Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7  
User currently offlinemoderators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 513 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26225 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Due to length, here is part 7.

Previous thread: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 6 (by moderators Jul 18 2013 in Civil Aviation)


Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
129 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 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 26107 times:

@sankaps

If that is proven to be the case, then the 787-only investigation may make sense. Does anyone know if the 787 ELT is not exactly the same model / design / variant as the rest of the 5,000? And if so, what is different about them?

---

Well it looks like that information was wrong and there are other models with "identical" units out there. Of course, none are identical. But they would be the same model and manufacturing lot/process.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2686 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 25619 times:

So to wrap up Part 6:

We still don't know anything for certain. There are no official "what"s, "why for"s or answers. Yet.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7757 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 25595 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 2):
We still don't know anything for certain. There are no official "what"s, "why for"s or answers. Yet.

Well thanks for answering my first question 

Japanese news reporting JL is keeping the ELT after inspecting it, while ANA is removing them.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 25122 times:

Reposting for continuity of discussion as it was the last post of the previous thread:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 239):
What elephant...specifically? These devices are made by Honeywell. Boeing did nothing except mount them on their aircraft.

Sankaps: The elephant specifically is the fact that currently only the ELTs installed on 787s are the focus of investigation.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 246):
From earlier in the threads I believe I read that this model is ONLY used in the 787

Sankaps: If that is proven to be the case, then the 787-only investigation may make sense. Does anyone know if the 787 ELT is not exactly the same model / design / variant as the rest of the 5,000? And if so, what is different about them?

To which ikramerica responded:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
Well it looks like that information was wrong and there are other models with "identical" units out there. Of course, none are identical. But they would be the same model and manufacturing lot/process.

So the question or elephant in the room still remains: If this ELT model is IDENTICAL to the 5,000 others installed on various aircraft, why are only the ones on the 787 being called out for inspection / removal?


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20740 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 25013 times:

Between the end of the last thread and the start of this one, I didn't see this piece of news posted:

Japan's ANA finds damaged battery wires on Boeing Dreamliner locator beacons

Quote:
Japan's ANA Holdings Inc (9202.T), which operates the world's biggest fleet of Boeing Co (BA.N) Dreamliners, said it found damage to the battery wiring on two 787 locator beacons during checks after the devices were identified as the likely cause of a fire on another aircraft in London this month.

The damage was slight, but the beacons have been sent to the manufacturer, Honeywell International Inc (HON.N), for inspection and the airline has informed local aviation regulators, an ANA spokesman, Ryousei Nomura, said.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2686 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 24963 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 4):
So the question or elephant in the room still remains: If this ELT model is IDENTICAL to the 5,000 others installed on various aircraft, why are only the ones on the 787 being called out for inspection / removal?

This is something we will only know once the AAIB release their full report.

Until then, all we have is speculation, which I predict will once again be inventing ways to pin the blame 100% on Boeing.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 24894 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 4):

It doesn't have too be the same model...it may be just the same batch. Perhaps the 787 ELTs were replaced by the same place at the same time. Since it's a quality control issue, (which could very well be specific to the service location), it make would make perfect sense for those units to be tested or inspected as a group.

The units might very well have been ordered in batches, which would make sense from an inventory and tracking standpoint. That would also differentiate them from other units of the same model.

Claiming that there's an 'elephant in the room', implies something sinister and untoward is happening....peraps even corrupt. What could such an 'elephant' possibly be? I can think of any number of non conspiracy reasons why they want the 787 ELTs inspected.

So far, no regulatory or investigative agency has voiced concern about an 'elephant in the room', concerning the 787application of the ELTs. They seem to be pointing towards the ELTs themselves, not how they were mounted on the 787.

The wiring problems discovered so far are internal to the ELT.



What the...?
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 24867 times:

The aircraft being taken out of service in Doha (mentioned by Zeke in pt.6) appears to have been A7-BCB - which according to flightaware last operated MUC-DOH on the 21st.

Reuters now reports "Two industry sources said smoke had been reported near an electrical compartment while the jet was on the ground in Doha."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...mliner-qatar-idUSL6N0FW2AA20130726


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 24839 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
Claiming that there's an 'elephant in the room', implies something sinister and untoward is happening....peraps even corrupt. What could such an 'elephant' possibly be?

