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, 511 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 26091 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, 21500 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 25973 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, 2644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 25485 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, 7394 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 25461 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.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 24988 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, 20479 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 24879 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, 2644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 24829 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, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 24760 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 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 24733 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 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 24705 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, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 24596 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, 8993 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 24552 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 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 24430 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, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 24386 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, 675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24109 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 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24092 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 India, joined Sep 2001, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 23998 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 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 23966 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 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 23951 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, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 23866 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 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 23769 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 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 23710 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, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 23655 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, 2979 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 23602 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, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 23545 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.  


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 24206 times:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...oeingwiresxml.html?syndication=rss

Japan’s All Nippon Airways has found damage to wiring on two Boeing 787 locator beacons, a device suspected as the cause of a fire on an Ethiopian Airlines 787.


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3998 posts, RR: 34
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 24110 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 13):
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.

Yes. B787 AMM says you must remove the ELT to replace the battery.


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 25021 times:

Repost from last thread (since it was posted just prior to closing the thread) regarding inspection of ELTs on other aircraft:


U.S. aviation regulators ordered inspections of emergency locator transmitters linked to a July 12 fire on a Boeing Co. (BA) 787 and said they may take more action affecting thousands of identical beacons on other models.

“We acknowledge that ELTs are installed on various other aircraft,” the FAA said in the order. “Therefore, continued investigation is required. Once final action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking.”


Source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...io-beacons-linked-to-787-fire.html


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 25012 times:

Quoting flyhigh@tom (Reply 16):
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.....

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 week.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...mliner-qatar-idUSL6N0FW2F120130726


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 24929 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 28):
A fire-brigade supervisor in Doha said it did not have any record of an incident with an airport-related call last week.

That's not necessarily contradictory. It could just be very cleverly worded. The reported incident happened on Sunday, which is this week not last.


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 700 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 24882 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 27):
“We acknowledge that ELTs are installed on various other aircraft,” the FAA said in the order. “Therefore, continued investigation is required. Once final action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking.”

Someone should tell the FAA that acknowledging the "elephant in the room" means they're totally ruining the metaphor.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 24926 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 30):
Someone should tell the FAA that acknowledging the "elephant in the room" means they're totally ruining the metaphor.

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.  


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 24842 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 29):
That's not necessarily contradictory. It could just be very cleverly worded. The reported incident happened on Sunday, which is this week not last.

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 aircraft surrounded by fire trucks. This quote implies that Reuters contacted the Doha fire department and asked if they had any information about this event; I feel fairly confident that the fire department knew what they were being asked and responded accordingly. Unless you are suggesting the Doha fire department cleverly worded a statement in order to cover up facts so I will ask, are you suggesting that?

These threads have become so full of unsubstantiated comments lately that I feel a responsibility to post more concrete evidence when it is available.


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 24714 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 32):
Nor is it necessarily proof of anything at this stage

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 unambiguous information on it.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 32):
Unless you are suggesting the Doha fire department cleverly worded a statement in order to cover up facts so I will ask, are you suggesting that?

I'm not suggesting anything but, having spent a lot of my working life working with carefully worded management-speak statements like this one, I'm simply pointing out that it could be a completely meaningless statement aimed at neither confirming or denying anything.

I agree that, as you suggest, this statement was most likely made as a result of a specific question from Reuters regarding a reported issue with a Qatar 787 on Sunday. That is why I find it interesting that the fire department should choose to add the 'this week' qualifier to their statement, when it is clearly not required.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1846 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 24197 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 32):
Doha fire department cleverly worded a statement

They just want to repeat verbatim what they told AAB.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 22403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.html


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 21632 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 35):
UA has pinched wire in ELT also. M

Maybe a pinched wire is SOP for Honeywell!!

Sounds like a bad design to begin with, exacerbated by negligent handling.

But this outcome should be inherently impossible in a well-designed device, even when somewhat manhandled! That is what a good design is all about, particularly when considering the kind of use an ELT is designed for.

I can only shake my head at this. It would not surprise me if aggressive cost-cutting was ultimately behind this.


But batteries can still fail even when not mishandled mechanically – and that is where the airframer still comes in. A high-energy, concentrated heat source of a known magnitude should not be able to ruin and possibly threaten the inflight safety of an aircraft.

This is where I'd like to see the authorities looking into the same scenario on other models as well – both aluminium and CFRP.

I had voiced my suspicion earlier that the lower thermal conductivity of CFRP might have led to locally higher temperatures than there might have been with an aluminium fuselage (because the aluminium would have sucked more of the emerging energy away from the source because of its much higher thermal conductivity).

I would expect that in a place where a local energy source would need to be accounted for there would have to be special provisions for this kind of event to keep this from becoming a problem (such as special mounting plates or other means).

And I'd love to know if this has in fact been considered in both new CFRP airliners on the one hand and whether the older aluminium frames would actually be more robust in a comparable case on the other.

This kind of consideration might also be behind the prioritized checking of ELTs on the 787, by the way, even if the checks should then be extended to other aircraft (checking the few existing A350 should not be a problem, if they use a comparable model).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 21354 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 36):
I had voiced my suspicion earlier that the lower thermal conductivity of CFRP might have led to locally higher temperatures than there might have been with an aluminium fuselage (because the aluminium would have sucked more of the emerging energy away from the source because of its much higher thermal conductivity).

With Boeing's tests (and, presumably, Airbus' as well) showing that CFRP was much more resistant to thermal burn through then aluminum, would that perhaps mean that even with less thermal conductance, the structure would better stand up to that localized heat source then an Al structure?


