After the fire, a former Securaplane employee named Michael Leon filed a claim for federal whistleblower protection, alleging that he was fired for raising security concerns about the design of the charger and discrepancies between assembly documents for the chargers and the finished chargers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90J0B320130121

The fire being referred to was in a Securaplane building and burned that building to the ground. It was not a fire aboard an airplane.

And that same article goes on to say:

So, it's not like this Michael Leon fella got fired because he complained when he discovered the Securaplane company was doing something wrong. I wish it were that simple so that Mr. Leon could simply tell Boeing what was done wrong and Boeing can finally solve the problem with the 787. Unfortunately, this smells more like a case of Michael Leon getting himself fired, and then as so often happens, the disgruntled employee then looking for a way to screw the company that fired him, and finding it in the whistleblower protection legislation. This happens all the time, it's just that Securaplane is under the spotlight as the company that made the charging system for the troubled 787, and so Michael Leon's case is getting far more notariety than most. But, I don't think they're going to find much more under this rock than notariety.

"nestork" wrote in message

stuff snipped

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the FAA investigated Leon's complaints,
but determined that the battery charging units that he addressed were
prototypes, and none were installed in Boeing 787 aircraft.

So, it's not like this Michael Leon fella got fired because he
complained when he discovered the Securaplane company was doing
something wrong.

There's clearly something wrong the battery/charging combos. The Leon case
is a lead in an investigation that's not yielded many facts so far. Will it
pan out? Maybe not but it's unfortunate for Securaplane for this case to
pop up right now. The article said that Leon's appealed the finding of the
ALJ (not the brightest jurists in the land, typically) and has civil
litigation underway. This case isn't likely to go away soon and I can
easily see him getting a free first-class upgrade to a better attorney as a
result of the publicity.

I wish it were that simple so that Mr. Leon could
simply tell Boeing what was done wrong and Boeing can finally solve the
problem with the 787.

I don't believe he's stated that he could solve the problem, just that
Securaplane apparently can't properly test lithium battery assemblies
without burning their office down. That's a pretty big clue.

Unfortunately, this smells more like a case of Michael Leon getting
himself fired,

Fortunately the legal system doesn't run via smell. (-: The old saying
"where there's smoke, there's fire" seems particularly appropriate to this
case.

and then as so often happens, the
disgruntled employee then looking for a way to screw the company that
fired him, and finding it in the whistleblower protection legislation.

I've dealt with a fair number of wrongful termination, whistleblower and
discrimination lawsuits. I readily agree that it's true that they are often
used as "ways to screw the company." On the other hand, I've never seen an
employer who's been sued or complained against paint that employee as a
model worker. (-: What I have seen, and more often than you might think is
that suddenly, people who had earned a huge bonus and a special award from
the CEO last year are treated like Satan this year. Both sides have a
history of playing dirty in these sorts of disputes. Each case has to be
considered on the merits.

Lithium batteries burn up far more often than other battery technologies so
drawing attention to Securaplane's previous serious problems is probably a
good thing, overall.

Ask yourself what kind of testing lab is so poorly designed that a failed
battery under test burns the building down? My hunch is that they are now
wishing they had settled with this guy a long, long time ago because as
Ricky used to say to Lucy: "Securaplane, you have some 'splaining to do!"

The FAA person said something that's potentially misleading:

"The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Sunday said it had
investigated safety complaints leveled by a former Securaplane employee in
2008 and 2009 but determined that the allegations focused on prototypes that
were not ultimately used in the new lightweight airliner."

We don't know, for example, if Leon was the employee mentioned above or if
more employees were involved. We don't know how much of the design of the
prototypes that were not "ultimately" used ended up in the final assembly.
"Ultimately" here is another suspicious word - they were used at some point,
apparently. When was the change? Were those units used in some other
application not under the purview of the FAA? This is going to expand quite
a bit more, I think, because there are so many questions raised by the fire
and Leon's allegations.

This happens all the time, it's just that Securaplane is under the
spotlight as the company that made the charging system for the troubled
787,

*Shouldn't* they be under the spotlight? From my knowledge of the many
lithium battery fire lawsuits that have been brought, the causes are almost
always overcharging or short circuits. YUASA, the battery maker, is also on
the hot seat, but to a lesser extent, IMHO. Charging problems are usually
the culprit when a battery assembly like the 787's catches fire, especially
if there's no design flaw in the connectors and they can't be easily
accidentally shorted.

and so Michael Leon's case is getting far more notariety than most.

