ET Dreamliner Fire at LHR

Samuri Suicide

Source

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760

vicwatson

Thought they sorted the battery problem? Might not be anything to do with that though I guess.

Jhcx

LHR is getting its fair share of runway closures recently. Thank god there was no one on board. I wonder was this a battery problem or something else and how far is it gonna set back the 787?

L1011

I can almost hear the screams from Seattle. May not be battery but the public won't care

Ludo

Fire near tail fin. Batteries also at rear of plane...Hmmmm. Suspicious.

Looks like the runway is reopened

Tow

I thought the ET 787s were the first to be upgraded? This could be the end of the 787 series...

L1011

Regardless of cause, is that kind of damage on a [semi]composite fuselage practical to repair? Honestly wouldn't have a clue but would be concerned that it wouldn't be.

mickdw

Where do Boeing go now? Another grounding is surely coming down the road if this is a battery issue.
If it is a battery issue, I would be of the opinion that somebody has been irresponsible in allowing the 787 back into commercial service. Surely Boeing must have the scientific data showing the likelihood of battery runaway.

lord lucan

The fire looks to have been on the opposite side of the fuselage from where the battery is located. It could be something simple like a fire in the rear galley.

It'll be an awkward fix though given its composite construction.

LeftBase

Regardless of if it is the battery or not airlines know that passengers do not want to fly on an aircraft that has a tendency to catch fire a lot, or that is seen to catch fire a lot. To be honest if I was a muggle I'd much hit the ground at 600mph+ than burn to death to a sealed tube!

All the fires thus far have been dealt with, but can you imagine a large tail fire spreading to the cabin at 38,000 on an ETOPs route with 2 hours to the nearest heavy duty fire fighting equipment? There's your PR/disaster nightmare for Boeing.

This is the DC-10 of our age it seems...

I shall be buying the Daily Mail tomorrow in any case!

Razor44

LeftBase wrote: »

This is the DC-10 of our age it seems...

at least the DC10 got into Service for a year or more! the 787 is looking stuck on the ground in terms of pax reputation. airbus are the only winners i guess.

robertxxx

Well I can honestly say i would be ****ting myself if I booked a flight and it turned out I was going to be flying on the Boeing 787 nightmare.

tricky D

fwiw

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/why-boeings-787-dreamliner-such-piece-crap

(note original pub date jan 13)

urajoke

robertxxx wrote: »

Well I can honestly say i would be ****ting myself if I booked a flight and it turned out I was going to be flying on the Boeing 787 nightmare.

I wouldn't necessarily be worried about fire in the sky I would be more worried about not even getting up there in the first place. Nearly all the battery issues happen on the ground or all. I would be more annoyed getting to the airport and the being left there for days.

A Dub in Glasgo

I was sitting on a BA flight to Glasgow that was lining up at Heathrow to take off when we sat there for ages as they closed the runways. Cursing my luck as 30 seconds earlier and we would have been away

Blue Punto

Ludo wrote: »

Fire near tail fin. Batteries also at rear of plane...Hmmmm. Suspicious.

The lithium ion batteries on a 787 are located in the aft electrical equipment bay which is nowhere near were the damage is shown on this airframe

This looks like a Galley incident

Peregrine

The damage seems to be above the flight crew rest area


Anyway, not good for Boeing, not good at all

Foggy43

It looks like where the aircraft was parked prevented major damage. It is directly in line of sight between the Control Tower and the take off threshold 09R. Also right beside the Fire Station. I wonder who spotted the burning. As far as I am aware Ethiopian do not do a daily service to LHR-ADD. Don't know how long it was parked there. We await the reports. Boeings share price dropped as soon as the News channels broadcasted this event.

Edit: It maybe major damage. I don't know!

urajoke

I'd say the duty fireman in the stations pod beside it. He has the best vantage point, the ATC may be inline but the controller would most likely be watching their runway not below the tower.

Xpro

kona

Wow, this is getting a bit much now.

mike65

Buy EADS shares!

Jhcx

Why did they close both runways when the incident wasn't on them. I can understand there is a safety issue behind it. But it's more the buildings around it that more of a concern.

Peregrine

Jhcx wrote: »

Why did they close both runways when the incident wasn't on them. I can understand there is a safety issue behind it. But it's more the buildings around it that more of a concern.

Because the fire service was busy with the 787 and they can't let planes take off and land if the fire service is preoccupied.

A Dub in Glasgo

Jhcx wrote: »

Why did they close both runways when the incident wasn't on them. I can understand there is a safety issue behind it. But it's more the buildings around it that more of a concern.

Exactly what I was thinking as we were sitting ready to take off for 70 minutes at the top of the departure runway

Lustrum

This story is the headline in today's Financial Times, picture and all - so much for there being no such thing as bad publicity!!

Shamrock231

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Exactly what I was thinking as we were sitting ready to take off for 70 minutes at the top of the departure runway

Yeh, but imagine your plane had an accident on Take Off and went on fire, and they said "Yeh, hold on, we'll be there in an hour or two, try not to burn too much"

If adequate fire cover isn't available, then no one goes anywhere. Simples.

urajoke

Because they were already busy with two other incidents at the time, a PIA 773 and a virgin incident, notice there was ONLY 3 Airport tenders in attendance and lots of LFB units. Heathrow has two fire stations so the would have been a full turnout for this if it was available.

The airport would NOT have shutdown just for this it was the combination of incidents simultaneously that caused the issue.

brandon_flowers

Reading through every post of another flying forum not one of them seems to think the problem came from the wiring loom in the crown of the frame. In my experience (being an electrical engineer rather than an aviation expert) cable looms and bundles in enclosed areas are notoriously problematic due to cumulative heating effect. Basically you can do all the calculations you want and there is still a chance that someone puts a cable tie in the wrong place, pulls the cable tie too tightly or pushes insulation too close to the loom. Over time the cable insulation breaks down and as you already have heating and then a short circuit you are guaranteed a fire. For offshore we use flame retardant and fire resistant cables but I doubt this spec is used in aviation due to the weight.

All I can see is people blaming a coffee maker which to me makes no sense as the cabin would be burnt badly if that is what started the fire.

cranacyr

I'm confused. When I searched on google images where the battery locations were, some pictures reflected Xpro's picture but there are a few like the one above too?

Peregrine

Yeah there are some conflicting sources but most point to the same location as the picture Xpro posted, including this Boeing 787 flammable materials location paper.


http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/arff/arff787.pdf

Page 7

mickdw

Hundreds of people ringing Thompsons wondering if they are booked onto 787. People are rightly scared and I'd be pretty sure many won't step on a 787 now.

Technoprisoner

brandon_flowers wrote: »

Reading through every post of another flying forum not one of them seems to think the problem came from the wiring loom in the crown of the frame. In my experience (being an electrical engineer rather than an aviation expert) cable looms and bundles in enclosed areas are notoriously problematic due to cumulative heating effect. Basically you can do all the calculations you want and there is still a chance that someone puts a cable tie in the wrong place, pulls the cable tie too tightly or pushes insulation too close to the loom. Over time the cable insulation breaks down and as you already have heating and then a short circuit you are guaranteed a fire. For offshore we use flame retardant and fire resistant cables but I doubt this spec is used in aviation due to the weight.

All I can see is people blaming a coffee maker which to me makes no sense as the cabin would be burnt badly if that is what started the fire.

as far as i know aircraft wiring is made of an aluminium alloy which id imagine creates a lot of heat....but i sure they have worked out how to safely counter act this as its been used in aeroplanes for a long time

andy_g

Well its good to see ET havent grounded the 787 as theres one from ET just on the radar box over the midlands.

squonk

I think there was a lot of overreaction on this thread. Seems like there's no evidence at all so far that the batteries were at fault. The plane is just unlucky. I certainly wouldn't avoid flying a 787. Accidents happen! Aviation is still very safe!

knucklehead6

squonk wrote: »

I think there was a lot of overreaction on this thread. Seems like there's no evidence at all so far that the batteries were at fault. The plane is just unlucky. I certainly wouldn't avoid flying a 787. Accidents happen! Aviation is still very safe!

People overreact. That's what we ( as a race) good at. Why do you think the government here had to being in the 131 & 132 reg's this year to placate fools with a fear of the number 13?

homerjay2005

any update yet as to what caused the fire?

kona

knucklehead6 wrote: »

People overreact. That's what we ( as a race) good at. Why do you think the government here had to being in the 131 & 132 reg's this year to placate fools with a fear of the number 13?

That was to stimulate sales mid year, there will be 141 and 142 next year.

Dacian

knucklehead6 wrote: »

People overreact. That's what we ( as a race) good at. Why do you think the government here had to being in the 131 & 132 reg's this year to placate fools with a fear of the number 13?

People also find conspiracy theories where there are none........... :cool:

Jhcx

kona wrote: »

That was to stimulate sales mid year, there will be 141 and 142 next year.

My fck there better not. :mad: What ugly plates. If they do

.............................................. I Better not say

mickdw

Off topic but im sorry to say, as it currently stsnds, the new style plates are here to stay.
Of course if the sales for this year turn out to be a disaster, a further change could be made.

Shamrock231

lord lucan

Some suggestion online that the emergency locator transmitter may be the guilty party. On the phone so can't link to anything yet but I believe the wall Street journal has some info.

I might be a bit obvious here but I'd imagine it has its own battery so we could be looking still at a battery fault being the culprit albeit not the expected one.

Peregrine

Here it is:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578607910816833722.html

Investigators are examining the emergency locator transmitter on the Boeing 787 as a potential cause or contributor to the fire that damaged an Ethiopian Airlines jet at Heathrow Airport last Friday, according to several people familiar with the inquiry.

The transmitter is installed in the ceiling above the rear doors of the Dreamliner and is at the center of the larger of two areas of fuselage skin damage seen on TV footage of the affected jet.

The devices are widely used on aircraft of all sizes, and are powered by a self-contained lithium-manganese battery, which have a less volatile history than the lithium-ion versions that caused problems on 787s earlier this year.

mickdw

If those batteries (powering antena) were reliable in service in other aircraft for numerous years, does it possibly point to a continued underlying fault in the charging systems of the 787 aircraft.

Tow

Self contained steel unit, designed to withstand a crash. It 'should not' be able to cause a fire, unless the ignition point of the composite is very low.

MuffinsDa

<rant>passed through heathrow on Sunday, had a good look at Queen of Sheeba parked there while passing it on the bus, admiring her beauty (and not noticing the damage, maybe it was on the other side) not knowing what had happened a day before (was enroute for the past 15 hours!), then in the airport got into the lounge and picked up the FT and the front page.... shock! </rant>
By the way when I was leaving on Sunday am from Tokyo I saw a couple of ANA 787s, I don't think they had yet grounded them!

Air Boss

Who will the power/responsibity to ground EI-LNA should it be required

Shamrock231

Well it's registered in Ireland so it's an Irish aircraft, but operating under a Norwegian AOC, so I'd guess both could ground it...

LeftBase

Air Boss wrote: »

Who will the power/responsibity to ground EI-LNA should it be required

IAA, Norwegian Authority, Boeing, FAA and any oversight Authority