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 20852 times:

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 Boeing 787 Emergency-Locator Transmitters Show Problems" to get to his article in the WSJ.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 20581 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 36):
But this outcome should be inherently impossible in a well-designed device, even when somewhat manhandled! That is what a good design is all about, particularly when considering the kind of use an ELT is designed for.

Ok, then you say the following below.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 36):
I can only shake my head at this. It would not surprise me if aggressive cost-cutting was ultimately behind this.

If the equipment is faulty then good design or bad design its still faulty, if we say the design is good but the implementation because of cost cutting makes the device faulty to the end user are we splitting hairs? I would say this is the same as Boeing, they outsourced a lot of their current a/c work to become system integrators - my opinion - versus an a/c manufacturer, so just as they are held responsible for the 787 so too should Honywell be held responsible for their ELT.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 36):
But batteries can still fail even when not mishandled mechanically – and that is where the airframer still comes in. A high-energy, concentrated heat source of a known magnitude should not be able to ruin and possibly threaten the inflight safety of an aircraft.

So back to the good design, if the design is good - meaning the battery source as well since Honeywell chose that and it was not a Boeing mandate, how do we square that one?
Should Boeing have refused to use a perfectly good designed ELT because the company used a high energy battery source?
I'm getting to understand why lawyers charge what they do, every item needs to be considered to see who is responsible for what to determine how much of the damage they will pay.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 20058 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 35):
UA has pinched wire in ELT also. M
Quoting UALWN (Reply 38):
According to Jon Ostrower, wiring problems in ELTs have now been found in three other 787s, two owned by NH and one by UA.

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 done for the 787s. I'd love to know what the rate of pinched wires is in other aircrafts with the same model ELT. Depending on the results, we have either

1) Bad batch to have the faulty devices only for the 787 (bad luck)
2) New persons, wrong procedures or something else in the installation that led just 787s get this issue
3) Something special in the way the ELT is installed in 787 that makes it more prone to this issue
4) Faulty devices in all aircraft, but fire is an unlikely outcome (and the 787 would again be unlucky to get that bad outcome happen for it)
5) Faulty devices in all aircraft, but something makes 787 more likely for the fire to develop

Personally, #2 seems a very likely explanation...


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 19534 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 40):
5) Faulty devices in all aircraft, but something makes 787 more likely for the fire to develop

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 avgeek electrical engineers to speak to this issue.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1070 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 19387 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 36):
But this outcome should be inherently impossible in a well-designed device,

Impossibility is a form of perfection, and, unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect universe.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8993 posts, RR: 75
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 19310 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 39):
should Honywell be held responsible for their ELT

They do have the continuing airworthiness responsibility for them.

Quoting par13del (Reply 39):
Should Boeing have refused to use a perfectly good designed ELT because the company used a high energy battery source?

Not at all.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 41):
Does an aluminum skin act as a ground, thus preventing or limiting the impact of a short?

I remember a few years back there was an AD out these ELTs regarding the AL case, it is an integral part of the transmitting capability of them.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineosiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19077 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 40):
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 done for the 787s. I'd love to know what the rate of pinched wires is in other aircrafts with the same model ELT. Depending on the results, we have either

1) Bad batch to have the faulty devices only for the 787 (bad luck)
2) New persons, wrong procedures or something else in the installation that led just 787s get this issue
3) Something special in the way the ELT is installed in 787 that makes it more prone to this issue
4) Faulty devices in all aircraft, but fire is an unlikely outcome (and the 787 would again be unlucky to get that bad outcome happen for it)
5) Faulty devices in all aircraft, but something makes 787 more likely for the fire to develop

Personally, #2 seems a very likely explanation...

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 service (thanks to the snafu's with 787 production/certification). It was referenced earlier in the thread. Sound more like:

Faulty ELT design represents a risk if the batteries are replaced, which is not SOP for the unit in question as I understand it (usually the unit is just replaced outright when the battery and service life are done with). So a deviation from SOP for a particular type due to the issues the 787 had earlier in the program come back and create a whole lot of noise and accusations and non-sense about cover ups and what not, when in reality it's all pretty simple.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 29
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18835 times:

Quoting osiris30 (Reply 44):
So a deviation from SOP for a particular type due to the issues the 787 had earlier in the program come back and create a whole lot of noise and accusations and non-sense about cover ups and what not, when in reality it's all pretty simple.

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, and for what? Bragging rights?

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3472 posts, RR: 27
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 45):
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, and for what? Bragging rights?

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 forum..


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 17955 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 41):

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 to itself, a metal fuselage wouldn't have grounded out the circuit.

Aluminum does burn so the damage might even have been worse had this happend on a metal aircraft. Fire doesn't sustain very well with CFRP, (much the same way that wood burns easier than charcoal), and the burn through looks fairly small in area considering how long the ELT must have been burning and the robustness of Lithium battery fires.

There is a long list of fires which have engulfed aluminum aircraft in short order.



What the...?
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 29
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 17743 times:

Quoting osiris30 (Reply 44):
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 service (thanks to the snafu's with 787 production/certification). It was referenced earlier in the thread.

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 did them? I just don't know how it works. If the ELT's are installed on a Boeing frame grounded at Everett, and then the battery needs to be replaced, does Honeywell send out an employee, are the units sent back to Honeywell, does a Boeing employee service the unit, etc?

I just want to be clear on who actually did the battery replacements because I don't know how it works.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17255 times:

For what it's worth, Boeing is asking certain airlines to inspect Honeywell ELTs on other aircraft types.