Nothing sinister, untoward, or corrupt about the expression implied or intended. From Wiki:

"The expression "Elephant in the room" is a metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is either being ignored or going unaddressed. The idiomatic expression also applies to an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.

It is based on the idea that an elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook; thus, people in the room who pretend the elephant is not there have chosen to avoid dealing with the looming big issue."


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 326 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 24730 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 6):
Until then, all we have is speculation, which I predict will once again be inventing ways to pin the blame 100% on Boeing.

There are many fanboys on a.net, on both sides of the fence. Some of them, on one side of the fence, will attempt to 'pin the blame 100% on Boeing'. Some of those on the other side of the fence will try to completely absolve Boeing of any blame. Given that we don't have much confirmed information to go on, both of these viewpoints are unrealistic.

Fortunately, the majority of people on here are actually keeping open minds, even though those with a more polarised view of the world are misinterpreting many of their comments as 'fanboyism'.

For example, the 'elephant in the room' comment. This is a perfectly justified comment, in my opinion, given that the AAIB have recommended inerting of ELTs in 787s and only inspection of ELTs in other aircraft. But pointing this out as 'an elephant in the room' does not necessarily suggest that the reason for the different recommendation for the 787 is because Boeing have 'screwed up'. It could just as easily be Honeywell, or a battery supplier or a maintenance organisation, etc.

At this stage, the AAIB is not saying why they have recommended different treatment for the 787 so we can only speculate. There could be many different possible reasons for why the AAIB only recommend that 787 ELTs should be inerted - maybe they are all from the same production batch, maybe they were all assembled or inspected or installed or maintained by the same person. or maybe there's something else they have in common. Or maybe the AAIB just don't know yet and are being over cautious. We simply won't know until they tell us.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9154 posts, RR: 76
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 24686 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 4):
So the question or elephant in the room still remains: If this ELT model is IDENTICAL to the 5,000 others installed on various aircraft, why are only the ones on the 787 being called out for inspection / removal?

The ELT part numbers 1152682-1/2/3 are installed on various types, and multiple manufacturers. The ELT PN is being investigated on other types apart from the 787.

Do not read that to mean it is, or is not a 787 specific problem, fact is while this is being investigated further, nobody knows.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 24564 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 11):
The ELT part numbers 1152682-1/2/3 are installed on various types, and multiple manufacturers. The ELT PN is being investigated on other types apart from the 787.

Sure, but the fact is that at the current time, only those installed on the 787 are being inerted or removed. Which suggests that either (1) they all come from a bad batch or were installed incorrectly, or (2) have something else unique about them (which appears not to be the case), or (3) there is something to do with the ELT-787 pairing that caused the issue to arise.

Quoting zeke (Reply 11):
Do not read that to mean it is, or is not a 787 specific problem, fact is while this is being investigated further, nobody knows.

Agree, we will only know when we know. In the meantime it is curious that only the 787 ELTs are being called out for special attention.

[Edited 2013-07-26 06:43:47]

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2155 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 24520 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 11):

The ELT part numbers 1152682-1/2/3 are installed on various types, and multiple manufacturers. The ELT PN is being investigated on other types apart from the 787.

Thanks Zeke.

Managed to get a look at the ELT envelope drawing. That design have been around for a while (more than a decade). Looks like to replace the battery, you may have to remove the ELT from the airplane as it is installed via bolts and not those quick release hold down and dagger pins.

The battery access panel runs almost the length of the ELT telling me the battery chamber is relatively large and the battery may be about 25% to 30% of the ELT itself.

So if that battery starts to go, I can easily see it burning through the shell even if the shell is aluminum.


bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 683 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 24243 times:

Has this been posted before?

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...y/2021456975_787firesourcexml.html

"The two sources suggested that Honeywell might have replaced the batteries at some stage before delivery of the jet because the devices sat on the shelf during the years-long 787 program delays."

This would explain why only 787 ELT batteries are inspected for time being.


User currently offlineservantleader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24226 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 12):
Agree, we will only know when we know. In the meantime it is curious that only the 787 ELTs are being called out for special attention.

I fail to see why this is such a mystery and/or assumed to be unfairly singling out the Boeing 787 program. The evidence to date strongly suggests that the root cause of the fire was faulty / poor workmanship wiring of the ELT at install to the 787 in question, and not the Honeywell ELT device itself. With this backdrop--and fact that the Honeywell ELT has been in certified service since 2005 with no prior such incidents--why wouldn't the focus turn to the Boeing 787 ELT assembly process?


User currently offlineflyhigh@tom From United Arab Emirates, joined Sep 2001, 398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24132 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 8):
The aircraft being taken out of service in Doha (mentioned by Zeke in pt.6) appears to have been A7-BCB - which according to flightaware last operated MUC-DOH on the 21st.

Reuters now reports "Two industry sources said smoke had been reported near an electrical compartment while the jet was on the ground in Doha."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...30726

Being in this industry i was pretty much surprised that absolutely no information is forthcoming from qatar regarding A7-BCB. as rightly said it has not flown since 21st.

reports from a fellow colleague operating to doha claimed to have seen fire trucks surrounding the said aircraft on 21st. but after that all mum.....

i am really curious about this...esp given that the aircraft was subbed and never flew since...and given the :rumors" about the smoke in the aft avionics bay.  


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24100 times:

Quoting servantleader (Reply 15):
The evidence to date strongly suggests that the root cause of the fire was faulty / poor workmanship wiring of the ELT at install to the 787 in question, and not the Honeywell ELT device itself. With this backdrop--and fact that the Honeywell ELT has been in certified service since 2005 with no prior such incidents--why wouldn't the focus turn to the Boeing 787 ELT assembly process?

From this article, it appears that the "installation error" occurred when the ELT batteries were replaced after they had been sitting on the shelf for several years due to 787 production delays, not when the ELTs were actually installed on 787s on the factory line:

Boeing and government investigators now believe the July 12 fire on a 787 Dreamliner at Heathrow Airport in London was likely caused by the incorrect installation of a small lithium battery inside an electronic device.

If that’s confirmed, the fire was due to human error, not a Boeing design flaw.

U.K. investigators who examined the device, called an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) and made by Honeywell, found that the internal wires connecting the battery to the ELT had been trapped and pinched when the cover was reattached as the batteries were inserted, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter, one inside Boeing and one outside.

...

Installing the battery package entails unscrewing the cover of the relatively small device, dropping the battery pack of five cells into a slot and connecting the two wires that protrude from the battery pack to a receptacle in the ELT.

It appears the wires were trapped when the cover was put back on.

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...y/2021456975_787firesourcexml.html

Have we heard whether the batteries were replaced by Boeing or Honeywell personnel? Financial liability would probably attach to whoever was responsible for that task and improperly replaced the ELT cover.

-B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlinesphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24085 times:

AD 2013-15-07
Interim Action
This AD is considered to be interim action. Because the fire occurred on a Model 787-8 airplane,
required actions in this AD are focused on Honeywell fixed ELTs installed on that model. However,
we acknowledge that ELTs are installed on various other aircraft; therefore, continued investigation
is required. Once final action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking.


(sorry - can't get the link to post. It is on the FAA "new ADs in last 60 days" page)


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2155 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24000 times:

Quoting servantleader (Reply 15):
The evidence to date strongly suggests that the root cause of the fire was faulty / poor workmanship wiring of the ELT at install to the 787 in question, and not the Honeywell ELT device itself. With this backdrop--and fact that the Honeywell ELT has been in certified service since 2005 with no prior such incidents--why wouldn't the focus turn to the Boeing 787 ELT assembly process?

Even though the design have been around for a while. There are several industry practice that could point to Honeywell (from a design stand point) or to either Boeing or Honeywell from a battery replacement point. If it is confirmed that the crimp wiring is inside the ELT, then the 787 installation is probably not the culprit.

Now, from an industry stand point, even though the basic design remained the same, supplier can and do changes internal architecture over time. For example. Honeywell may decide to update the battery or change the internal routing of the wiring without changing the part number. Sometimes updating the battery is required as the old battery are no longer available. Sometimes wire routing is changed to improve manufacturing process (but cause problem with battery replacement). These things happens. And I'm pretty sure they will change the wiring routing now if it was crimped wiring that is at fault for the fire.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineservantleader From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 23903 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 19):
Even though the design have been around for a while. There are several industry practice that could point to Honeywell (from a design stand point) or to either Boeing or Honeywell from a battery replacement point. If it is confirmed that the crimp wiring is inside the ELT, then the 787 installation is probably not the culprit.

