I thought it would be fun to start a thread about design flaws that perhaps can make you go : " Hmmm ".
I remember how long ago, we did a thread about how the first M1 ABRAMS tank versions needed the gasturbine engine to remain running for the electronics to be active.
That was kind of sad when you are hiding your superduper invincible tank of 60 tons, in the dark night perfectly cloaked...
And the only people who would not notice you at all would have to be deaf and also be way to restless to not feel the nearby ground rumbling.
Yah, that was like being surprised as if some of us had a botched up facial lift. Eyebrows on top of our heads. 😲
Feel free to add interesting posts about anything. It is fun to learn from.
I was reading about the FAA and the EASA and the CAAC.
FAA : Federal Aviation Administration
EASA : European Union Aviation Safety Agency
CAAC : Civil Aviation Administration of China
As you can see is this post about something that happened in the aviation industry.
I was reading this article, and first let me make perfectly clear that i understand why this design choice happened, i know a bit how the aviation industry (and any industry in general) works and of course about certification.
And even if a solution is not ideal, it is here, it is present and it works good enough and it is certified and a new design would cost money and who would be willing to foot the bill for a new design with less issues.
It does not pose any troubles it seems. And also the moment in time the design choice was made is important.
If the design choice happened years ago, certain parts could possibly not have been available. Shortage of desired components is also something that often happens in real life.
New inventions and newly released parts may that be batteries, connectors electronic components or just name something, it happens all the time.
And then sometimes at some nasty moment in time, some materials or elements are called conflict materials and may no longer be imported or transported.
Or some materials may turn out to be extremely hazardous and end up being banned and forbidden.
And all that when you need to deliver according to contract obligations ...
All this as : Just an example.
Now you know why the big league of for example computer industry companies order components ahead of time.
So, one could go having a fasttrack opinion like most wise@ss do, laugh and say : "So stupid, i cannot even imagine MUahahahahah ! " .... And feel totally narcistic GODLIKE FLAWLESS VICTORY like...
Or one could think...
Anyway, i read this article and thought : "Wouldn't LiFePO4 be a far better choice or NIMH batteries be a better choice".
No memory effect for at least NiMH batteries.
LiFePo4 also has no memory effect.
Small excerpt form the text :
"
by Rytis Beresnevicius 2023-09-05
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has issued an airworthiness directive (AD) addressing a storage-related battery problem on all Airbus aircraft.
The proposed AD, which is still open to comments from stakeholders, was issued following an investigation by Airbus and the unnamed manufacturer of the Nickel-Cadmium (Ni-Cd) battery. The two companies determined that “repetitive disconnection and reconnection of batteries during aeroplane parking or storage” carried out according to the aircraft’s maintenance manual, could result in the loss “of the capacity of those batteries”.
“This condition, if not corrected, could lead to reduced battery endurance performance, possibly resulting in failure to supply the minimum essential electrical power during abnormal or emergency conditions,” EASA stated in the proposed AD.
The potential unsafe condition was first addressed by Airbus issuing respective Alert Operators Transmissions (AOT) for A320, A330 and A340, and A380 aircraft “to provide maintenance instructions to restore an aeroplane to an airworthy condition and to preserve battery capacity during an aeroplane parking or storage period”.
The AOT resulted in EASA publishing an AD in December 2020, which required operators of A320, A330 and A340, and A380 family aircraft to replace affected Ni-Cd batteries.
However, now both Airbus and the battery manufacturer have determined that “the on-wing preservation procedures originally” in the AOT, as well as recommendations outlined in Airbus Operators Information Transmission (OIT) for A350 and A300/A310 family aircraft “did not ensure the expected preservation of the battery capacity”.
"
EDIT 5 june 2024 : Removed the text about possible memory effect for LiFePo4 batteries. It does not exist. Faulty state of charge (SOC) measurements are the actual culprit because of not following proper battery handling. This can be for example a programming error inside a BMS (Battery Management System) or a user error while handling the battery and the BMS.
Overcharging and too much discharging can be a serious issue for LiFePo4 batteries and also for lithium ion batteries, may that be a cilindrical cell or a pouch shaped package.
