moderators
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:33 am

ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:33 am

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.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13807
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:22 am

@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 avatar
garpd
Posts: 2426
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:01 am

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
 
PHX787
Posts: 7881
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:07 am

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.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:34 am

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?
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:05 pm

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 avatar
garpd
Posts: 2426
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:19 pm

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
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3985
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:35 pm

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...?
 
flood
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:05 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:38 pm

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
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:41 pm

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 avatar
speedbored
Posts: 1743
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:54 pm

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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 10095
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:00 pm

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
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:17 pm

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 avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2211
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:27 pm

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 avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:28 pm

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.
 
servantleader
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:17 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:30 pm

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?
 
flyhigh@tom
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 7:58 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:50 pm

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.  
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:56 pm

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.
 
sphealey
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:39 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:59 pm

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 avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2211
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:10 pm

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.
 
servantleader
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:17 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:28 pm

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.
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:41 pm

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.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:51 pm

 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:58 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23455
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:09 pm

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.  
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:11 pm

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.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:16 pm

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.
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:17 pm

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
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:22 pm

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 avatar
speedbored
Posts: 1743
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:39 pm

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 avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1187
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:52 pm

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.
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:56 pm

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.  
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:57 pm

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 avatar
speedbored
Posts: 1743
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:14 pm

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.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 3086
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:56 pm

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

They just want to repeat verbatim what they told AAB.
 
trex8
Posts: 4657
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:39 pm

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
 
Klaus
Posts: 20648
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:56 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23455
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:28 am

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?
 
UALWN
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:32 am

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:40 pm

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 avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:00 pm

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...
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1567
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:35 pm

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.
 
hivue
Posts: 1637
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:27 pm

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.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10095
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:15 am

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
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:01 am

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 :)
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5717
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:32 am

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
-Dave
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3660
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:52 pm

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..
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3985
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:54 pm

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...?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5717
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Sun Jul 28, 2013 7:23 pm

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
-Dave
 
KC135R
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 6:38 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 7

Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:06 am

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

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos