This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/global/airbus-abandons-plan-to-use-controversial-batteries.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
Airbus Abandons Plan to Use Controversial Batteries in New Jet To Avoid Delay, Airbus Drops Lithium-Ion Batteries
(about 5 hours later)
PARIS — Faced with the potential of a prolonged investigation into what caused batteries on two Boeing 787 Dreamliner jets to catch fire or emit smoke last month, Boeing’s European rival, Airbus, said Friday that it had abandoned plans to use the same battery technology on its forthcoming wide-body jet, the A350-XWB. When it comes to the volatile new lithium-ion battery technology, Boeing and Airbus are heading in different directions.
Airbus said it started informing airline customers on Thursday that it would not move ahead with an original plan to use the lightweight lithium-ion batteries to power a number of the A350’s onboard systems, and would revert instead to a conventional battery, made of nickel-cadmium, that is already used extensively on existing Airbus models. Faced with the potential of a lengthy investigation into what caused batteries on two Boeing 787 jets to ignite or emit smoke last month, Airbus said Friday that it had dropped plans to use the technology on its forthcoming wide-body jet, the A350-XWB, to avoid possible delays in producing the planes. But Boeing, which has much more at stake, said later in the day that it would stick with the batteries, and the company is working with regulators to reduce risks even if the cause of the hazards is not clearly found.
All 50 of the 787s delivered so far were grounded in mid-January. And even though the problems have embarrassed Boeing and could cost it hundreds of millions of dollars, the company said Friday, “There’s nothing we’ve learned in the investigations that would lead us to a different decision regarding lithium-ion batteries.”
To some extent, Boeing’s bravado reflects a sense among battery experts that they have narrowed down the ways that the batteries, made by a Japanese company, GS Yuasa, could fail. That then increases the chances that a handful of changes may eventually provide enough assurance that the batteries would be safe to use.
Airbus was planning on a more limited use of the lithium-ion batteries than Boeing, and by switching to the more traditional nickel-cadmium batteries, the company can make the necessary changes as it is building the planes. Boeing, on the other hand, has a strong motivation to stick with the lithium-ion batteries in hopes that a solution will emerge.
Under flight safety regulations, industry and government officials said, Boeing might not have to go through as extensive — and time-consuming — an approval process if it redesigned the lithium-ion batteries as it would if it switched to the conventional batteries.
Even though the behavior of the more traditional batteries is better understood, they have not yet been certified for use in the 787s, and the batteries and related parts of the plane’s electrical system would have to be created and tested from scratch. Under the safety directive grounding the planes, Boeing might have a more straightforward path to get them flying again if it could persuade the Federal Aviation Administration that redesigning the lithium-ion batteries would work.
Federal and industry officials said Boeing would probably have to spread the eight cells in the batteries farther apart — or increase the insulation between them — to keep a failure in one cell from cascading to the others in the “thermal runaway” that led to the smoke and fire. Battery experts are also looking into whether vibrations in flight could have added to the risks of unwanted contact between the cells. And Boeing would undoubtedly have to wall off the battery within a sturdier metal container and make it easier to vent any hazardous materials outside the plane.
Aviation experts said the examination of such changes reflected what could end up being a difficult calculation for safety regulators: Will there be a way to ensure the safety of the batteries if they cannot tell for certain what set off the problems on the two planes?
Until now, most of the public statements by regulators have focused on the need to pin down the cause of the battery problems. But investigators, now weeks into their work, have been able to find only limited clues in the charred remains of the two batteries.
As a result, government and outside experts, working closely with Boeing engineers, have been studying the research on lithium-ion batteries carried out since Boeing won approval for its batteries in 2007 and, in essence, trying to come up with a safer design.
Government and industry officials said Friday that it was still too early to know if Boeing could devise enough changes to satisfy regulators and the flying public.
Airbus said it started informing airline customers on Thursday that it would not move ahead with an original plan to use the lithium-ion batteries on its A350s.