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2013/07/elt_inspections.html


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21500 posts, RR: 60
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17200 times:

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 enclosure. Anyone who's dealt with an old cheap smoke detector knows how annoying the pinched wires can be, and it's why newer models have been redesigned so that the batteries clip into pins and there is no wiring loose to get pinched by the cover. If a $25 smoke detector can be properly designed, why not a far more expensive ELT?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCM767 From Panama, joined Dec 2004, 654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17145 times:

Sorry but is not clear for me; the problem cannot be traced to the extra cabin humidity now?


But The Best Thing God Has Created Is A New Day
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16693 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 49):
For what it's worth, Boeing is asking certain airlines to inspect Honeywell ELTs on other aircraft types.

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 fact is that while the AAIB in the UK had indeed recommended all ELTs of this model be inspected, they only recommending "interting" or removal on those installed on the 787.

It is indeed interesting that Boeing takes pains to note that "It is important to note that Honeywell ELTs have been deployed on approximately 20 aircraft models— including Boeing, Airbus and numerous business aviation aircraft", completely ignoring the fact that this ELT has not caused problems in any of the other aircraft types mentioned that account for ~99% of the installed ELTs.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16553 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 52):

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.

Is it possible for Boeing to deflect attention away from the 787?

Quoting sankaps (Reply 52):
completely ignoring the fact that this ELT has not caused problems in any of the other aircraft types mentioned that account for ~99% of the installed ELTs.

So rather than inspecting all Boeing a/c with that type ELT installed, they should only inspect the 787, find some with pinched internal wires and say that the problem is fixed and all is well?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16443 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 53):
So rather than inspecting all Boeing a/c with that type ELT installed, they should only inspect the 787, find some with pinched internal wires and say that the problem is fixed and all is well?

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 person to then go on to say that:

"It is important to note that Honeywell ELTs have been deployed on approximately 20 aircraft models— including Boeing, Airbus and numerous business aviation aircraft"

... when the fact of the matter is that only the 787's ELT's are required to be not just inspected, but also interted or removed even if no issues found, and the others only inspected.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3472 posts, RR: 27
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 16001 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 52):
This may be the cynic in me,

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 hiding something" or "They're trying to divert attention"

Now if airlines find pinched wires in planes other than 787's will Boeing's request have been futile? And since these same ELT are in Airbus planes... what is Airbus doing?

Quoting sankaps (Reply 54):
.. when the fact of the matter is that only the 787's ELT's are required to be not just inspected, but also interted or removed even if no issues found,

That was probably a knee jerk reaction... based on A.net input.   


User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15982 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 54):
The AIAB has called for ALL of the installed ELTs of this model to be inspected.

Actually, AAIB has made the following two recommendations:

It is recommended that the FAA initiate action for making inert the Honeywell International RESCU406AFN fixed ELT system in Boeing 787 aircraft until approriate Airworthiness actions can be completed.

It is recommended that the FAA, in association with other regulatory authorities, conduct a safety review of installations of Lithium-powered ELT systems in other aircraft types and, where approriate, initiate airworthiness action.

The first recommendation concerns only Boeing 787 and RESCU406AFN. The second recommendation concerns all Lithium-powered ELTs, not just those manufactured by Honeywell.

Boeing announcement actually puts pressure on Airbus to order similar inspection on their aircraft that are using RESCU406AFN ELT.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 15616 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 55):
Now if airlines find pinched wires in planes other than 787's will Boeing's request have been futile? And since these same ELT are in Airbus planes... what is Airbus doing?

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 now announce it themselves seems a bit unnecessary, except of course it gives them the chance to disperse the attention away from just the 787s.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 56):
Boeing announcement actually puts pressure on Airbus to order similar inspection on their aircraft that are using RESCU406AFN ELT.

Again not really required, since the FAA and AAIB have already recommended they be inspected.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3472 posts, RR: 27
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 15570 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 jurisdiction...

Boeing puts out many advisory service bulletins and letters each year to verify if a single issue is more global... it's a beneficial practice ...

and I'm completely baffled by the continued antagonism.


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1528 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 15555 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 57):
Again not really required, since the FAA and AAIB have already recommended they be inspected.


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 time. Boeing knows which airplanes have which equipment the FAA /AAIB doesn't. Just normal ops!!!.


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2204 posts, RR: 8
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 15474 times:

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 the amount of smoke and damage created by the failed part, I asked some threads ago if someone the joules yield of the Battery on the ELT, It went unanswered, but I guess Its worth consideration to check all the aircraft, the dates of the batteries and if they are installed correctly. Boeing doesnt really need any kind of fire-smoke problems on this airplane in the future, just seeing the media reaction and (some a neters here), they need a ver terse future...

Has the authority released any info on aircraft repairing and back to service?



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 15483 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 58):
Boeing puts out many advisory service bulletins and letters each year to verify if a single issue is more global... it's a beneficial practice ...

and I'm completely baffled by the continued antagonism.

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 makes it seems a bit like it is being used as a marketing / diversionary tactic as well.

No random antagonism, am just stating it as I perceive it. I am a huge fan of all Boeing products upto and including the 777. I am just not as convinced by the post-McDD acquisition Boeing that has run the company since then (and the 787 is their product). The 787 EIS and issues have been hugely mishandled, and continues to be mishandled, by Boeing.

And I am not alone, there are a number of current and former Boeing lifers who feel the same way, but have usually been flamed or shouted down for daring to say so in various platforms.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 15468 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 60):
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 don't think this has been stated definitively yet to be the root cause for the fire?


User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 15380 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 57):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 57):
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 56):Boeing announcement actually puts pressure on Airbus to order similar inspection on their aircraft that are using RESCU406AFN ELT.

Again not really required, since the FAA and AAIB have already recommended they be inspected.

There are two recommendations from AAIB that I quoted and ADs issued by national Civil Aviation Authorities (including FAA). Regarding aircraft inspections all of them cover only Boeing 787.

American NTSB and British AAIB are investigative bodies that make recommendations. American FAA and other national CAA issue Airworthiness Directives that must complied to. The roles are separate on purpose.

[Edited 2013-07-29 12:23:33]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 15321 times:

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 63):
There are two recommendations from AAIB that I quoted and ADs issued by national Civil Aviation Authorities (including FAA). Regarding aircraft inspections all of them cover only Boeing 787.

Fair enough. My comment was referring to the AAIB recommendation to the regulatory authorities, as per your comment below:

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 56):
It is recommended that the FAA, in association with other regulatory authorities, conduct a safety review of installations of Lithium-powered ELT systems in other aircraft types and, where approriate, initiate airworthiness action.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2338 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 15201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 60):
I asked some threads ago if someone the joules yield of the Battery on the ELT, It went unanswered,

Several estimates were produced, here's mine:

"Note that ELTs don't transmit continuously when triggered. The 406MHz ELTs transmit a 5W, quarter second burst, every 50 seconds or so. Which is only about 900s of total transmission time, or about 4500J of (transmitted) energy. Assuming a transmitter efficiency of about 33%, you'd need about 1.1Ah at 12V."

I think there may have been an identification of the exact battery cell (and count thereof) being used in one of these threads, if someone can find that, the capacity of those would be easy enough to find.

Note that the energy from a Lithium fire will not be the same as the nominal amount of energy a battery can store.


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2204 posts, RR: 8
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 15117 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 65):

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....

Would it be ironic that the ELT need to be "contained" Too ?

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 8
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 15047 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 66):
Would it be ironic that the ELT need to be "contained" Too ?

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 says that Honeywell designed a new ELT just for the 787, and I am betting it cost a premium over those previously deployed on other a/c.
At the end of the day it is all about the money, I'm also taking bets that the time to replace batteries is getting shorter and shorter.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 15013 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):
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?

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, and has been in use since 2005?


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 14972 times:

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-1-130727721.html .

Sounds like more than just this model of ELT being inspected then?

Quotes from the article:

""Boeing's recommendation of fleet-wide checks of the Emergency Locator Transmitters suggests that Boeing thinks it is not a 787 problem, but an ELT problem," said Paul Hayes, director of safety at UK-based aviation consultancy Ascend."

""Airbus said it would carry out a review of the way the emergency beacons are installed on its planes, but stopped short of asking airlines to inspect them across its fleet.

"Our records do not show any incidents of this nature," a spokesman for the European planemaker said.

"However, as a precautionary measure, we will do an additional review of the integration of the device in order to determine whether there is a need to apply any lessons from the AAIB findings," the spokesman said."


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14882 times:

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 have a 10 year battery life, I suspect that this particular issue hasn't shown up on the other 6000 aircraft with this ELT yet because very few, if any, ELTs on other aircraft will have needed to have had their batteries replaced yet.

Maybe the fact that it's only shown up on 787s so far is actually a direct result of the 787 delivery delays, i.e. because of the need (either because the airlines requested it, or because Boeing just wanted it) to swap the batteries out prior to delivery so that the aircraft were delivered with 10 years of ELT battery life remaining instead of 7 or 8.

Maybe that's the common cause that we've been looking for.


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14842 times:

Link to a brochure on the ELT, if anyone's interested:
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...es-documents/RESCU_406_AFN_ELT.pdf


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14809 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):
At the end of the day it is all about the money, I'm also taking bets that the time to replace batteries is getting shorter and shorter.

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 to swap the batteries on units even if they had literally sat on a shelf for years because that is what the battery is designed for.

Do we know if the batteries were replaced because they had not passed QC, or was this perhaps a "customer service / warranty issue" - if Honeywell sells them with a 10-year shelf life from delivery, if the batteries had sat on a shelf for 2-3 years before delivery, that would mean the battery could not meet the contracted service life (as it would be 10 years old 7 years after delivery) so they were replaced just prior to delivery to "reset the clock" and get the full 10 years.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5491 posts, RR: 8
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14749 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 72):
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 to swap the batteries on units even if they had literally sat on a shelf for years because that is what the battery is designed for.

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 while they may be good for a lot longer or be replaced on a yearly basis, the work slow down or delays caused the dates to be out of spec and so they were replaced/updated, which required opening the units up.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14783 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 72):
Do we know if the batteries were replaced because they had not passed QC, or was this perhaps a "customer service / warranty issue" - if Honeywell sells them with a 10-year shelf life from delivery, if the batteries had sat on a shelf for 2-3 years before delivery, that would mean the battery could not meet the contracted service life (as it would be 10 years old 7 years after delivery) so they were replaced just prior to delivery to "reset the clock" and get the full 10 years.

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 of the other 6000, which haven't reached their battery replacement date yet because they've only been in service since 2005 (or later).


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3472 posts, RR: 27
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14665 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 72):
if Honeywell sells them with a 10-year shelf life from delivery, if the batteries had sat on a shelf for 2-3 years before delivery, that would mean the battery could not meet the contracted service life (as it would be 10 years old 7 years after delivery) so they were replaced just prior to delivery to "reset the clock" and get the full 10 years.

that's common practice .. at one time we changed the tires before delivery and a bunch of other "life" limited expendables.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2338 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14691 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 66):
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....

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 11.1Ah at 3.0V times five, works out to 600,000J.

Clearly the standby power consumption and self-discharge rates on the ELT are non-trivial.


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14887 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 76):
Clearly the standby power consumption and self-discharge rates on the ELT are non-trivial.