The folks charged with designing a safe battery and charger burned their
building down testing their designs. Should we trust them with a fleet of
787's? I wouldn't.

But, I don't think they're going to find much more under this rock than
notariety.

I don't think "notoriety" is the right word. It means famous for doing
something bad. "Dillinger was a notorious criminal." I don't think Leon
qualifies.

I'd say instead that Securaplane has endured bad publicity over this and
will suffer quite a bit more. Leon's brought serious attention to the fact
that Securaplane was not able to conduct safety tests safely. That sort of
test shouldn't burn down a building. If I were on a civil jury hearing his
case, I'd tend to side with Leon because that fire demonstrated
incompetence.

I'd want to look very carefully at his employment history to see if it
supports the claim he was a terrible worker. Evaluations tend to get
doctored up and commendations magically fall out of work history files to
make the employee look like the world's worst. Doctored documents are often
a source of victory for the employee because when fraud like that is
revealed, it powerfully impeaches the employer.

While many of these allegations are meant to strike back at former
employers, I am sure you recall there were a number of engineers that made
similar very serious complaints about defective O-rings and foam insulation
shedding aboard the Space Shuttle. Sometimes mid-level engineers are forced
to sign off on things that they just can't live with and they file
complaints. No employer I know of takes that sort of action positively.
Their SOP is "we'll handle this in-house" and then they forget about it.

The story of the Challenger O-rings is a tragic reminder that not all
allegations are retaliatory and that sometimes whistleblowers get it right -
sadly sometimes too late to make a difference. The bottom line here could
be that lithium technology is deemed unsuitable for aircraft use - for now -
and that Boeing may have to use less explosive (but less efficient)
alternatives.

I'd have to look more closely at the available documents before I'd say it
was a strike suit with no merit. Securaplane seems to have some serious
safety problems. If they can't keep their offices from burning up should we
really trust them to keep the 787 from burning up?

FWIW, I've had a small lithium button cell short out and it sounds just like
the crack of a .22 pistol. With all that lithium cells are exposed to on a
jet (vibration, potential extreme changes in temperature and air pressure,
etc) they may turn out to be too much of a risk for too little reward in
weight savings. Adding more cladding and containment and venting systems
could easily end up being equal to NiMH technology, weight-wise. If the FAA
approves the lithium cells and they end up being the source of another fire,
I think they'll ban the technology for quite some time. This is costing
Boeing millions with no end in sight. They may go to NiMH just to get back
in the air.

--
Bobby G.

On Mar 4, 9:56*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message

stuff snipped

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the FAA investigated Leon's complaints,
but determined that the battery charging units that he addressed were
prototypes, and none were installed in Boeing 787 aircraft.

So, it's not like this Michael Leon fella got fired because he
complained when he discovered the Securaplane company was doing
something wrong.

There's clearly something wrong the battery/charging combos. *The Leon case
is a lead in an investigation that's not yielded many facts so far. *Will it
pan out? *Maybe not but it's unfortunate for Securaplane for this case to
pop up right now. *The article said that Leon's appealed the finding of the
ALJ (not the brightest jurists in the land, typically) and has civil
litigation underway. *This case isn't likely to go away soon and I can
easily see him getting a free first-class upgrade to a better attorney as a
result of the publicity.

I wish it were that simple so that Mr. Leon could
simply tell Boeing what was done wrong and Boeing can finally solve the
problem with the 787.

I don't believe he's stated that he could solve the problem, just that
Securaplane apparently can't properly test lithium battery assemblies
without burning their office down. *That's a pretty big clue.

You have no facts as to what actually caused the fire,
what level of testing had already been performed, what
level of confidence they had that the eqpt worked properly,
what safety systems were or were not in place.




Unfortunately, this smells more like a case of Michael Leon getting

himself fired,

Fortunately the legal system doesn't run via smell. *(-: *The old saying
"where there's smoke, there's fire" seems particularly appropriate to this
case.

and then as so often happens, the
disgruntled employee then looking for a way to screw the company that
fired him, and finding it in the whistleblower protection legislation.

I've dealt with a fair number of wrongful termination, whistleblower and
discrimination lawsuits. *I readily agree that it's true that they are often
used as "ways to screw the company." *On the other hand, I've never seen an
employer who's been sued or complained against paint that employee as a
model worker. (-: *What I have seen, and more often than you might think is
that suddenly, people who had earned a huge bonus and a special award from
the CEO last year are treated like Satan this year. *Both sides have a
history of playing dirty in these sorts of disputes. *Each case has to be
considered on the merits.

Lithium batteries burn up far more often than other battery technologies so
drawing attention to Securaplane's previous serious problems is probably a
good thing, overall.

Ask yourself what kind of testing lab is so poorly designed that a failed
battery under test burns the building down?

You have no facts as to what actually caused the fire,
what level of testing had already been performed, what
level of confidence they had that the eqpt worked properly,
what safety systems were or were not in place, what
standard industry practices are, etc.
For example if it was one of the first tests on a whole
new design, then I would expect a lot of safety precautions
in place. On the other hand, if they had already undergone
a lot of testing pushing the limits and now they were just
expanding the test to different configurations or more
lifecycle testing, etc, then I would not expect the same
level of safety precautions. We also don't know anything
about what else may have failed and contributed to the
fire.







The FAA person said something that's potentially misleading:

"The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Sunday said it had
investigated safety complaints leveled by a former Securaplane employee in
2008 and 2009 but determined that the allegations focused on prototypes that
were not ultimately used in the new lightweight airliner."

We don't know, for example, if Leon was the employee mentioned above or if
more employees were involved. *We don't know how much of the design of the
prototypes that were not "ultimately" used ended up in the final assembly..
"Ultimately" here is another suspicious word - they were used at some point,
apparently. When was the change? *Were those units used in some other
application not under the purview of the FAA? *This is going to expand quite
a bit more, I think, because there are so many questions raised by the fire
and Leon's allegations.

This happens all the time, it's just that Securaplane is under the
spotlight as the company that made the charging system for the troubled
787,

*Shouldn't* they be under the spotlight? *From my knowledge of the many
lithium battery fire lawsuits that have been brought, the causes are almost
always overcharging or short circuits.

The batteries themselves have well known problems.
During the manufacturing process tiny bits of metal wind
up left in the cells. If enough of those manage to line up,
the cell can short circuit. And if the cells are large, that
can generate a lot of heat, which in turn, causes a thermal
run away effect. In this case, from everything I've heard,
the NTSB has been unable to find a root cause in either
the charging system or the batteries.




*YUASA, the battery maker, is also on
the hot seat, but to a lesser extent, IMHO. *Charging problems are usually
the culprit when a battery assembly like the 787's catches fire, especially
if there's no design flaw in the connectors and they can't be easily
accidentally shorted.

See above. Again, jumping to conclusions.





and so Michael Leon's case is getting far more notariety than most.

The folks charged with designing a safe battery and charger burned their
building down testing their designs. *Should we trust them with a fleet of
787's? *I wouldn't.

They did *not"* design the battery. And again, you don't
know anything about the particular design involved in the
fire and if it had anything to do with the 787's. The NTSB,
which is always VERY cautious, apparently doesn't agree
with you.




But, I don't think they're going to find much more under this rock than
notariety.

I don't think "notoriety" is the right word. *It means famous for doing
something bad. "Dillinger was a notorious criminal." *I don't think Leon
qualifies.

I'd say instead that Securaplane has endured bad publicity over this and
will suffer quite a bit more. Leon's brought serious attention to the fact
that Securaplane was not able to conduct safety tests safely. *That sort of
test shouldn't burn down a building. If I were on a civil jury hearing his
case, I'd tend to side with Leon because that fire demonstrated
incompetence.

That's why we have $5mil jury awards for nothing. We
have idiots like you on a jury. There was a fire, about which
you have zero actually facts. Yet you're going to use that to
side with a dismissed employee over something that has
nothing to do with the fire? Good grief.





I'd want to look very carefully at his employment history to see if it
supports the claim he was a terrible worker. *Evaluations tend to get
doctored up and commendations magically fall out of work history files to
make the employee look like the world's worst. *Doctored documents are often
a source of victory for the employee because when fraud like that is
revealed, it powerfully impeaches the employer.

While many of these allegations are meant to strike back at former
employers, I am sure you recall there were a number of engineers that made
similar very serious complaints about defective O-rings and foam insulation
shedding aboard the Space Shuttle. *Sometimes mid-level engineers are forced
to sign off on things that they just can't live with and they file
complaints.

Anybody go to jail for that one?




*No employer I know of takes that sort of action positively.
Their SOP is "we'll handle this in-house" and then they forget about it.

The story of the Challenger O-rings is a tragic reminder that not all
allegations are retaliatory and that sometimes whistleblowers get it right -
sadly sometimes too late to make a difference. *The bottom line here could
be that lithium technology is deemed unsuitable for aircraft use - for now -
and that Boeing may have to use less explosive (but less efficient)
alternatives.

I'd have to look more closely at the available documents before I'd say it
was a strike suit with no merit. *Securaplane seems to have some serious
safety problems. *If they can't keep their offices from burning up should we
really trust them to keep the 787 from burning up?

Here we go again with that strawman, devoid of fact.





FWIW, I've had a small lithium button cell short out and it sounds just like
the crack of a .22 pistol.

Wow, you must be an incompetent idiot, like you
claim the company involved is. See how easy that was?

On Mar 5, 6:37*am, "
wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:56*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message
....snip .... a lot!, too much?

Curious why this is on alt.home.repair group and not on the
sci.electronics.design or sci.electronics.repair groups.

Hermetic sealing can get really important even inside a cabin.

Is the fire-prone battery assembly inside the cabin pressurized
areas?

On Mar 5, 12:12*pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:37*am, "
wrote:

On Mar 4, 9:56*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message
....snip *.... a lot!, too much?

Curious why this is on alt.home.repair group and not on the
sci.electronics.design or sci.electronics.repair groups.

Hermetic sealing can get really important even inside a cabin.

Is the fire-prone battery assembly inside the cabin pressurized
areas?

There are two batteries, both are in eqpt bays underneath, one near
the nose, other below the wings. They are not
part of the cabin.

On Mar 5, 2:56*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message

stuff snipped

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the FAA investigated Leon's complaints,
but determined that the battery charging units that he addressed were
prototypes, and none were installed in Boeing 787 aircraft.

So, it's not like this Michael Leon fella got fired because he
complained when he discovered the Securaplane company was doing
something wrong.

There's clearly something wrong the battery/charging combos. *The Leon case
is a lead in an investigation that's not yielded many facts so far. *Will it
pan out? *Maybe not but it's unfortunate for Securaplane for this case to
pop up right now. *The article said that Leon's appealed the finding of the
ALJ (not the brightest jurists in the land, typically) and has civil
litigation underway. *This case isn't likely to go away soon and I can
easily see him getting a free first-class upgrade to a better attorney as a
result of the publicity.

I wish it were that simple so that Mr. Leon could
simply tell Boeing what was done wrong and Boeing can finally solve the
problem with the 787.

I don't believe he's stated that he could solve the problem, just that
Securaplane apparently can't properly test lithium battery assemblies
without burning their office down. *That's a pretty big clue.

Unfortunately, this smells more like a case of Michael Leon getting

himself fired,

Fortunately the legal system doesn't run via smell. *(-: *The old saying
"where there's smoke, there's fire" seems particularly appropriate to this
case.

and then as so often happens, the
disgruntled employee then looking for a way to screw the company that
fired him, and finding it in the whistleblower protection legislation.

I've dealt with a fair number of wrongful termination, whistleblower and
discrimination lawsuits. *I readily agree that it's true that they are often
used as "ways to screw the company." *On the other hand, I've never seen an
employer who's been sued or complained against paint that employee as a
model worker. (-: *What I have seen, and more often than you might think is
that suddenly, people who had earned a huge bonus and a special award from
the CEO last year are treated like Satan this year. *Both sides have a
history of playing dirty in these sorts of disputes. *Each case has to be
considered on the merits.

Lithium batteries burn up far more often than other battery technologies so
drawing attention to Securaplane's previous serious problems is probably a
good thing, overall.

Ask yourself what kind of testing lab is so poorly designed that a failed
battery under test burns the building down? *My hunch is that they are now
wishing they had settled with this guy a long, long time ago because as
Ricky used to say to Lucy: "Securaplane, you have some 'splaining to do!"

The FAA person said something that's potentially misleading:

"The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Sunday said it had
investigated safety complaints leveled by a former Securaplane employee in
2008 and 2009 but determined that the allegations focused on prototypes that
were not ultimately used in the new lightweight airliner."

We don't know, for example, if Leon was the employee mentioned above or if
more employees were involved. *We don't know how much of the design of the
prototypes that were not "ultimately" used ended up in the final assembly..
"Ultimately" here is another suspicious word - they were used at some point,
apparently. When was the change? *Were those units used in some other
application not under the purview of the FAA? *This is going to expand quite
a bit more, I think, because there are so many questions raised by the fire
and Leon's allegations.

This happens all the time, it's just that Securaplane is under the
spotlight as the company that made the charging system for the troubled
787,

*Shouldn't* they be under the spotlight? *From my knowledge of the many
lithium battery fire lawsuits that have been brought, the causes are almost
always overcharging or short circuits. *YUASA, the battery maker, is also on
the hot seat, but to a lesser extent, IMHO. *Charging problems are usually
the culprit when a battery assembly like the 787's catches fire, especially
if there's no design flaw in the connectors and they can't be easily
accidentally shorted.

and so Michael Leon's case is getting far more notariety than most.

The folks charged with designing a safe battery and charger burned their
building down testing their designs. *Should we trust them with a fleet of
787's? *I wouldn't.

But, I don't think they're going to find much more under this rock than
notariety.

I don't think "notoriety" is the right word. *It means famous for doing
something bad. "Dillinger was a notorious criminal." *I don't think Leon
qualifies.

I'd say instead that Securaplane has endured bad publicity over this and
will suffer quite a bit more. Leon's brought serious attention to the fact
that Securaplane was not able to conduct safety tests safely. *That sort of
test shouldn't burn down a building. If I were on a civil jury hearing his
case, I'd tend to side with Leon because that fire demonstrated
incompetence.

I'd want to look very carefully at his employment history to see if it
supports the claim he was a terrible worker. *Evaluations tend to get
doctored up and commendations magically fall out of work history files to
make the employee look like the world's worst. *Doctored documents are often
a source of victory for the employee because when fraud like that is
revealed, it powerfully impeaches the employer.

While many of these allegations are meant to strike back at former
employers, I am sure you recall there were a number of engineers that made
similar very serious complaints about defective O-rings and foam insulation
shedding aboard the Space Shuttle. *Sometimes mid-level engineers are forced
to sign off on things that they just can't live with and they file
complaints. *No employer I know of takes that sort of action positively..
Their SOP is "we'll handle this in-house" and then they forget about it.

The story of the Challenger O-rings is a tragic reminder that not all
allegations are retaliatory and that sometimes whistleblowers get it right -
sadly sometimes too late to make a difference. *The bottom line here could
be that lithium technology is deemed unsuitable for aircraft use - for now -
and that Boeing may have to use less explosive (but less efficient)
alternatives.

I'd have to look more closely at the available documents before I'd say it
was a strike suit with no merit. *Securaplane seems to have some serious
safety problems. *If they can't keep their offices from burning up should we
really trust them to keep the 787 from burning up?

FWIW, I've had a small lithium button cell short out and it sounds just like
the crack of a .22 pistol. With all that lithium cells are exposed to on a
jet (vibration, potential extreme changes in temperature and air pressure,
etc) they may turn out to be too much of a risk for too little reward in
weight savings. Adding more cladding and containment and venting systems
could easily end up being equal to NiMH technology, weight-wise. *If the FAA
approves the lithium cells and they end up being the source of another fire,
I think they'll ban the technology for quite some time. *This is costing
Boeing millions with no end in sight. *They may go to NiMH just to get back
in the air.

--
Bobby G.

Very interesting all that.
I have a half ton lithium battery in my car. Am I safe? ;-)

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 06:55:28 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 5, 12:12*pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:37*am, "
wrote:

On Mar 4, 9:56*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message
....snip *.... a lot!, too much?

Curious why this is on alt.home.repair group and not on the
sci.electronics.design or sci.electronics.repair groups.

Hermetic sealing can get really important even inside a cabin.

Is the fire-prone battery assembly inside the cabin pressurized
areas?

There are two batteries, both are in eqpt bays underneath, one near
the nose, other below the wings. They are not
part of the cabin.

Define "part of the cabin".

On Mar 6, 4:49*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 06:55:28 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:12*pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:37*am, "
wrote:

On Mar 4, 9:56*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message
....snip *.... a lot!, too much?

Curious why this is on alt.home.repair group and not on the
sci.electronics.design or sci.electronics.repair groups.

Hermetic sealing can get really important even inside a cabin.

Is the fire-prone battery assembly inside the cabin pressurized
areas?

There are two batteries, both are in eqpt bays underneath, one near
the nose, other below the wings. *They are not
part of the cabin.

Define "part of the cabin".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think the usual definition of cabin is the area used
for passengers, flight attendants, rest rooms, galleys,
etc.

On Mar 7, 6:34*am, "
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:49*pm, wrote:





On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 06:55:28 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:12*pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:37*am, "
wrote:

On Mar 4, 9:56*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message
....snip *.... a lot!, too much?

Curious why this is on alt.home.repair group and not on the
sci.electronics.design or sci.electronics.repair groups.

Hermetic sealing can get really important even inside a cabin.

Is the fire-prone battery assembly inside the cabin pressurized
areas?

There are two batteries, both are in eqpt bays underneath, one near
the nose, other below the wings. *They are not
part of the cabin.

Define "part of the cabin".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think the usual definition of cabin is the area used
for passengers, flight attendants, rest rooms, galleys,
etc.

It is my understanding that after some dramatic incidences, and follow-
on lawsuits, that the cargo holds [where all the luggage is stored] is
heated and pressurized.

On Mar 7, 10:13*am, Robert Macy wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:34*am, "
wrote:





On Mar 6, 4:49*pm, wrote:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 06:55:28 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:12*pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:37*am, "
wrote:

On Mar 4, 9:56*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message
....snip *.... a lot!, too much?

Curious why this is on alt.home.repair group and not on the
sci.electronics.design or sci.electronics.repair groups.

Hermetic sealing can get really important even inside a cabin.

Is the fire-prone battery assembly inside the cabin pressurized
areas?

There are two batteries, both are in eqpt bays underneath, one near
the nose, other below the wings. *They are not
part of the cabin.

Define "part of the cabin".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think the usual definition of cabin is the area used
for passengers, flight attendants, rest rooms, galleys,
etc.

It is my understanding that after some dramatic incidences, and follow-
on lawsuits, that the cargo holds [where all the luggage is stored] is
heated and pressurized.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I think that's true. They do put animals in there for example.
But it's still a seperate area and not part of the cabin, at least in
my
definition. I'd call it what you just did, ie the cargo hold, cargo
bay, etc.

Curious why this is on alt.home.repair group and not on the

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...q 9yQG0hIGQBg

Robert Macy wrote:

It is my understanding that after some dramatic incidences, and
follow- on lawsuits, that the cargo holds [where all the luggage is
stored] is heated and pressurized.

Not always.

The pilot has a device, called the "Dead Dog Switch", that he flips if there
is an animal in the cargo hold. If no animal, the airline saves fuel by not
climatizing the area.

You can put this information to good use.

When the flight attendant asks you if there's anything you need, look up at
her with a pained expression and a tear in your eye and say: "This airline
froze my dog to death (sniff)."

You'll almost always get a free drink.

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 05:34:13 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 6, 4:49*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 06:55:28 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:12*pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:37*am, "
wrote:

On Mar 4, 9:56*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message
....snip *.... a lot!, too much?

Curious why this is on alt.home.repair group and not on the
sci.electronics.design or sci.electronics.repair groups.

Hermetic sealing can get really important even inside a cabin.

Is the fire-prone battery assembly inside the cabin pressurized
areas?

There are two batteries, both are in eqpt bays underneath, one near
the nose, other below the wings. *They are not
part of the cabin.

Define "part of the cabin".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think the usual definition of cabin is the area used
for passengers, flight attendants, rest rooms, galleys,
etc.

The other common definition is inside the pressurized/heated portion
of the airframe. It matters which. The fumes from anything burning in
the hold will get into the cabin/cockpit.

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:44:36 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Robert Macy wrote:

It is my understanding that after some dramatic incidences, and
follow- on lawsuits, that the cargo holds [where all the luggage is
stored] is heated and pressurized.

Not always.

The pilot has a device, called the "Dead Dog Switch", that he flips if there
is an animal in the cargo hold. If no animal, the airline saves fuel by not
climatizing the area.

I don't believe that's true, at least in modern aircraft. The floor
won't like the pressure differential. The round structure of the
fuselage is the pressure vessel.

You can put this information to good use.

When the flight attendant asks you if there's anything you need, look up at
her with a pained expression and a tear in your eye and say: "This airline
froze my dog to death (sniff)."

You'll almost always get a free drink.

....or "help" from the TSA master-groupers.

On Mar 7, 5:30*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 05:34:13 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:49*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 06:55:28 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:12*pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:37*am, "
wrote:

On Mar 4, 9:56*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message
....snip *.... a lot!, too much?

Curious why this is on alt.home.repair group and not on the
sci.electronics.design or sci.electronics.repair groups.

Hermetic sealing can get really important even inside a cabin.

Is the fire-prone battery assembly inside the cabin pressurized
areas?

There are two batteries, both are in eqpt bays underneath, one near
the nose, other below the wings. *They are not
part of the cabin.

Define "part of the cabin".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think the usual definition of cabin is the area used
for passengers, flight attendants, rest rooms, galleys,
etc.