“Airbus considers this to be the most appropriate way forward in the interest of program execution and reliability,” said Marcella Muratore, an Airbus spokeswoman.“Airbus considers this to be the most appropriate way forward in the interest of program execution and reliability,” said Marcella Muratore, an Airbus spokeswoman.
Airbus completed the assembly of its first test version of the A350 late last year and initial ground tests of that plane using the lithium-ion batteries had already begun at its factory in Toulouse, France.Airbus completed the assembly of its first test version of the A350 late last year and initial ground tests of that plane using the lithium-ion batteries had already begun at its factory in Toulouse, France.
By switching batteries now, the company said it hoped to be able to stick to its schedule of delivering the first aircraft in the second half of 2014. “Airbus is at a point where they have to make a decision,” said Scott Hamilton, the managing director at the Leeham Company, an aviation consulting firm in Issaquah, Wash. “Obviously, they decided to take the safer course to stay on schedule. They could always go back to lithium-ion if the 787 problems are sorted out.”
Investigators at the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board have not determined the root cause of two episodes in January involving fire or smoke from the 787’s lithium-ion batteries, which are made by a Japanese company, GS Yuasa. The incidents prompted the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration to ground all 787s on Jan. 16. “But if Boeing went back to the older batteries, they might have to recertify the entire electrical system,” Mr. Hamilton said. “So it’s not in Boeing’s interest to do that.”
In recent weeks Airbus executives had indicated their concern that the continued uncertainty about the cause of the 787 battery problems, as well as the nature of any fixes that might be ordered by the F.A.A. and its European counterpart, the European Aviation Safety Agency, might endanger the A350’s development schedule, leading to potentially significant compensation payments to airlines. In this case, Airbus is also benefiting from being several years behind Boeing in developing the new generation of fuel-efficient planes, Mr. Hamilton said. He said Airbus had more flexibility since the A350s, which will compete with the 787s and Boeing 777s, have not yet been certified to fly by regulators.
Airbus has booked 617 orders for the A350 from 35 airline customers. Airbus has booked 617 orders for the A350 from 35 airline customers, while Boeing has about 800 more orders for the 787.
Ms. Muratore, the Airbus spokeswoman, said the company remained confident that the lithium-ion battery system that it had been developing with its French supplier, Saft, was “robust and safe,” and added that Airbus planned to use lithium-ion batteries on the A350s it will use for flight tests scheduled to begin this summer. Ms. Muratore, the Airbus spokeswoman, said the company remained confident that the lithium-ion battery system that it had been developing with its French supplier, Saft, was “robust and safe,” and added that Airbus still planned to use lithium-ion batteries on the A350s it will use for flight tests scheduled to begin this summer.
The decision to revert to nickel-cadmium batteries, she said, was made for purely commercial reasons. The decision to revert to nickel-cadmium batteries, she said, was made purely to avoid delaying the first deliveries of the A350.
“As a result of making this decision now, Airbus does not expect it to impact the entry into service schedule,” Ms. Muratore said. Battery makers have promoted lithium-ion batteries as being significantly lighter and faster to recharge than nickel-cadmium batteries.
The Boeing 787 is the first commercial airliner to make extensive use of lithium-ion batteries. Before the A350, Airbus had used the technology only to power a limited number of auxiliary functions on its twin-deck A380 superjumbo, which entered service in 2007. Promotional materials from both GS Yuasa and Saft have also described the technology as requiring significantly less maintenance than conventional batteries, reducing operating costs for airlines.
Battery makers have promoted lithium-ion batteries as being significantly lighter and faster to recharge than nickel-cadmium batteries. Promotional materials from both GS Yuasa and Saft have also described the technology as requiring significantly less maintenance than conventional batteries, reducing operating costs for airlines. Battery experts say that while lithium-ion batteries weigh 30 percent to 40 percent less than conventional batteries, their contribution to the overall weight of a jetliner is minimal: the empty weight of a Boeing 787, for example, is about 242,000 pounds; its two lithium-ion batteries weigh 63 pounds each.