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 unit needs to be able to operate at full power for 50 hours, those 5 batteries would only be able to supply 600 microamps at 3V, or 120 microamps at 15V (depending on how they're wired up), over the course of 10 years. Once we factor in the self-tests, operating capability, and necessary reserves (this is aviation, after all), I suspect that the standby/self-discharge current is likely to be way down in the single, or low double, digits in microamps.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 8
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14722 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 68):
surely you are aware (as it has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread itself) this model is used on 6,000 other aircraft, and has been in use since 2005?

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. Stich comment below may be on to something.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 72):
I'm kind of surprised a decision was made to swap the batteries on units even if they had literally sat on a shelf for years because that is what the battery is designed for.
Quoting tugger (Reply 73):
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).

In which case using them rather than having them sit on the shelf makes even less sense unless they were specifically designed for the 787, or in their terminology, a model which should only be deployed on 787's.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1846 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14739 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 76):
Clearly the standby power consumption and self-discharge rates on the ELT are non-trivial.

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 ELT alive, there are some that only draw a few microamps.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 72):
I'm kind of surprised a decision was made to swap the batteries on units even if they had literally sat on a shelf for years because that is what the battery is designed for.

Why would that be surprising? If an airline pays for a unit that lasts ten years, why would they accept one that had to be serviced in seven?

I've replaced many, many of this type of battery. It's not a matter of wiring design or procedure or training. It's a simple matter of people giving a crap about the job they do. Not pinching wires during re-assembly isn't rocket science. It's care and not being too lazy to do the job right or redo it if there's doubt. The reason manufacturers of ELTs and AEDs and such insist on doing battery replacement themselves is because they're suppose to insure it's done right.
Time for tired cliches about not assigning blame. Just another way of saying "Don't hold anyone accountable for their incompetence".



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 14689 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 79):
Why would that be surprising? If an airline pays for a unit that lasts ten years, why would they accept one that had to be serviced in seven?

And to think I suggested just that in the next paragraph of the same post.  


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2338 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 14353 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 79):
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 ELT alive, there are some that only draw a few microamps.

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 like 97% of what the batteries can nominally supply. To what extent that 97% is made up of functional power consumption (IOW, waiting for a triggering event), self discharge by the batteries, and margin to accommodate sub-optimal storage conditions for the batteries I don't know, but to meet it's operation requirements, the ELT needs a few 10s of kJ at most, while the batteries are (nominally) good for about 600kJ.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 weeks ago) and read 13906 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 78):
In which case using them rather than having them sit on the shelf makes even less sense unless they were specifically designed for the 787, or in their terminology, a model which should only be deployed on 787's.

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 Boeing (either on their shelf or installed aboard partially completed airframes) while EIS was delayed 3 years. And as others have confirmed, this particular model of ELT is not unique to the 787.

[Edited 2013-07-30 05:29:55]

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 13719 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 40):
3) Something special in the way the ELT is installed in 787 that makes it more prone to this issue

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 with respect to the pinched wire.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 48):
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 did them?



No clear answer but from a warranty stand point, most likely Honeywell personnel would have replaced the battery. In the field, it may be easier to just swap out the ELT and ship it back to Honeywell for battery swap than to swap the battery at the airline.

Quoting CM767 (Reply 51):
Sorry but is not clear for me; the problem cannot be traced to the extra cabin humidity now?

I think published reports have discounted the humidity issue.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 61):
The 787 EIS and issues have been hugely mishandled, and continues to be mishandled, by Boeing.

Yes but with the old Boeing it would have taken forever to get technology like fiber-placed fuselage into the design. Heck, with the old Boeing, Airbus might have been the first to have an all composite fuselage. You take the good with the bad from the McD merger. I've moved on . . .

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):
The conspiracy theorist in me says that Honeywell designed a new ELT just for the 787, and I am betting it cost a premium over those previously deployed on other a/c.

If the part number that Zeke gave us is correct, then the ELT was not designed new for the 787. (I've verified with the envelope drawing). However it does not mean that they did not tweak internal layouts prior to 787 incorporation (wire routing, battery model, etc)

Quoting sankaps (Reply 68):
this model is used on 6,000 other aircraft, and has been in use since 2005?

The drawings were released in the 1999-2000 time frame.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 70):

Given that these ELTs have only been in service since 2005, and that they have a 10 year battery life, I suspect that this particular issue hasn't shown up on the other 6000 aircraft with this ELT yet because very few, if any, ELTs on other aircraft will have needed to have had their batteries replaced yet.

   You read my mind even before I thought of it.

Or the issue have been discovered in only a few incidents and they brushed it off as happenstance because none of the incident had the profile of the 787. . . or resulted in a fire.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 82):
It is much more likely they were shipped to Boeing as per a specified timeline, and then sat there at Boeing (either on their shelf or installed aboard partially completed airframes) while EIS was delayed 3 years.

To this, I will also concur.

bt

[Edited 2013-07-30 06:51:34]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3472 posts, RR: 27
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13463 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 82):
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 Boeing (either on their shelf or installed aboard partially completed airframes) while EIS was delayed 3 years. And as others have confirmed, this particular model of ELT is not unique to the 787.

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 shipments to minimize shelf stock.. They would have geared down to support the slower production rate during those years. The prime reason would have been reducing inventory costs. I recall many supliers were complaining about the delay in ramp up and its impact on their bottom line.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13290 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 for an available 787 frame when they could have put them into new-build 737s, 747s, 767s and 777s. Same with Honeywell when they could have gone into new-build A320s, A330s, A340s and A380s.