The other common definition is inside the pressurized/heated portion
of the airframe. *It matters which. The fumes from anything burning in
the hold will get into the cabin/cockpit.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you sure about that? Like how do you know that the pressurization
systems are common, that the air supplies
are shared? The 787 in particular in Boston that had the
battery fire, I didn't hear any mention of smoke showing up
in the passenger cabin.

On 3/7/2013 5:33 PM, wrote:

...or "help" from the TSA master-groupers.


Can't you spell? Idiot!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/groper

On Mar 7, 10:33*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:44:36 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Robert Macy wrote:

It is my understanding that after some dramatic incidences, and
follow- on lawsuits, that the cargo holds [where all the luggage is
stored] is heated and pressurized.

Not always.

The pilot has a device, called the "Dead Dog Switch", that he flips if there
is an animal in the cargo hold. If no animal, the airline saves fuel by not
climatizing the area.

I don't believe that's true, at least in modern aircraft. *The floor
won't like the pressure differential. *The round structure of the
fuselage is the pressure vessel.

You can put this information to good use.

When the flight attendant asks you if there's anything you need, look up at
her with a pained expression and a tear in your eye and say: "This airline
froze my dog to death (sniff)."

You'll almost always get a free drink.

...or "help" from the TSA master-groupers.

I believe it is pressurised but only optionally heated.

On Mar 8, 10:07*am, harry wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:33*pm, wrote:





On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:44:36 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Robert Macy wrote:

It is my understanding that after some dramatic incidences, and
follow- on lawsuits, that the cargo holds [where all the luggage is
stored] is heated and pressurized.

Not always.

The pilot has a device, called the "Dead Dog Switch", that he flips if there
is an animal in the cargo hold. If no animal, the airline saves fuel by not
climatizing the area.

I don't believe that's true, at least in modern aircraft. *The floor
won't like the pressure differential. *The round structure of the
fuselage is the pressure vessel.

You can put this information to good use.

When the flight attendant asks you if there's anything you need, look up at
her with a pained expression and a tear in your eye and say: "This airline
froze my dog to death (sniff)."

You'll almost always get a free drink.

...or "help" from the TSA master-groupers.

I believe it is pressurised but only optionally heated.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Doing some googling, I believe you are correct. So the areas where
the batteries are most likely are pressurized.
But it's not clear what the specific issue then is. I would
think even if it's pressurized, the air systems would probably
be seperate from the passenger sections. Not saying that
some smoke would not make it to the passenger part, but
it would seem like a really bad idea to have a system where air from
the cargo holds gets sent into the rest of the plane.
That would make the whole plane susceptible to anything
that any of the cargo could accidentally emit.

wrote in message news:9edc835d-3444-4b09-a7c4-

That's why we have $5mil jury awards for nothing. We have idiots like you
on a jury.

This pathetic insult from the guy who believes the McDonald crotchburn case
outcome was fair. Boiling hot water can burn you, lady! Keep it off your
lap if you've got fumble fingers!

Wow, you must be an incompetent idiot

Your reply raised some interesting points that I've elided because you CAN'T
be dumb enough to believe anyone but an idiot would try to have an adult
conversation with an insult-monger like you. When are you going to grow up
and start trying to make your points like a man and not a JHS student
overdosed on Adderall? We're still waiting.

What's most interesting is that you called KRW out for calling YOU an idiot
but then use the same tactic on others. At least KRW's not a hypocrite like
you, Chet.

--
Bobby G.

On Mar 13, 11:06*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
wrote in message news:9edc835d-3444-4b09-a7c4-
That's why we have $5mil jury awards for nothing. *We have idiots like you

on a jury.

This pathetic insult from the guy who believes the McDonald crotchburn case
outcome was fair. *Boiling hot water can burn you, lady! *Keep it off your
lap if you've got fumble fingers!


Coffee is not even correctly BREWED with boiling hot
water, let alone served. The fact is you can't drink boiling
hot water without injuring yourself. McDonalds even admitted
that their coffee was unfit for consumption at the temperature
they served it.




Wow, you must be an incompetent idiot

Your reply raised some interesting points that I've elided because you CAN'T
be dumb enough to believe anyone but an idiot would try to have an adult
conversation with an insult-monger like you. *When are you going to grow up
and start trying to make your points like a man and not a JHS student
overdosed on Adderall? *We're still waiting.

We're still waiting for you to realize that you can't drink
boiling hot liquids.