But investigations by Japanese and U.S. regulators had revealed that airlines had experienced multiple problems with the 787’s batteries before the overheating incidents in January, raising questions about their reliability. Analysts said the cost to Airbus of making the switch was likely to be minimal.
Battery experts say that while lithium-ion batteries weigh 30 percent to 40 percent less than conventional batteries, their contribution to the overall weight of a jetliner is minimal: The empty weight of a Boeing 787, for example, is about 242,000 pounds, or 110,000 kilograms; its two lithium-ion batteries weigh 63 pounds each. “This seems like the thoroughly sensible thing to do,” said Nick Cunningham, an aerospace industry analyst at Agency Partners in London.
Ms. Muratore of Airbus said it was too early to say what, if any, effect the battery switch might have on the A350’s fuel-efficiency or other performance targets. But she emphasized that weight “was not a factor” in the decision. She added that the dimensions of the nickel-cadmium batteries were not expected to be significantly larger than those of the four lithium-ion batteries they would replace, reducing the design adjustments that would have to be made.
Airbus said it was too early to estimate the financial impact of making the battery switch. But analysts said it was likely to be minimal compared with the potential burden of hundreds of millions of dollars in penalty payments to customers in the event of a delivery delay.
“I think this probably gets lost in the wash,” said Nick Cunningham, an aerospace industry analyst at Agency Partners in London. “You’re probably only talking about a few million dollars.”
He estimated that the added weight of the nickel-cadmium battery was probably equivalent to losing one passenger seat of payload. “That’s likely to be well within the margin of guarantees” on performance that Airbus has made to airlines, he said. “This seems like the thoroughly sensible thing to do.”
Boeing has so far hesitated to order a switch to conventional batteries with the 787 before the cause of the battery problems has been determined. With 50 Dreamliners already in the hands of customers and several more planes either on assembly lines or parked in hangars waiting to be delivered, there does not appear to be a simple — or inexpensive — solution.
The 787’s battery is part of an integrated electrical system designed to work with a specific type of battery, which is likely to make any modifications complex and time-consuming. For Airbus, which has only one test plane assembled so far, switching to a “Plan B” involves significantly fewer risks.
According to one person who has been briefed on the U.S. investigation of the 787, the solutions being proposed by Boeing continue to focus on retaining the lithium-ion technology. The proposed solutions include significant reinforcement of the enclosure around the battery as well as enhancements to the systems designed to vent battery smoke outside the aircraft, said the person, who was not authorized to discuss details of the investigation and requested anonymity.
Changes to the battery’s design that would reduce the rate of individual cell failure as well as slow the rate at which a fire could spread to other cells are also being discussed, the person said.
The special conditions under which the F.A.A. initially authorized the use of lithium-ion batteries on the 787 are also under review and could be significantly revised, the person said.
Aviation regulators have long known about the risks of lithium-ion batteries, which are more prone to overheating if improperly charged or discharged. Because of their unique chemistry, a fire that begins in one cell of a lithium-ion battery is difficult to extinguish and can rapidly spread to neighboring cells, a condition known as thermal runaway.
The technology was nonetheless approved by the F.A.A., the E.A.S.A. and regulators in other countries for use on the 787 in 2007, with the provision that Boeing employ a series of additional safeguards to contain smoke and fire in the event of an incident.
Airbus said it would continue to study the lithium-ion technology as it moved forward with the A350’s development and would “take on board” any relevant findings that resulted from the investigation of the 787 incidents.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 15, 2013Correction: February 15, 2013

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized incidents in January involving lithium-ion batteries in Boeing 787 Dreamliners. In one case a battery caught fire, and in another a battery emitted smoke; both batteries did not catch fire.

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized incidents in January involving lithium-ion batteries in Boeing 787 Dreamliners. In one case a battery caught fire, and in another a battery emitted smoke; both batteries did not catch fire.