval in hand before buying the product. For EarthX, at least. You don't need anything from the FAA to install an Odyssey.
 
Huckster79 said:
I’m interested...
Click to expand...
Perhaps give EarthX a call and see where they're at on any STC process. Maybe offer to be a test platform for the install in your 140? Or maybe they'd assist you to get a One-Time STC which would help their STC process. All's they can say is no, plus you can by possibly bypass the FSDO level politics.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That’s just (or should be just) coordinating with an instructor ahead of time.
Click to expand...

wanttaja said:
Haven't looked into it, but seems like the NTSB is pretty good at differentiating from melting (due to heat) and ignition. But if you're flying along and smoke starts pouring out from behind the panel, it's not a difference that will matter much....


Actually, I was actually surprised by the (relatively) low fatality rate for inflight fires...about 25%, the same as any other homebuilt accident. People will deny a low-fuel situation, but when the smoke starts, pilots are REAL interested in getting to the ground quickly.


Well, this is only homebuilts, and only through 2017. Until October 2018, the 737 Max looked pretty good, too.....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

yea but these batteries have been running around in the home built world for sometime... so seems like if they were a real danger there wud be some accidents in the database...

Also these are a different battery than the Dreamliner. My understanding is these are Lithium Iron, where there’s we’re Lithium Ion- that Ion is mire efficient than iron but more volatile...
 
Just called EarthX and they have turned in the paperwork in December for STCs for cessnas - she wasn’t sure which Cessna models- but claimed if one gets through would be relatively easy to get approval for another???

but if someone knows a friendlier than average FSDO to these things I’d gladly go to that area to shed 25lbs of batter!
 
Huckster79 said:
but claimed if one gets through would be relatively easy to get approval for another???
Click to expand...
FYI: In general terms, if EarthX is pursuing an AML-STC, which can cover multiple TCs and Models, vs a standard STC, which covers a single TC, then adding additional aircraft can be as simple as a paperwork process by EarthX.
 
Last edited:
I got curious and ran a search on the NTSB database. I used the "Aircraft Fire" flag, rejecting those cases where a fire was not involved. I also required the word "Battery" in the Probable Cause, on the assumption that the NTSB would use the term in cases where the battery was involved in a fire.

From 1998 through 2018, there were just nine cases.

MIA98LA192: Cessna 310k, chafing of positive battery cable.
DEN99LA02: Piper PA-28-161, shorting of aluminum battery wire
LAX00LA01: Cessna TR182, exhaust failure cooked the battery
MIA03LA118: Cessna 210E, battery wire arcing
FTW04LA142: Arcing of battery cable
NYC07IA063: Battery failure caused a fire! Unfortunately, it was a 9-volt battery in a passengers's carry-on bag....
ERA10LA387: Schweizer 2-33: Unauthorized installation of a battery and electrical system; no mention of battery chemistry.
DCA13IA037: Boeing 787 battery fire at Logan.
ERA14CA420: Mooney M20K improper GPU connection.

So...using the "Fire" flag and "battery" in the Probable Cause, the only case where battery chemistry was involved was the 787 fire. Could be different keywords might find more cases.

I have no idea of the installed base of EarthX batteries in aircraft, but they don't look to have been involved in any accidents yet.

Ron Wanttaja
 
So much for a battery type being a cause.

Now we have a better type of battery, the FAA can't use a safety factor as an excuse.
 
Picked up a couple more, ignoring the "Fire" flag and basing search on "battery" and "melt."

FTW04LA142: Piper PA-34, electrical arc in the main battery cable near the main power bus.
DEN07IA037: Boeing 737. Passenger was wearing a "personal air purifier" around his neck. There was a flash and a loud bang, and smoke emanated from the device. The passenger yelled and flung the air purifier from around his neck because it had started to burn him. It exploded into a ball of flames "about the size of volleyball" and fell between the seat cushions, starting a fire. The passenger had been re-charging the batteries...but they were non-rechargable lithium.
CEN13LA518: Citabria, rudder cable made contact with the terminal of the battery in an uncovered box.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Huckster79 said:
yea but these batteries have been running around in the home built world for sometime... so seems like if they were a real danger there wud be some accidents in the database...

Also these are a different battery than the Dreamliner. My understanding is these are Lithium Iron, where there’s we’re Lithium Ion- that Ion is mire efficient than iron but more volatile...
Click to expand...
The EarthX and 787 both use lithium ion batteries. In these batteries, the lithium is the ion that moves in the electrolyte. The 787 used batteries with lithium cobalt oxide cathodes, which are can break down if they are overheated or overcharged. As it breaksdown. it releases oxygen which "fuels the flames" (in a manner of speaking- oxygen is an oxidizer) and creates more heat.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
The EarthX and 787 both use lithium ion batteries. In these batteries, the lithium is the ion that moves in the electrolyte. The 787 used batteries with lithium cobalt oxide cathodes, which are can break down if they are overheated or overcharged. As it breaksdown. it releases oxygen which "fuels the flames" (in a manner of speaking- oxygen is an oxidizer) and creates more heat.
Click to expand...

EarthX batteries are lithium Iron which is not the same as Lithium Ion...lithium iron isnt as efficient but is safer

https://blog.epectec.com/lithium-iron-phosphate-vs-lithium-ion-differences-and-advantages
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: In general terms, if EarthX is pursuing an AML-STC, which can cover multiple TCs and Models, vs a standard STC, which covers a single TC, then adding additional aircraft can be as simple as a paperwork process by EarthX.
Click to expand...

any idea how long that process “typically” is? As in getting the first one approved? Not just adding a model
 
Huckster79 said:
any idea how long that process “typically” is?
Click to expand...
For the STCs I've been involved with it's usually 6-12 months depending on a number of variables. To apply that to Earthx would depend on where they are in the STC process. Considering they already have the TSO, I'd give them a couple months and call them back to see where they are.
 
Huckster79 said:
EarthX batteries are lithium Iron which is not the same as Lithium Ion...lithium iron isnt as efficient but is safer

https://blog.epectec.com/lithium-iron-phosphate-vs-lithium-ion-differences-and-advantages
Click to expand...
No, iron stays in the cathode, and doesn't go into the electrolyte. That's exactly like saying the 787 battery was not a lithium battery, it was a "lithium cobalt" battery.

There are a number of battery types called "lithium ion", and Li iron phosphate is just one of those types.
See: https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion

Chemists call batteries with that cathode material "lithium ion", not "lithium iron".
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/nl502429m
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top