ET-AOP appears to have been assembled in late 2011 and had completed her Change Incorporation in September 2012 per All Things 787, though she subsequently returned to the EMC that same month. So assuming they put the ELT in around September / October 2011, it would have been around a year old when the plane left the EMC and was prepared for first flight (which happened on 12 October 2012). So it is possible the ELT batteries were replaced while in the EMC.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3874 posts, RR: 1
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13258 times:

Norwegian has been notified by the aircraft manufacturer Boeing to immediately check beacon of ten of its Boeing 737 aircraft - nine older 737-300 models and one of the company's new Boeing 737-800.

Norwegian has also removed the ELT from it's Dreamliner Aircraft.


http://www.vg.no/reise/artikkel.php?artid=10105519


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13166 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 86):
Norwegian has been notified by the aircraft manufacturer Boeing to immediately check beacon of ten of its Boeing 737 aircraft - nine older 737-300 models and one of the company's new Boeing 737-800.

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 Honeywell ELTs, or is this a new notification specific to Norwegian?


User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13070 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 87):
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 Honeywell ELTs, or is this a new notification specific to Norwegian?

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. ("Boeing is asking specific operators of 717, Next-Generation 737, 747-400, 767 and 777 airplanes to also inspect aircraft with the Honeywell fixed ELT.")


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12958 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
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 for an available 787 frame when they could have put them into new-build 737s, 747s, 767s and 777s.

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 (787) procures an item like the ELT, it rarely gets moved to another program (737) unless there a real emergency. The paper work alone discourages such practice.

The well oiled production system (including all the supporting software) are great in keeping the production line going. It's not so great at transferring unique items (like the ELT or radios) from one program to another.

Planners hate it when parts ordered for their program is "confiscated" by another    .

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12894 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 89):
One reason is that even though the 737 and 787 are both Boeing products, once one organization (787) procures an item like the ELT, it rarely gets moved to another program (737) unless there a real emergency. The paper work alone discourages such practice.

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 perhaps a year before flight testing and delivery.

Does anyone know the line number of the UA 787 that had the pinched wires in it's ELT? ET-AOP was LN44 and UA's sixth 787 was LN45 (it was directly ahead of ET-AOP in the FAL) and delivered a month later.

[Edited 2013-07-30 12:01:53]

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1846 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12837 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 80):
And to think I suggested just that in the next paragraph of the same post.

True. Sorry about my post reading laziness.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1846 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12866 times:

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 install or replace one?


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineglbltrvlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 715 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12577 times:

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 88):
I have no idea how they selected the operators.

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 received ELTs with refreshed batteries.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12526 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 70):
Given that these ELTs have only been in service since 2005, and that they have a 10 year battery life, I suspect that this particular issue hasn't shown up on the other 6000 aircraft with this ELT yet because very few, if any, ELTs on other aircraft will have needed to have had their batteries replaced yet.

Excellent theory. Thanks.


User currently offlineairtechy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12444 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 92):
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 install or replace one?

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 prior to install as the aircraft has no provision for on board programming at least "as installed". I'm sure they also have a database or at least the airline maintains a list of installed serial numbers.

AT


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12416 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 92):
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 install or replace one?

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 the build (and I would assume when they are taken off). The recorded serial numbers along with all the other certification paperwork, follows the airplane.


bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1528 posts, RR: 8
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12317 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 87):
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 Honeywell ELTs, or is this a new notification specific to Norwegian?

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. They most likely sent out specific requests (as with Norwegian) to only look at specific airplanes for a reason they have yet to advise A.net of yet.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1846 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11669 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 97):
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. They most likely sent out specific requests (as with Norwegian) to only look at specific airplanes for a reason they have yet to advise A.net of yet.

If the problem arose from sloppy battery replacement, they might only need to check the ones that have had that done on other models.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineCO953 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 11606 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 79):
I've replaced many, many of this type of battery. It's not a matter of wiring design or procedure or training. It's a simple matter of people giving a crap about the job they do. Not pinching wires during re-assembly isn't rocket science. It's care and not being too lazy to do the job right or redo it if there's doubt. The reason manufacturers of ELTs and AEDs and such insist on doing battery replacement themselves is because they're suppose to insure it's done right.
Time for tired cliches about not assigning blame. Just another way of saying "Don't hold anyone accountable for their incompetence".

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 leads to more errors from inattention even in the best-intentioned individuals. We have so many electronic gadgets, social media, etc., competing for our attention, that the type of intense focus which leads to higher success rates in performing tasks is becoming rarer in all walks of life....

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 83):
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 with respect to the pinched wire.

Maybe I have missed it... was it definitely decided that the pinched wire was internal to the ELT? As the problems have been found so far on the 787 only, as far as I have heard, I would lean toward the wire's not becoming pinched during the actual battery change, but rather during the reinstallation process. Could be something about the aircraft architecture right around the ELT that forces the wires to go around a sharp bend, or forces them to be in an exact position while something else is tightened down to avoid pinching, etc.? Was it ever determined whether any wire leading to the ELT had the location/opportunity to get shorted outside the ELT, instead of internally?


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 11394 times:

Quoting CO953 (Reply 99):
Maybe I have missed it... was it definitely decided that the pinched wire was internal to the ELT?

I believe that it was.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 11392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CO953 (Reply 99):
As the problems have been found so far on the 787 only, as far as I have heard, I would lean toward the wire's not becoming pinched during the actual battery change, but rather during the reinstallation process.

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 issue is indeed a crimped wire shorting out the lithium batteries and causing them to initiate a thermal event, it seems that requires an internal wire (such as the ones that connect the battery to the ELT's systems).


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2979 posts, RR: 28
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11460 times:

Quoting CO953 (Reply 99):
Maybe I have missed it... was it definitely decided that the pinched wire was internal to the ELT?