Right, no one is suggesting that only certain cards be left on the table--it is an ongoing investigation. My point was that if a certain trail becomes more promising than another, then it behooves the investigators to follow that path--not at the exclusion of others--but with due vigor and intensity.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 23844 times:

Quoting flyhigh@tom (Reply 16):
Being in this industry i was pretty much surprised that absolutely no information is forthcoming from qatar regarding A7-BCB. as rightly said it has not flown since 21st.

reports from a fellow colleague operating to doha claimed to have seen fire trucks surrounding the said aircraft on 21st. but after that all mum.....

i am really curious about this...esp given that the aircraft was subbed and never flew since...and given the :rumors" about the smoke in the aft avionics bay

IF the rumours of this being another "smoke in the electronics bay" kind of incident are true, then Boeing should be thankful it occurred in Qatar, where the power-that-be can squash any news or info, rather than in a BOS, NRT, or LHR.

Qatar probably does not want negative publicity for itself or the aircraft (especially given AAB termed the grounding as "silly"), so therefore no news gets out. No free press.

Regardless, curious it has not flown for 5 days now.


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 23789 times:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...57bb40048d733/$FILE/2013-15-07.pdf

787 ELT AD

[Edited 2013-07-26 08:52:18]

User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 23736 times:

From the FAA AD:
We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire in the aft crown of the airplane, or to detect and correct discrepancies within the ELT that could cause such a fire.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31117 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 23679 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyhigh@tom (Reply 16):
Being in this industry i was pretty much surprised that absolutely no information is forthcoming from qatar regarding A7-BCB. as rightly said it has not flown since 21st.

Might be another of that bad batch of power panels that made their way into some 787s, including a QR plane on it's delivery flight. That QR themselves don't appear to consider it anything serious (per the comments of their spokesfolk quoted in the article) is probably significant, considering how AAB reacts to unpleasant news.  