What's most interesting is that you called KRW out for calling YOU an idiot
but then use the same tactic on others. *At least KRW's not a hypocrite like
you, Chet.

--
Bobby G.


I called you an idiot because you said that if you were on a
jury in that wrongful termination case, you'd side with
the plaintiff. And you said that with virtually no information about
the actual facts about what exactly happened. It isn't even
available.
That is indeed that type of idiot on a jury that results in completely
ridiculous awards. And other than call you an idiot, I took apart
your whole pontification, piece by piece. I notice you skipped that
part.....

You want another example of what makes you an idiot?
You come in here with the usual lib lines on guns, how dangerous
they are, how we need more gun laws, more bans. Yet, when
the truth finally comes out, you have a carry permit. Typical
limousine liberal. It's OK for you to carry one, but the rest
of us are not to be trusted.

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 07:07:58 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Mar 7, 10:33*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:44:36 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Robert Macy wrote:

It is my understanding that after some dramatic incidences, and
follow- on lawsuits, that the cargo holds [where all the luggage is
stored] is heated and pressurized.

Not always.

The pilot has a device, called the "Dead Dog Switch", that he flips if there
is an animal in the cargo hold. If no animal, the airline saves fuel by not
climatizing the area.

I don't believe that's true, at least in modern aircraft. *The floor
won't like the pressure differential. *The round structure of the
fuselage is the pressure vessel.

You can put this information to good use.

When the flight attendant asks you if there's anything you need, look up at
her with a pained expression and a tear in your eye and say: "This airline
froze my dog to death (sniff)."

You'll almost always get a free drink.

...or "help" from the TSA master-groupers.

I believe it is pressurised but only optionally heated.
Virtually always kept above freezing - which at 30,000 ft plus
definitely requires heating. Without heat at 30,000 ft it is about 120
degrees colder than ground level

On Mar 17, 7:05*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 07:07:58 -0800 (PST), harry





wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:33*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:44:36 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Robert Macy wrote:

It is my understanding that after some dramatic incidences, and
follow- on lawsuits, that the cargo holds [where all the luggage is
stored] is heated and pressurized.

Not always.

The pilot has a device, called the "Dead Dog Switch", that he flips if there
is an animal in the cargo hold. If no animal, the airline saves fuel by not
climatizing the area.

I don't believe that's true, at least in modern aircraft. *The floor
won't like the pressure differential. *The round structure of the
fuselage is the pressure vessel.

You can put this information to good use.

When the flight attendant asks you if there's anything you need, look up at
her with a pained expression and a tear in your eye and say: "This airline
froze my dog to death (sniff)."

You'll almost always get a free drink.

...or "help" from the TSA master-groupers.

I believe it is pressurised but only optionally heated.

* Virtually always kept above freezing - which at 30,000 ft plus
definitely requires heating. Without heat at 30,000 ft it is about 120
degrees colder than ground level

yet, surprisingly, the 'temperature' of the air molecules is hotter.
just not enough of them to keep a person warm.

On Mar 8, 3:30*pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 8, 10:07*am, harry wrote:









On Mar 7, 10:33*pm, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:44:36 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Robert Macy wrote:

It is my understanding that after some dramatic incidences, and
follow- on lawsuits, that the cargo holds [where all the luggage is
stored] is heated and pressurized.

Not always.

The pilot has a device, called the "Dead Dog Switch", that he flips if there
is an animal in the cargo hold. If no animal, the airline saves fuel by not
climatizing the area.

I don't believe that's true, at least in modern aircraft. *The floor
won't like the pressure differential. *The round structure of the
fuselage is the pressure vessel.

You can put this information to good use.

When the flight attendant asks you if there's anything you need, look up at
her with a pained expression and a tear in your eye and say: "This airline
froze my dog to death (sniff)."

You'll almost always get a free drink.

...or "help" from the TSA master-groupers.

I believe it is pressurised but only optionally heated.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Doing some googling, I believe you are correct. *So the areas where
the batteries are most likely are pressurized.
But it's not clear what the specific issue then is. * I would
think even if it's pressurized, the air systems would probably
be seperate from the passenger sections. *Not saying that
some smoke would not make it to the passenger part, but
it would seem like a really bad idea to have a system where air from
the cargo holds gets sent into the rest of the plane.
That would make the whole plane susceptible to anything
that any of the cargo could accidentally emit.

I think on some aircraft, the hold can be accessed (in flight) from
the cabin. Dunno about the 787. But the door would be fire smoke roof.