Yes. See the FAA directive.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3393 posts, RR: 4
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10903 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):
If the issue is indeed a crimped wire shorting out the lithium batteries and causing them to initiate a thermal event, it seems that requires an internal wire (such as the ones that connect the battery to the ELT's systems).

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 is non-rechargable
ELT to aircraft wiring shouldn't be of a size sufficent to cause a fire (melts wire before insulation recieves enough energy to combust)

Yet I see endless posts "wondering" why the 787 sets its ELT on fire. Or other nonsense.


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10745 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 103):
Yah, not sure why many people can't wrap the basic facts of this case around their head.

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' of the case is that the AAIB has, so far, not announced definitively what the cause of this fire was. All that the AAIB has said is that the cause might have been a damaged wire in the ELT, but that more investigation is required. Many people are holding up the AAIB special bulletin and the FAA and EASA airworthiness directives as proof that the fire started in the ELT. At this stage, they are not proof, they are precautionary measures while further investigations are undertaken.

I agree that it's looking very likely that the culprit will be the ELT but, until I hear for sure from the AAIB, I for one am keeping an open mind. As are other people - for example, the quote from Stitch that you use to support your rather patronising bashing of the 'many people' begins with the words "If the issue is indeed...".

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 103):
ELT recieves no meaningful current from the 787.

Or for those people with more open minds: The ELT should not receive any meaningful current from the 787.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 103):
ELT to aircraft wiring shouldn't be of a size sufficent to cause a fire

Any size of cable is capable of starting a fire if the right voltage is applied across it. The lower the gauge of the cable, the lower the amount of energy required to get it glowing.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 103):
(melts wire before insulation recieves enough energy to combust)

Yes, sometimes but not necessarily every time.


User currently offlineCO953 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9887 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 103):
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 is non-rechargable
ELT to aircraft wiring shouldn't be of a size sufficent to cause a fire (melts wire before insulation recieves enough energy to combust)

Yet I see endless posts "wondering" why the 787 sets its ELT on fire. Or other nonsense.


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 under any operating or maintenance condition under which electrical current from the 787 itself could ever enter the ELT. I also thank you for the definitive information that the crimp occurred inside the ELT, and had no possibility of occurring outside the case, near any other crimping part on the 787. I have probably missed it, due to intervening life, but as I am interested in keeping up with the facts of the case, it would be great if someone would repost the link showing the diagram or a verbal statement showing the location of the crimping.

Has it been definitively determined that there was no wire of significant voltage near the ELT that could have been crimped in the install and shorted into the ELT? If so, I apologize that I missed it - and maybe I did miss it. If not, it's one thing to say that the ELT receives no meaningful current under model conditions, and quite another to unequivocably state that there is no way that abnormal current could not possibly have shorted into the ELT wiring during unplanned crimping.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21500 posts, RR: 60
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9853 times:

Quoting CO953 (Reply 105):

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 recieves no power from the aircraft. I really don't know of analog in a car or a home. Maybe an Ethernet cable attached to a laptop that is running off battery power?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1070 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9695 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 106):
I really don't know of analog in a car or a home. Maybe an Ethernet cable attached to a laptop that is running off battery power?

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 interesting to see if the AAIB finds anything weird.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CO953 (Reply 105):
I also thank you for the definitive information that the crimp occurred inside the ELT, and had no possibility of occurring outside the case, near any other crimping part on the 787.

There is this from a 23 July article in The Seattle Times:

Quote:
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.

In photos of what was left of the device, “You can clearly see the two wires crossed over each other. It’s quite evident the wires show evidence of being smashed,” one source said.

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.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8911 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 107):
And lightning strikes the house and fries the laptop.

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 to the aircraft either through a grounding strap or though the mounting feet. This grounding also would help divert stray charges from external crimp wiring from damaging the internal components of the ELT.

Now if you are saying the external charge some how is going to the ELT via the signal cable, I would imagine any current going in from that direction would fry the circuit card in the ELT long before the current hit the battery. Now the question would become "can excess current" fry a circuit card and cause a fire? Just hypothetical here as we have not heard anything from the investigator about melted circuit card.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1846 posts, RR: 2
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8798 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 103):
ELT battery is non-rechargable

So these are non-rechargeable lithium batteries similar to ones used in film SLR Cameras. Aren't these banned from passenger aircraft. It appears other Honeywell ELT Models just have Alkaline D size batteries with 10 year life.

On the other hand, even a hearing aid battery can go up in flames on board a 787.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1070 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8642 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 109):
Now if you are saying the external charge some how is going to the ELT via the signal cable, I would imagine any current going in from that direction would fry the circuit card in the ELT long before the current hit the battery.

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 started a fire and bad luck for the 787. But I I get on my soapbox when I hear some people start to say things are impossible.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8339 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 104):


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 large enough to start a fire from the 787. Basically, the only connections the ELT has with the 787 is a feed, (I'm guessing digital), for a manual arm switch and, I presume, an indicator light/signal.

It also has the physical mounting hardware attaching it to the plane.

It is not charged by the 787 and the signal wires don't carry enough voltage and/or current to start a fire in a cloud of ether, much less char CFRP.

The ELT is a self contained unit. Just because it happened in a 787, doesn't mean it was caused by the 787. It can be very well explained by poor service on the ELT and bad luck for the 787.

I have an open mind about aliens but I don't expect to see pods in every alley...(though it really would explain a lot in general).

I'm not a 787 apologist. There is a much too long list of bone headed decisions and mistakes involving that plane, and they deserve all the derision and mocking they've received...but it's really looking like the plane is innocent on this one.



What the...?
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8269 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 109):
Yes, except where as the laptop would not have been grounded (except through the Ethernet cable??).

Ethernet is not grounded. It is potential-free.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1846 posts, RR: 2
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8254 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 112):
There is a much too long list of bone headed decisions and mistakes involving that plane

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 most modern day cars are built like crap, you have literally floor the gas pedal for it to move. Same goes with automotive suppliers, whatever their efficiency target, they just relay to supplier, and suppliers do all kind of things to achieve that target. With this obsession quality goes out of the window.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21500 posts, RR: 60
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8056 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 107):

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 power supply? This isn't a modem with the data cable also connected to the outside world...

I speak from experience here. Florida sister has had multiple routers, battery backups and surge protectors destroyed by lightning but it never spread to computers through Ethernet nor through the surge protectors or battery backups.

How poorly would the ELT have to be designed if an external surge through a data cable did anything more than destroy the logic board?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinesphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7925 times:

Jon Ostrower is reporting (via Tweet) that the Canada ATSB is issuing an Airworthiness Directive for a large number of ELTs - branded Honeywell but manufactured by a Canadian instrument manufacturer - covering Boeing, Airbus, and Dassault aircraft. Including, but not limited to, the 787.

sPh


User currently offlinekd9gy From United States of America, joined May 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6862 times:

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 it being sold for scrap, transported somewhere? While there's been a whole lot of news on the ELT situation, nothing that I have seen regarding the future of the plane itself.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6859 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kd9gy (Reply 117):
Does anyone know the current status of the ET 787 parked at Heathrow?

The AAIB is still performing their investigation so the final disposition has yet to be determined.

One poster claimed the insurer has written the airframe off, but there has been no official confirmation of such.


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6590 times:

Quoting kd9gy (Reply 117):
Does anyone know the current status of the ET 787 parked at Heathrow?

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 was being done on it at the time - no vehicles parked near it and no stairs attached. So my guess is that the AAIB have still not yet released it for work to begin on whatever will be done with it.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19495 posts, RR: 58
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6551 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 36):
But this outcome should be inherently impossible in a well-designed device, even when somewhat manhandled! That is what a good design is all about, particularly when considering the kind of use an ELT is designed for.

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 battery so difficult to replace? If consumer products can have a "drop-in and clamp-shut" mechanism, why does the ELT have to involve screwdrivers and wires?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6535 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 120):
If consumer products can have a "drop-in and clamp-shut" mechanism, why does the ELT have to involve screwdrivers and wires?

I'd imagine it has something to do with the difference in design operating environments between such devices.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3472 posts, RR: 27
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6535 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 120):
why does the ELT have to involve screwdrivers and wires?

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 home devices.. I seem to recall 6-8 screws in the cover plate.

you sure don't want the batteries popping out taxiing down a rough runway..


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6547 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 122):
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 home devices.. I seem to recall 6-8 screws in the cover plate.

you sure don't want the batteries popping out taxiing down a rough runway..

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 a >$100M airplane.

It is possible that this mis-design was due to just plain negligence, but it might also be a result of ill-advised cost-cutting (development of inherent safety costs money, too, but so do the components required for it) or an insufficiently considered attempt at saving weight.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3393 posts, RR: 4
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6528 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 120):
why does the ELT have to involve screwdrivers and wires?

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 break, you are out $10 or something. If it happens to the wrong part on an aircraft it can be $100M or more. Oh and a plane load of passengers. Now the ELT isn't one of those "wrong parts" but you want EVERY part designed properly. The expense is trival, the extra safety from cutting no corners for mere convience is priceless.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6572 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 123):
It is possible that this mis-design was due to just plain negligence, but it might also be a result of ill-advised cost-cutting (development of inherent safety costs money, too, but so do the components required for it) or an insufficiently considered attempt at saving weight.

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 the design to something inherently worse. And as much as weight saving is important to an aircraft, I cannot see how a few tens of grams would make a measurable difference for a widebody commercial airliner.

As this model has apparently been in industry use since 2005 and this is the first possibility of this type of failure mode, I believe it much more likely to have been set in motion during the battery replacement than by a design issue. I expect the units installed on 787s are not the only ELTs of this model that have had their batteries replaced in the past 8-9 years and if indeed most 787s are flying with units with replaced batteries, that only one of them may have suffered this failure mode could be considered ancillary evidence supporting human error during battery replacement and not human error in design.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2979 posts, RR: 28
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6507 times:

Quoting sphealey (Reply 116):
Jon Ostrower is reporting (via Tweet) that the Canada ATSB is issuing an Airworthiness Directive for a large number of ELTs - branded Honeywell but manufactured by a Canadian instrument manufacturer - covering Boeing, Airbus, and Dassault aircraft. Including, but not limited to, the 787.

If Ostrower tweeted this, it shows remarkable lack of knowledge.

1) The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (like the NTSB, AAIB, BEA, etc) does not issue ADs. ADs are issued by the regulatory authority (in this case, Transport Canada).

2) Transport Canada has not issued an AD regarding ELTs.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6581 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 126):
If Ostrower tweeted this, it shows remarkable lack of knowledge.

Ostrower is completely misquoted here. The origal tweet is here and is correct:

BREAKING WSJ: Transport Canada plans ELT airworthiness directive. Units only sold under Honeywell name, manuf. by Instrumar Ltd. of Canada.

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/363420592420040704


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 128, posted (1 year 19 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

Any news on the ET bird? I assume it is still stuck at LHR? Have repairs commenced?

User currently offlinehotplane From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 1038 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (1 year 19 hours ago) and read 3515 times:

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