I remember how long ago, we did a thread about how the first M1 ABRAMS tank versions needed the gasturbine engine to remain running for the electronics to be active.
That was kind of sad when you are hiding your superduper invincible tank of 60 tons, in the dark night perfectly cloaked...
And the only people who would not notice you at all would have to be deaf and also be way to restless to not feel the nearby ground rumbling.
Yah, that was like being surprised as if some of us had a botched up facial lift. Eyebrows on top of our heads. 😲
Feel free to add interesting posts about anything. It is fun to learn from.
I was reading about the FAA and the EASA and the CAAC.
FAA : Federal Aviation Administration
EASA : European Union Aviation Safety Agency
CAAC : Civil Aviation Administration of China
As you can see is this post about something that happened in the aviation industry.
I was reading this article, and first let me make perfectly clear that i understand why this design choice happened, i know a bit how the aviation industry (and any industry in general) works and of course about certification.
And even if a solution is not ideal, it is here, it is present and it works good enough and it is certified and a new design would cost money and who would be willing to foot the bill for a new design with less issues.
It does not pose any troubles it seems. And also the moment in time the design choice was made is important.
If the design choice happened years ago, certain parts could possibly not have been available. Shortage of desired components is also something that often happens in real life.
New inventions and newly released parts may that be batteries, connectors electronic components or just name something, it happens all the time.
And then sometimes at some nasty moment in time, some materials or elements are called conflict materials and may no longer be imported or transported.
Or some materials may turn out to be extremely hazardous and end up being banned and forbidden.
And all that when you need to deliver according to contract obligations ...
All this as : Just an example.
Now you know why the big league of for example computer industry companies order components ahead of time.
So, one could go having a fasttrack opinion like most wise@ss do, laugh and say : "So stupid, i cannot even imagine MUahahahahah ! " .... And feel totally narcistic GODLIKE FLAWLESS VICTORY like...
Or one could think...
Anyway, i read this article and thought : "Wouldn't LiFePO4 be a far better choice or NIMH batteries be a better choice".
No memory effect for at least NiMH batteries.
LiFePo4 also has no memory effect.
EASA warns of storage-related battery drain on all Airbus aircraft - AeroTime
EASA is introducing time limits for batteries on stored Airbus aircraft, affecting all aircraft families.
www.aerotime.aero
"
by Rytis Beresnevicius 2023-09-05
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has issued an airworthiness directive (AD) addressing a storage-related battery problem on all Airbus aircraft.
The proposed AD, which is still open to comments from stakeholders, was issued following an investigation by Airbus and the unnamed manufacturer of the Nickel-Cadmium (Ni-Cd) battery. The two companies determined that “repetitive disconnection and reconnection of batteries during aeroplane parking or storage” carried out according to the aircraft’s maintenance manual, could result in the loss “of the capacity of those batteries”.
“This condition, if not corrected, could lead to reduced battery endurance performance, possibly resulting in failure to supply the minimum essential electrical power during abnormal or emergency conditions,” EASA stated in the proposed AD.
The potential unsafe condition was first addressed by Airbus issuing respective Alert Operators Transmissions (AOT) for A320, A330 and A340, and A380 aircraft “to provide maintenance instructions to restore an aeroplane to an airworthy condition and to preserve battery capacity during an aeroplane parking or storage period”.
The AOT resulted in EASA publishing an AD in December 2020, which required operators of A320, A330 and A340, and A380 family aircraft to replace affected Ni-Cd batteries.
However, now both Airbus and the battery manufacturer have determined that “the on-wing preservation procedures originally” in the AOT, as well as recommendations outlined in Airbus Operators Information Transmission (OIT) for A350 and A300/A310 family aircraft “did not ensure the expected preservation of the battery capacity”.
"
EDIT 5 june 2024 : Removed the text about possible memory effect for LiFePo4 batteries. It does not exist. Faulty state of charge (SOC) measurements are the actual culprit because of not following proper battery handling. This can be for example a programming error inside a BMS (Battery Management System) or a user error while handling the battery and the BMS.
Overcharging and too much discharging can be a serious issue for LiFePo4 batteries and also for lithium ion batteries, may that be a cilindrical cell or a pouch shaped package.
Last edited: