Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WSJ-787's Etops Rating At Risk Due To Batteries?  
User currently onlinemax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25758 times:

There seems to be something wrong with a.net this morning and it's keeping me from posting the link. You'll need to copy and paste the URL below into your browser

Quote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578227621155767836.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Quote:

The fire was in the aft electrical equipment bay, where electrical problems and an earlier in-flight Dreamliner fire have been reported. In 2010, an electrical fire in the same bay forced a Boeing test plane to make an emergency landing in Texas. More recently, a power panel in the bay prompted an emergency landing in New Orleans by a United Continental Holdings Inc. 787.

"This incident goes to the heart of the innovative side of the 787," said Hans Weber, president of TECOP International Inc., an aviation consulting group that specializes in aircraft certification. Mr. Weber remained concerned that spate of electrical issues aboard the 787 could make it more difficult for the plane to fly extended missions far from diversion airports.

The 787 was designed for long over-water routes between midsize cities that couldn't profitably accommodate a larger jet with more seats. It has had to meet a stringent set of regulations to ensure the jet can still fly safely in the event one of its two engines fail.

Those regulations include strict guidelines for the lithium ion batteries on the 787 because of concerns about the batteries' potential flammability.

During the 787's development, Boeing repeatedly affirmed that it complied with the expanded safety standards for the batteries, which are part of the aircraft's emergency power system.








[Edited 2013-01-08 05:51:44]


All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 25350 times:

If there's any basis to this the weight savings of Li over Ni could be the most expensive 10 kilos ever in a commercial program.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 25076 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
If there's any basis to this the weight savings of Li over Ni could be the most expensive 10 kilos ever in a commercial program.

Maybe, but the 100kg Airbus saved with composite wing tie feet will cost them $200m odd so its the nature of the business.

I guess restricted ETOPS on the 787 would result in billion dollar program costs but we are not there yet.



BV
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5592 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 24925 times:

Quoting max999 (Thread starter):
There seems to be something wrong with a.net this morning

You can't post direct links to the WSJ because it's behind a paywall. Use a Google News link, like this one.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12713 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24734 times:

I call BS on this one.

Quoting max999 (Thread starter):
"This incident goes to the heart of the innovative side of the 787,"

As mentioned in the other thread (hint, hint) there are many other products flying around with Li-Ion batteries in them, including the A380, so it isn't necessarily anything 787 specific.

It all could very well just be an unfortunate one-off incident, and there's no evidence this particular battery incident is a part of a pattern nor due to anything about the 787 itself.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24682 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
As mentioned in the other thread (hint, hint) there are many other products flying around with Li-Ion batteries in them, including the A380, so it isn't necessarily anything 787 specific.

Also as mentioned in the other thread all Li-ion batteries are not the same, Li-ion is a description of the reaction, construction materials are vastly different.



BV
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12713 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24479 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
Also as mentioned in the other thread all Li-ion batteries are not the same, Li-ion is a description of the reaction, construction materials are vastly different.

Indeed they can be quite different, but I can imagine batteries for aviation applications need to meet similar goals/requirements, so do we know that they are in fact "vastly different"?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6219 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 21723 times:

Was there another 788 incident....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100363734



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8633 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 21630 times:

It is comforting these events share a common factor, if anything. It will be so much easier to design the necessary fixes. That is a good thing!

User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8480 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 20895 times:

If the problem is the risk of a fire on board, it doesn't matter how many engines you have so how in the world does this tie in with ETOPS? A fire on board is the single biggest problem a crew can face. You have to land ASAP no matter how many engines you have. More engines are not going to somehow make an emergency airport materialize our of the empty ocean.

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5592 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20800 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 9):
If the problem is the risk of a fire on board, it doesn't matter how many engines you have so how in the world does this tie in with ETOPS?

Fire suppression is a major component of ETOPS, which is no longer only about compensating for the lack of more than 2 engines, but is now more generally about improving safety for extended overwater operations.


User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8480 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20622 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 10):
Fire suppression is a major component of ETOPS, which is no longer only about compensating for the lack of more than 2 engines, but is now more generally about improving safety for extended overwater operations.

I get that but are you saying that quads don't have the same level of fire suppression? Is a fire on a A380 somehow less dangerous than on a 787 simply because the A380 has 4 engines?


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6481 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19945 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
If there's any basis to this the weight savings of Li over Ni could be the most expensive 10 kilos ever in a commercial program.

10 kg?

I don't know how heavy it is, but I know that among other things it must start the APU. The 787 APU is a massive piece of machinery, which delivers more power than a Merlin engine on a P-51 Mustang or Spitfire - up to 1.1 Mw electric power. A lot bigger than the traditional hydraulic/pheumatic airliners. I would bet on an entirely different battery mass to get that thing moving.

The alternative - NiCd - has roughly 40% of the Li-Ion power density. So any NiCd replacement would be roughly 2½ times heavier.

But if the 787 in the end will have to fly with 250 kg battery instead of 100 kg, then so be it. Just take out two seats, giving the rest a little more legroom. And add 1% to all fares, game over.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinemac3xx From France, joined Mar 2009, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19824 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
Fire suppression is a major component of ETOPS, which is no longer only about compensating for the lack of more than 2 engines, but is now more generally about improving safety for extended overwater operations.

Fire suppression system can be installed in any comportment of an A/C but not in avionics bays (risk to damage electronics equipment when activated), most scaring event for crews is to face avionics smoke in flight. You can Imagine the atmosphere in the flight deck if you get the alarm in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, more the 200 minutes from the nearest airport. Think about it in CAA offices in charge of ETOPS regulation and certification.



mac3xx
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 18726 times:

How many batteries does a B-787 have? We had two on the KC-135, both could be changed inflight. One battery was to start the APU, and the other one powered the hot battery buss. Our batteries were Ni-Cads and wighed about 50 lbs. each.

User currently offlines.p.a.s. From Liechtenstein, joined Mar 2001, 967 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 17275 times:

KC135,

According to the FCOM, Vol 2, page 6.20.4:

Battery Power
The airplane has two primary batteries; main and APU. The main battery power
switch is located on the overhead electrical panel. The APU battery functions
automatically, and has no power switch. Operating indications for the main and
APU batteries are provided on the electrical synoptic.
The main battery provides power for:
• airplane power-up
• APU start (assists APU battery)
• refueling operations
• towing operations
• electric braking (as backup power source)
• captain’s flight instruments (energizes essential instruments until RAT
deployment)
(Refer to Modes of Operation in Chapter 6, Section 20, for additional
information.)
The APU battery provides power on the ground for:
• APU start
• navigation lights (during battery-only towing operations)


Both are rated 28V DC



"ad astra per aspera"
User currently onlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16195 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 9):
If the problem is the risk of a fire on board, it doesn't matter how many engines you have so how in the world does this tie in with ETOPS?

Tri's and quad's had lower cargo fire suppression limits than twin ETOPS planes before the new 2007 FAA ETOPS rules took effect. In fact they still have five weeks before the upgraded fire suppression systems are required.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1390 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12813 times:

Here is a good image from the NTSB: NTSB investigator Mike Bauer evaluates damage to the JAL 787 Dreamliner, from yesterday's fire.



[Edited 2013-01-08 20:25:51]

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12737 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 17):

Interesting I would have expected more damage as the Brigade says it took 20-40 minutes to extingush and then the battery exploded..

Lets hope that the NTSB got copyright approval for this picture  



BV
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12194 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 17):
Here is a good image from the NTSB: NTSB investigator Mike Bauer evaluates damage to the JAL 787 Dreamliner, from yesterday's fire.

Just to orient people who are seeing the 787's aft equipment bay for the first time...

The photo is taken from the RH side of the EE bay, looking left. Right in the photo is forward in the airplane and left is aft. Mr Bauer's left hand is resting on an opening which extends to a hatch which goes down through the WTB fairing and exits the airplane. When cargo is loaded in the aft pit, this is the only way into the aft equipment bay.

Adjacent Mr Bauer's right hand is the control unit for the electric wing ice protection system. Each slot in the box represents the electric control function for a symmetrical pair of ice protection zones on each wing.

Above the APU battery slot, where Mr Baur is inspecting, is the APU power panel. This manages all power from the APU.

Directly behind Mr Bauer is the oft-discussed P100 power panel. The P200 panel is directly behind the photographer.

By Mr Bauer's left shoulder is a liquid cooled equipment rack (often referred to as an "HVDC" (high-voltage direct current) rack). This rack contains the ATRUs (auto transformer/rectifier units) and large electric motor controllers, which are the heart of the 787's more-electric system's architecture. There is an identical rack at the right shoulder of the photographer.


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5076 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12054 times:

Can anyone tell me what would have become of this latest incident if the plane was over the Pacific Ocean, and halfway past say Hawaii and the mainland? I think this incident is serious enough to question the outcome if it had happened at cruising altitude, and hundreds of miles from land. I dont understand why this airplane continues to fly with so many fires! It is a blessing that nobody has been hurt yet. However, I dont like the odds in this roulette game. I think a grounding is the safest option, and Boeing needs to get it figured out. I would rather see the issues resolved before more of these planes are flying.

I am sure I will get flamed for my views, which is fine. But... I lost a friend on Valujet 592. Granted the circumstances were different because of oxygen canisters.... It was still a fire, and the results are haunting. Which is why I will not hold back my swings. Airplanes and fire are a lethal combination. I am emotional about it, and thats all.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5624 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11618 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
I dont understand why this airplane continues to fly with so many fires!

You don't know why there was a fire this time. If it was a defective battery, why on earth would you demand they ground the fleet? I am not 100% on top of all things 787 but how many fires is "so many fires!"? Ironically, the link posted earlier about the A380 incident sounded earily similar (to me) to the ZA002 (?) incident in San Antonio, yet we heard absolutely nothing about that here or in the news because it was a more mature airframe.

I'm definitely not going to deny that there are problems with the aircraft. When I see the headlines concerning the incidents involving the aircraft I'm like anyone else - I cringe. It smacks of the time when the A380 would have bad news after bad news, or the A350 would go through iteration after iteration, or frankly most everything involving the 787 program over the past five years. It sounds really bad and it just seems to pile on to the existing bad news, making it appear REALLY bad.

I am not prepared, though, to join the elite cast of characters who deride the safety of the 787 at every turn. I respect that you have emotions about this, and I'm not "flaming" you, but I guess I just can't get onboard with your desire to ground the fleet when we don't even know what the problem was, why it happened, and if it is easy to fix. I hope that nothing ever happens to an airframe, and I hope that that's how the previously-referenced characters feel as well. I know that you absolutely want nothing to happen either.

Anyhow, I am eager to hear what the ultimate cause of this incident was and what the repercussions will be. We need to get this airframe out of this perceived danger zone and soon.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11622 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
Can anyone tell me what would have become of this latest incident if the plane was over the Pacific Ocean, and halfway past say Hawaii and the mainland?

Here is my guess:

- There is no fire/smoke detection in the aft equipment bay, so no fire indication in the flight deck.
- The battery has active monitoring, so the crew would likely have received an overheat message, which would have stopped them from trying to use it in flight and caused them to isolate the battery from the charger.
- Normal E/E bay venting is directly to the outflow valve, so no smoke would have entered the cabin.
- The battery enclosure is designed to contain an event like this, so minimal collateral damage (as evidenced in the NTSB photo)
- Li-ion batteries have finite energy to release, so the event would have been self limiting.
- The airplane would have landed with a battery squawk and the maintenance crew would have found a crispy battery.

In other words we would be exactly where we are today... an airplane on the ground with minimal damage and an active investigation to understand why the battery went into thermal runaway.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
I dont understand why this airplane continues to fly with so many fires!
Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
I am sure I will get flamed for my views

I understand this is an emotional topic for you and I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. However, if you don't want to get flamed, try to avoid posting factually inaccurate statements. This is the first fire event (by anyone's definition of fire) for the 787 in service. The airplane has been modified since the ZA002 flight test event to preclude that problem from happening again. This fire is the first in-service event and was clearly unrelated to the ZA002 event.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 12):
The 787 APU is a massive piece of machinery, which delivers more power than a Merlin engine on a P-51 Mustang or Spitfire - up to 1.1 Mw electric power.

The 787 APU has two 220Kva starter generators for a total power output of 440Kva, not 1.1Mw.

[Edited 2013-01-08 22:20:49]

User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1567 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11217 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 20):
Can anyone tell me what would have become of this latest incident if the plane was over the Pacific Ocean, and halfway past say Hawaii and the mainland? I think this incident is serious enough to question the outcome if it had happened at cruising altitude, and hundreds of miles from land. I dont understand why this airplane continues to fly with so many fires! It is a blessing that nobody has been hurt yet. However, I dont like the odds in this roulette game. I think a grounding is the safest option, and Boeing needs to get it figured out. I would rather see the issues resolved before more of these planes are flying.

I am sure I will get flamed for my views, which is fine. But... I lost a friend on Valujet 592. Granted the circumstances were different because of oxygen canisters.... It was still a fire, and the results are haunting. Which is why I will not hold back my swings. Airplanes and fire are a lethal combination. I am emotional about it, and thats all.

Look, as a pilot myself, I can say one of the biggest fears we have is an inflight fire, especially in a hard to get place, with limited access. We can sit here all day long and go back and forth on the "what-ifs" of any certain event. However, by us doing that, we really wouldn't get anywhere. It didn't happen over the pacific, halfway between Hawaii and the mainland and it didn't happen in flight. What if the Capt. of Swiss Air 111 had just diverted, instead of running a lengthy checklist? That incident would be just a distance memory, but instead the industry as a whole learned a lot from it. Just like with yesterdays incident, the investigators will do their job and find a solution to the problem. Rather then asking "what-ifs" we should be asking, how and why it happened?

I would have no problems walking on a 787 tomorrow, even with all of these issues. Yeah, clearly it is an issue that Boeing has to work out, but at the same time, you have to trust the safety net that exists. If the mechanics and pilots think it is still safe to fly, the companies will continue to operate the aircraft, even with these teething issues. If you think about it, because of these issues that have arisen, the 787 might actually be even safer, based on the scrutiny that the aircraft is getting by all parties.

I think a lot of people just need to take a step back and wait for the final report to come out, before suggesting the aircraft be grounded, or Boeing be shut down, or we go back to the steamship days for transportation  



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5260 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11145 times:

Regarding CM's latest post above...

I am far from someone who assumes that all manufacturers always engage in the best engineering practices, or that regulators always catch the manufacturers if they make a mistake or an intentional omission.

However, from the moment this story broke, knowing the miniscule amount that I know about thermal runaway, batteries, and aircraft design and certification, my reaction was that battery-flambe was an obvious possibility that would have been designed-for at the earliest stages, and the design solution investigated and validated by the certifying authority at the earliest stages. In other words, of the things that could go wrong, I expected that this would have been well-planned-for by the manufacturer (as it was LIKELY to happen in the service life of the aircraft) and the solution checked by the authority.

I was pleased to have been told that at any time that the aircraft would be operating with the doors closed, any smoke from this thing going up would be vented overboard with none entering the cabin, which I was curious about. It never crossed my mind that a battery fire (in the *aircraft's own batteries*) could bring down the aircraft in flight, and it appears that it couldn't and wouldn't if everything functioned as designed.

I am eternally grateful for CM's calm ability to provide simple, solid FACTS to counter the knowledgeless supposition by doofy fanboys like Ostrower, who does nothing to make his bones as a serious student of the aircraft business by his performance today, nor the 20-year-old "analysts" at financial firms whose equally-dumb suppositions move billions of dollars in market value daily.

When asked about this earlier today, I told someone that I expected that if the battery had gone up over the Pacific, there might have been a minor warning in the cockpit, that nobody in the cabin would have noticed a thing, that the thing would just have consumed itself and gone out, and that maintenance would have found a combusted battery nestled in its containment vessel when they checked as to why the APU battery wasn't working. But, heck, what do I know?

Accordingly, it was a true delight to read CM's post which says basically the same thing, but explains it clearly and concisely from an engineering perspective. Thank you, Sir, and welcome to my RU list -- not that you need it.

In short, the only really bad luck for Boeing was that this thing caught fire in the one place that anybody (outside of those in the industry and here on a.net) would have noticed.

The only thing that I'm looking for from the NTSB is whether they think that the engineering solution to prevent this from being a problem functioned as designed, i.e. was it robust enough. Contrary to all the dramatic verbage from the Boston Fire Department that we have seen, it sure looks like it did and was, but I'm happy to await the report.

[Edited 2013-01-08 23:19:18]

25 strfyr51 : JAL can get back to NRT or HND via Alaska without ever going more than 60 min etops of they had to by crossing over the Aleutians- sakhalin- south ea
26 FlyingAY : Well, one firefighter has been injured slightly. Because there might a systematic fault made at the battery manufacturer and every single 787 APU bat
27 tdscanuck : Not really. The total power output of the 787 APU is roughly comparable to other APUs (it's just puttting all that power out as electric, rather than
28 Post contains images flood : To be fair, what the photo shows is minimal collateral damage with the added benefit of the Boston FD. That said, an axe may have made things worse -
29 rwessel : In any event, later Merlins put out over 2000hp, which would be ~1.5MW, less generator efficiency* if you wanted to match the application. *In this s
30 PlanesNTrains : So they certify the aircraft knowing that a battery can do exactly what appears to have happened here, and that would then require a grounding? If it
31 packsonflight : Strange... Did the NTSB violate the ND agreement between Boeing and the Buyer?
32 Unflug : Thanks for these explanations! And thanks again for this assessment!
33 FlyingAY : Why an agreement between two other parties would limit NTSB in any way?[Edited 2013-01-09 00:12:05]
34 PlanesNTrains : I'm guessing packsonflight might have been following the lead of BoeingVista: Why, I don't know..... -Dave
35 rwessel : The DC-10 was grounded because the AA191 accident pointed out that slat mechanism was non-locking, and the slat-disagreement indicating system was li
36 Post contains links ADent : CM -thanx for the good posts. It references photos from after the ZA002 incident - an inside joke on the thread. These were on the web (including this
37 UALWN : Well, today we are where we are because of the intervention of the Boston Fire Department, which spent 40 minutes putting out a fire with two-feet hi
38 RickNRoll : If it had been in the air, and it could easily have been, we would have another story. A stroke of luck does not make the situation any safer. It's l
39 CM : Based on what we know about the incident and how the airplane is designed, I don't think things would be any different for the airplane if it had hap
40 Revelation : Cool! From the moment the story broke, we didn't know it was a battery fire, we just knew smoke was coming from the same area as one could have expec
41 Post contains links LTC8K6 : Sounds kind of minor... "The NTSB investigator on scene found that the auxiliary power unit battery had severe fire damage. Thermal damage to the surr
42 UALWN : I already elaborated above: Without the intervention of the fire brigade, how would have the fire on the ground evolved? There is no fire brigade whi
43 Jlager2 : My first post on A.net and probably not a good one to get involved in but have viewed from the sidelines for many years and this has prompted me to po
44 s5daw : Did firemen's effort actually contribute to shorten the time it took the battery to burn? How do you stop a fire that does not need external oxygen?
45 Aviaponcho : By the way, is the NTSB photo a photo of P100 / P150 and P200 panels ? Quite interesting...
46 BoeingVista : OK Not my comment but let me take a shot at it. Two simple and fundamental differences between in flight fire and on ground fire as in this case spri
47 s5daw : I'm not sure this makes any sense. Apparently the bay is not sealed from the cabin, or there would be no cabin smoke even in this incident. Since it'
48 UALWN : I'd presume so. Certainly this must have been their goal. What do you mean by "external"? A fire that was reported to shoot flames 2 ft into the air
49 PITingres : As pointed out elsewhere, if it's their photo, they own the copyright. The other question is trade secret and I suspect that these guys have worked w
50 rcair1 : No. The investigation concluded that if they had diverted immediately, the fire would have extended to the point the a/c was uncontrollable, or the c
51 BoeingVista : We are told that the passenger cabin is directly pressurised and that it vents through the cabin floor to the lower lobe from which it vents out of t
52 PITingres : That raises an interesting question. Are airport fire fighters trained on aircraft specifics? Is there any way that they could have been expected to
53 ncfc99 : If I have read the A380 article correctly and remember the ZA002 incident correctly, one incident resulted in a bang and a burning smell (with smoke?
54 s5daw : What gave you that impression? "Flames about two feet (0.6 meter) high shot out of an avionics bay in the jet’s belly yesterday as the plane sat at
55 PITingres : Nothing in that quote says whether the alleged flames happened before or after firefighter response. And we're now treating on-the-spot press reports
56 Revelation : Right, but the ZA002 threads will tell you that there's nothing else in the area that can burn. Get damaged/scorched: yes. Burn/melt: not in the know
57 Stitch : They didn't ground every A330 and A340 equipped with Thales C16195AA pitot tubes after AF447 because of the risk of in-cruise icing due to water ingr
58 Post contains images CM : Outstanding post. Thanks very much for the insight and analysis. The architecture of the airplane is designed to contain this exact event, so no. See
59 ncfc99 : Thanks for the reply CM. rcair1 posted above whilst I was typing that firemen are not immune from being over dramatic and that the enclosure may well
60 UALWN : Wel,, I really don't know, of course. I'm just going with the words of the fire chief: Flames two feet high and an explosion. Hopefully, the fire chi
61 Stitch : Looking at the picture of the area, it's clear we're not talking a raging inferno on the order of SR111 or SA295, even if the feeling I get from some
62 Aviaponcho : Sorry, I miss it (and as usual I was wrong-sided ...)
63 UALWN : Absolutely. But still, flames two feet high are, well, worrisome. Particularly, if they were there when the firemen arrived, and not created by their
64 rcair1 : Yes they are trained in a/c specifics to a point. I'm sure they have been able to see one - and maybe poke around a bit. Whether they know this level
65 Stitch : They are worrisome, but they must be taken in context. If one knew nothing about the 787 and just heard the term "two foot high flames in the belly",
66 Aquila3 : Very informative post, thank you. But I have a specific FF question. Would not CO2 be effective against a Li fire? At least it will cool it down, and
67 rcair1 : I'm a Fire Chief. I've been interviewed. Two comments. I'm misquoted more often than not - and almost never because of any intentional omission by th
68 UALWN : But that was after the intervention of the fire brigade, which, one hopes, helped mitigate the damage. Thanks a lot for your comment. I have also bee
69 Stitch : True, but we also don't know how much longer the flames would have been that high as the battery consumed itself and ran out of fuel to sustain the f
70 Revelation : Thanks for your comments! I'll inject both Boston FD and Massport FD were involved. I imagine Massport in particular has a lot of hazmat training, gi
71 F9animal : LOL! I have to crack up at those saying this was not a fire, and downplaying the severity of it. If my oven has a fire with flames two feet high... An
72 PITingres : How about: and which they did do, did they not? The bottom line is whether containment failed, because that's going to determine the seriousness of t
73 AeroWesty : Except in this case the battery was in a containment unit. If your oven was built up to a fire containment standard, it would be silly for you to bre
74 frmrCapCadet : Keep this quote in mind when you see some of the attacks on reporters. Most of them try to do a good job. They are overworked, and newspapers are goi
75 pygmalion : everything inside the pressure vessel of the airplane.. basically everything inside the fuselage... is tested to be burn proof and self extingushing.
76 Post contains links Revelation : Ok, the extension of the original thread contains the Seattle times story: http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...84827_787fireinvestigationxml.html w
77 PlanesNTrains : I'll pass on getting into a technical discussion on the two incidents. My observation was the similarities regarding the descriptions used in the nar
78 AirlineCritic : Containment. The sequence of events started when someone detected smoke in the cabin. This would logically seem to imply that containment was breache
79 Post contains links CM : The way a Lithium-ion battery reacts during a runaway event requires venting of pressure, but containment of explosive pressures, as well as the abil
80 Revelation : There are descriptive similarities applied to Babe Ruth bars and turds (see "Caddyshack") but they are two very different things, so I have no idea w
81 Kaiarahi : Not strange in the least. The NTSB has statutory investigative and disclosure powers that have nothing to do with, and are immune from, the intellect
82 wjcandee : Maybe or maybe not. As CM said, the combustion should be self-limiting by definition and design.
83 Post contains links Revelation : Reposted with no reference to deleted posts, since I think we need info on what is being reported in the press. I have some doubts about the "two foot
84 rcair1 : Yes they did. I also have no doubt that there were 2 ft flames at some point. What I was trying to illustrate is that '2 ft flames' can mean a lot of
85 Revelation : I can go with that. Looking again at the photo in #17, I see what could be soot on the vertical shelving behind the gentleman's right shoulder. Yes.
86 PlanesNTrains : I tried to PM a reply twice but it just errors out - not sure why. I'm not really sure where the "turd" comment needed to come from? You could have j
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Potential Job Loss At SN Due To Restructuring posted Thu Sep 27 2012 00:28:35 by SN535
Recent AF Go-around At SXM Due To Trop Storm Isaac posted Mon Aug 27 2012 16:28:45 by bakersdozen
ATP Grounded At EMA Due To Ash Damage? posted Wed May 19 2010 18:23:26 by KFlyer
UA Emergency Landing At BUF Due To Smoke In Lav. posted Fri Mar 5 2010 15:54:58 by KBUF
Plane Skids Off The Runway At TIJ Due To Rain/wind posted Thu Jan 21 2010 18:23:50 by Marcus
Cancellations & Delays At CDG Due To Snowfalls posted Mon Feb 2 2009 00:14:29 by FlySSC
Question Re: Pax Stranded At FRA Due To LH Strike posted Sun Jul 27 2008 22:01:12 by Boeing747_600
SK Flight Cancelled At CPH Due To Terrorism Scare posted Tue Mar 18 2008 16:15:24 by BuyantUkhaa
Air Transat Emer Landing At FLL Due To Bad Food posted Wed Mar 5 2008 07:50:11 by Tom in NO
Near-Miss At EWR Due To ATC posted Thu Jan 17 2008 16:53:32 by PlateMan