Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
SAIB 2024-01 - Thermal Runaway TCW Backup Battery
- Thread starter Webb
- Start date
Thanks Steve. I gave up after spending 15 minutes searching.
Considering the batteries in question use LiFePO4 chemistry, it's not surprising there have been no reported thermal runaways.
Is your statement in regard to certified or experimental?
In the certified world, EarthX TSO batteries have always been designed and built to meet the FAA's latest standard TSO C179b, and special conditions of AC 20-184 (including the draft revision A) which means it has full thermal runaway containment and venting. All the EarthX TSO FAA approved batteries are compliant. What this means is, if in the event of a thermal runaway, any vapor or smoke is safely routed to the exterior of the aircraft. In addition, EarthX is also the first company in the world to put their batteries through FAA engine compartment fire testing, which is a 2,000 deg F for a duration of 15 minutes without causing ANY additional damage to surrounding structures. We know the FAA will not attempt that test on a lead acid battery, way too dangerous.
In the experimental world, our battery models that end in -VNT offer the same level of protection as the certified. It has been EarthX’s recommendation to use our -VNT models for in-cabin installations. In just the past 5 years, we have over 100,000,000 safe flight hours of data regardless of installation location.
dmattmul
Well Known Member
"Rechargeable lithium cells are capable of generating hazardous emissions when defective or subject to physical or operational abuse."
Don't physically or operationally abuse your battery, please!! Not rocket science but I've seen my fair share of questionable installs and operations.
Don't physically or operationally abuse your battery, please!! Not rocket science but I've seen my fair share of questionable installs and operations.
Bill Boyd
Well Known Member
That's a lot of flight hours!
5 years is about 44,000 hours. A hundred million flight hours accumulated over 44 thousand actual hours works out to about 2,300 EarthX batteries aloft at any hour of every day. That sounds like substantial market penetration. Sincere congratulations are in order.
I can see myself upgrading to a VNT model someday, just means carrying yet more water in the collapsible jug without rear pax or bags. In the mean time I appreciate the ongoing sharing of data from the manufacturer and the end-users.
5 years is about 44,000 hours. A hundred million flight hours accumulated over 44 thousand actual hours works out to about 2,300 EarthX batteries aloft at any hour of every day. That sounds like substantial market penetration. Sincere congratulations are in order.
I can see myself upgrading to a VNT model someday, just means carrying yet more water in the collapsible jug without rear pax or bags. In the mean time I appreciate the ongoing sharing of data from the manufacturer and the end-users.
Last edited:
georgemohr
Well Known Member
I'm wondering why this SAIB was issued if there were no reports of such an event in the field?
Last edited:
Here is a reply from TCW
Mike, If the unit is installed as part of a Carbon Cub in the experimental
category no further action is required. If the unit was installed as part
of a certified aircraft as provided by the Carbon Cub factory, then the
installation was not done under our STC SA04400NY and again no particular
action is required. If the unit was installed in accordance with our STC
SA04400NY the FAA is recommending the unit be further installed in a metal
box that vents overboard. In any case the SAIB is not a requirement, it
is a recommendation, this is not an AD. If desired, an owner may
purchase our secondary enclosure to install the IBBS unit within, however
the particular location and installation area may need to evaluated to see
it the new enclosure will fit the aircraft installation. Lastly, over
more than 10 years of sales into the experimental community and more than
10,000 experimental units in the field, there has never been a failure that
has every emitted anything from an IBBS unit. The FAA has created a test
in response to the Boeing 787 dreamliner issue and has applied this to all
lithium bases systems regardless of their size or actual ability to have a
problem.
Best regards,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies
Mike, If the unit is installed as part of a Carbon Cub in the experimental
category no further action is required. If the unit was installed as part
of a certified aircraft as provided by the Carbon Cub factory, then the
installation was not done under our STC SA04400NY and again no particular
action is required. If the unit was installed in accordance with our STC
SA04400NY the FAA is recommending the unit be further installed in a metal
box that vents overboard. In any case the SAIB is not a requirement, it
is a recommendation, this is not an AD. If desired, an owner may
purchase our secondary enclosure to install the IBBS unit within, however
the particular location and installation area may need to evaluated to see
it the new enclosure will fit the aircraft installation. Lastly, over
more than 10 years of sales into the experimental community and more than
10,000 experimental units in the field, there has never been a failure that
has every emitted anything from an IBBS unit. The FAA has created a test
in response to the Boeing 787 dreamliner issue and has applied this to all
lithium bases systems regardless of their size or actual ability to have a
problem.
Best regards,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies
georgemohr
Well Known Member
Thanks for that, much clearer now.