25 Post contains links KC135R : http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...oeingwiresxml.html?syndication=rss Japan’s All Nippon Airways has found damage to wiring on two Boeing 787 lo
26 Tristarsteve : Yes. B787 AMM says you must remove the ELT to replace the battery.
27 Post contains links KC135R : Repost from last thread (since it was posted just prior to closing the thread) regarding inspection of ELTs on other aircraft: U.S. aviation regulator
28 Post contains links KC135R : Seems to be contradicted by this: A fire-brigade supervisor in Doha said it did not have any record of an incident with an airport-related call last
29 Speedbored : That's not necessarily contradictory. It could just be very cleverly worded. The reported incident happened on Sunday, which is this week not last.
30 SSTeve : Someone should tell the FAA that acknowledging the "elephant in the room" means they're totally ruining the metaphor.
31 Post contains images sankaps : The FAA and NTSB are not the ones who do not want to acknowledge the elephant... it is some of us here on a.net who are having trouble seeing it.
32 KC135R : Nor is it necessarily proof of anything at this stage; but I posted it because it is more concrete than claims by an anonymous colleague of seeing an
33 Speedbored : I don't recall saying that it was. I'm keeping an open mind on this reported event at present until someone officially 'in the know' releases some un
34 DTW2HYD : They just want to repeat verbatim what they told AAB.
35 Post contains links trex8 : UA has pinched wire in ELT also. M Maybe a pinched wire is SOP for Honeywell!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...nsmitter-united-787_n_3660744.ht
36 Klaus : Sounds like a bad design to begin with, exacerbated by negligent handling. But this outcome should be inherently impossible in a well-designed device
37 Stitch : With Boeing's tests (and, presumably, Airbus' as well) showing that CFRP was much more resistant to thermal burn through then aluminum, would that pe
38 UALWN : According to Jon Ostrower, wiring problems in ELTs have now been found in three other 787s, two owned by NH and one by UA. Google "Inspections of Boei
39 par13del : Ok, then you say the following below. If the equipment is faulty then good design or bad design its still faulty, if we say the design is good but th
40 AirlineCritic : Very interesting. So that would be what, 4/50 or 8% of the 787s have had this issue. That is pretty significant. But the inspection has been only don
41 JAAlbert : Does an aluminum skin act as a ground, thus preventing or limiting the impact of a short? That might be a difference, but of course we need our avgee
42 hivue : Impossibility is a form of perfection, and, unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect universe.
43 zeke : They do have the continuing airworthiness responsibility for them. Not at all. I remember a few years back there was an AD out these ELTs regarding t
44 osiris30 : Honeywell apparently serviced and replaced the batteries in many of the 787 ELTs due to the fact they sat on a shelf for years prior to being in serv
45 PlanesNTrains : Not to mention a certain poster staking their reputation on the 787 being grounded again due to this. Why do people here do that? It's like gambling,
46 kanban : While the analysis of posters thought processes would make an interesting discussion.. let's save it for it's own thread.. maybe over on the site for
47 JoeCanuck : The short was internal to the ELT so the material to which the ELT was attachd is immatrial to the cause of the fire. Since the battery was shorted t
48 PlanesNTrains : I haven't seen it clearly stated yet (I may have missed it) that it was a Honeywell employee/contractor that did the battery changes - is that who di
49 Post contains links KC135R : For what it's worth, Boeing is asking certain airlines to inspect Honeywell ELTs on other aircraft types. http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/20
50 ikramerica : Klaus is right that poor design leads to this but not about the cause. The wiring should not be routed such that it can be pinched by the battery encl
51 CM767 : Sorry but is not clear for me; the problem cannot be traced to the extra cabin humidity now?
52 sankaps : This may be the cynic in me, but of course Boeing would want to emphasize that, to deflect attention away from the 787 and put in on the ELT. The fac
53 par13del : Is it possible for Boeing to deflect attention away from the 787? So rather than inspecting all Boeing a/c with that type ELT installed, they should
54 sankaps : No, who said they should? The AIAB has called for ALL of the installed ELTs of this model to be inspected. However it is a bit rich for a Boeing pers
55 Post contains images kanban : Odd that when a company attempts to be pro active beyond the minimum required by a regulatory/investigative agency, the first thoughts are "They're h
56 Finn350 : Actually, AAIB has made the following two recommendations: It is recommended that the FAA initiate action for making inert the Honeywell Internationa
57 sankaps : Boeing's request is redundant, since the AAIB and FAA had *already* recommended inspection of same model ELTs fitted on other aircraft. For Boeing to
58 kanban : There is a big difference between recommend and mandatory... ALSO there are many customers/planes that are not under either the FAA's nor AAIB's juris
59 7BOEING7 : FAA covers US operators, AAIB cover British -- it's normal for B (or A) to send notices to all airlines that need to take action -- happens all the t
60 TheRedBaron : I am relieved to know the culprit is a pinched wire on the ELT, that way Boeing and carriers can take action and see everything is Ok. I am amazed at
61 sankaps : Sure they do. But to have it in their marketing head's blog (which goes on to helpfully note that Airbus aircraft have the same ELT as well) is what
62 sankaps : I don't think this has been stated definitively yet to be the root cause for the fire?
63 Finn350 : There are two recommendations from AAIB that I quoted and ADs issued by national Civil Aviation Authorities (including FAA). Regarding aircraft inspe
64 sankaps : Fair enough. My comment was referring to the AAIB recommendation to the regulatory authorities, as per your comment below:
65 rwessel : Several estimates were produced, here's mine: "Note that ELTs don't transmit continuously when triggered. The 406MHz ELTs transmit a 5W, quarter seco
66 TheRedBaron : Thanks !! Also if its a lithium cell then we know these batteries are quite powerful and can and WILL release a lot of heat/energy for its size.... W
67 par13del : Why not just use a model deployed on other a/c, since the device is not powered by the 787 why must it be a new build? The conspiracy theorist in me
68 sankaps : Not sure I understand... surely you are aware (as it has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread itself) this model is used on 6,000 other aircraft,
69 Post contains links sankaps : Good write-up in Reuters on Boeing's notice to inspect ELTs on 12,000 Boeing aircraft at http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing...sks-beacon-checks-1-13
70 Speedbored : Just a thought that I've also posted in the UA 787 ELT Pinched Wire thread: Given that these ELTs have only been in service since 2005, and that they
71 Post contains links Speedbored : Link to a brochure on the ELT, if anyone's interested: http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...es-documents/RESCU_406_AFN_ELT.pdf
72 Stitch : I expect Honeywell uses lithium batteries in this model of ELT is because they have excellent shelf lives. I'm kind of surprised a decision was made
73 tugger : I suspect that there is a requirement that the "expiration date" on the battery itself be ten years from the date of delivery (or installation). So w
74 Speedbored : It could certainly explain why the AAIB saw fit to recommend inerting only of the 787 ELTs (i.e. the ones where batteries had been replaced) but not
75 kanban : that's common practice .. at one time we changed the tires before delivery and a bunch of other "life" limited expendables.
76 Post contains links rwessel : A post over in Tech-Ops by LTC8K6 mentions that the ELT in question contains five of these: http://ultralifecorporation.com/download/353/ Which, at 1
77 Speedbored : Doesn't look that far off trivial to me. Even if we ignore the monthly self tests, and the fact that after 10 years of sitting in standby mode the un
78 par13del : In which case Honeywell could have been deploying them on those thousands of other a/c during the 787 delays versus having them sit on the shelf. Sti
79 nomadd22 : How is that clear? Why would there be any standby consumption if the control lines tripped a power relay? Even if the batteries kept a clock in the E
80 Post contains images Stitch : And to think I suggested just that in the next paragraph of the same post.
81 rwessel : I should have worded more carefully - the power required during the non-active phases of the ELT's life is clearly non-trivial, making up something l
82 sankaps : How do you know they sat on Honeywell's shelf? It is much more likely they were shipped to Boeing as per a specified timeline, and then sat there at
83 Post contains images bikerthai : As noted, the ELT have to be removed from the aircraft in order to replace the battery. So how it is installed on the 787 does not come into play wit
84 kanban : as much as we would like to get away from inventory management discussions, from my time there, it was common practice to have suppliers delay shipme
85 Stitch : If the model of ELT is as widely used in commercial aviation as reported, there would be no reason for Boeing to leave them lying on the shelf waiting
86 Post contains links Mortyman : Norwegian has been notified by the aircraft manufacturer Boeing to immediately check beacon of ten of its Boeing 737 aircraft - nine older 737-300 mod
87 Speedbored : Would I be right in assuming that this is as a result of the general request from Boeing for all operators to check any of their aircraft that have H
88 Finn350 : I suppose Norwegian is one of the specific operators Boeing is asking to check Honeywell ELTs. I have no idea how they selected the operators. ("Boei
89 Post contains images bikerthai : There are reasons, though they may not be good one. One reason is that even though the 737 and 787 are both Boeing products, once one organization (7
90 Stitch : Fair enough. Based on Boeing's JIT inventory control, I expect that ET-AOP's ELT did not arrive until September 2011. So it "sat on the shelf" for pe
91 nomadd22 : True. Sorry about my post reading laziness.
92 nomadd22 : I might have missed this, but are ELTs set up with an ID to associate them with a particular aircraft, or do they just update a database when they ins
93 glbltrvlr : They'll be running down the fault tree - looking at who received production ELTs before and after the 787 as well as any operators who may have recei
94 AirlineCritic : Excellent theory. Thanks.
95 airtechy : I believe it was determined....a couple thousands posts ago..that the aircraft ID is programmed into the ELT. This would have to be done on the bench
96 bikerthai : Usually LRU's have a serial number from the manufacturer. These serial numbers are recorded/documented when installed on to an aircraft as part of th
97 7BOEING7 : I'm guessing that Boeing didn't send out a "general" or fleet wide request because whatever they are looking for doesn't apply to every airplane. The
98 nomadd22 : If the problem arose from sloppy battery replacement, they might only need to check the ones that have had that done on other models.
99 CO953 : On a "meta" level of discussion, I think that people in general in today's world don't have the same attention span as they did 40 years ago, which l
100 bikerthai : I believe that it was. bt
101 Stitch : The wires that connect the ELT to the 787's systems are just signaling wires. They carry very low voltages and amperages per previous posts. If the i
102 Kaiarahi : Yes. See the FAA directive.
103 XT6Wagon : Yah, not sure why many people can't wrap the basic facts of this case around their head. ELT recieves no meaningful current from the 787. ELT battery
104 Speedbored : Maybe some of those 'many people' are actually being sensible enough to keep an open mind as to the cause of this particular fire. One 'basic fact' o
105 CO953 : I was aware of these facts, though I am an auto mechanic instead of a jet mechanic. I thank you for the information that there is no circumstance und
106 ikramerica : You can invent all the scenarios you want, but that's just not based on reality. The ELT is away from power sources, major cabling bundles and reciev
107 hivue : And lightning strikes the house and fries the laptop. Of course there's no lightning issue with the ET 787 but weird stuff happens. It'll be interest
108 Post contains links Stitch : There is this from a 23 July article in The Seattle Times:
109 bikerthai : Yes, except where as the laptop would not have been grounded (except through the Ethernet cable??). The ELT would have been grounded to the chassis t
110 DTW2HYD : So these are non-rechargeable lithium batteries similar to ones used in film SLR Cameras. Aren't these banned from passenger aircraft. It appears oth
111 hivue : Agreed. My vote goes for this being a case of a pinched wire inside the ELT due to a sloppy battery replacement and the battery was shorted and start
112 JoeCanuck : Regardless of how open ones mind is, unless someone hooked jumper cables from the ELT to the 787 electrical system, the ELT cannot receive a current
113 Klaus : Ethernet is not grounded. It is potential-free.
114 DTW2HYD : It is not a long list, it is just one demand from Boeing to all suppliers, "Whatever you supply make it 20% more efficient". If you haven't noticed m
115 ikramerica : Not enough current could cross the Ethernet cable to cause the laptop battery to go into thermal runaway. And where does it come from? The wall wart
116 sphealey : Jon Ostrower is reporting (via Tweet) that the Canada ATSB is issuing an Airworthiness Directive for a large number of ELTs - branded Honeywell but ma
117 kd9gy : Does anyone know the current status of the ET 787 parked at Heathrow? Is it being repaired, torn apart, or simply still taking up space? Any news on i
118 Stitch : The AAIB is still performing their investigation so the final disposition has yet to be determined. One poster claimed the insurer has written the ai
119 Speedbored : When I passed through the airport on Friday, it was on the apron over by the cargo centre on the south side of the airport. Didn't look like anything
120 DocLightning : It's true. Battery-powered devices with Li-ion cells are marketed to the public every day. Many of the batteries are replaceable. Why is the ELT batt
121 Stitch : I'd imagine it has something to do with the difference in design operating environments between such devices.
122 kanban : the access panel is slightly water tight, therefore has a seal ring and on the side are the antenna and control wires .. so it must be sturdier than
123 Klaus : None of that has anything to do with open wires having to be handled manually by a service person to avoid a critical short which may severely damage
124 XT6Wagon : I really really want anything on an aircraft that needs to be secured... to be properly secured. If the little plastic tabs on your phone backplate b
125 Stitch : When you consider that Honeywell has evidently made thousands of the things across all the various models, I find it unlikely that they would change
126 Kaiarahi : If Ostrower tweeted this, it shows remarkable lack of knowledge. 1) The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (like the NTSB, AAIB, BEA, etc) does no
127 Post contains links Finn350 : Ostrower is completely misquoted here. The origal tweet is here and is correct: BREAKING WSJ: Transport Canada plans ELT airworthiness directive. Uni
128 sankaps : Any news on the ET bird? I assume it is still stuck at LHR? Have repairs commenced?
129 hotplane : Still parked in the cargo cul-de-sac. There was talk of an tent going up around.
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...
ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 5 posted Tue Jul 16 2013 08:34:34 by moderators
ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4 posted Sat Jul 13 2013 17:46:31 by moderators
ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 3 posted Fri Jul 12 2013 16:22:50 by moderators
ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2 posted Fri Jul 12 2013 11:13:25 by moderators
ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow posted Fri Jul 12 2013 08:58:34 by hotplane
Plane On Fire At DFW? posted Sun Oct 10 2010 06:54:45 by SWA TPA
Saudia 747 On Fire At Landing In Bangladesh posted Tue Mar 25 2008 09:21:28 by Biman
Breaking News: China Airlines Ac On Fire At Naha posted Mon Aug 20 2007 04:05:58 by A340Spotter
JetBlue Airplane Catches On Fire At JFK posted Tue Aug 16 2005 15:50:31 by CactusTECH
Fire At Heathrow posted Thu Feb 19 2004 21:21:02 by FlyLondon