moderators
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:33 am

ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:13 pm

Hello All,

The previous thread has gotten quite large so Part 2 is being created in order to further the conversation.

Part 1 can be found here ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow (by hotplane Jul 12 2013 in Civil Aviation) .

Please remember the Airliners.net forum rules when posting. Posts found in violation of the rules will be removed.

Regards,

The Moderator Crew
Please use [email protected] to contact us.
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:16 pm

[(From previous thread) Quoting GDB (Reply 240):
I would question that there are a horde of 'airbus fans' gloating over this ]

I don't see any gloating. Taking a less than optimistic view of the situation, especially given the 787s history with battery meltdowns / fires and electrical issues / short circuits, does not equate to gloating.
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 23756
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:17 pm

Just a re post of the photo of the fire damage :

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae40/PhilipOA260/photo-16_zpsd89c8f2e.jpg
 
NYC777
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:18 pm

One possiblity is that the flight crew may not have completely powered down the aircraft before leaving the flight deck.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:20 pm

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 4):
One possiblity is that the flight crew may not have completely powered down the aircraft before leaving the flight deck.

Hmm, even then it should not catch fire.

Fire is never good.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:20 pm

Just a suggestion, but would it be possible to have bullet point summaries of the key bits and pieces at the top of these part 2 threads?
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2216
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:21 pm

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 4):
One possiblity is that the flight crew may not have completely powered down the aircraft before leaving the flight deck

That is certainly possible though there are checklists that should prevent such an occurrence. Also, with the apu shut down, whatever is left on would have to rely on batteries. I would think the batteries would discharge under a continuous heavy load after less time that we see here (when the a/c was supposedly powered down and parked at the remote stand).
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1287
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:21 pm

The last thread had a number of comments about the two problematic lithium-ion batteries. I'm sure everyone knows this, but just to reiterate, the main and APU batteries are now each contained in a stainless steel box with a vent pipe to the outside of the fuselage:



 



The batteries contain a finite amount of chemical potential energy that can be calculated with precision. The containment sustem was engineered to manage that energy in a worst-case scenario. For this fire to have been caused by another battery runaway:

- The increased quality control checks on individual cells must have failed, and
- The increased isolation between cells failed to prevent runaway of the whole battery, and
- The stainless steel box failed to contain the energy release, and
- The runaway was so explosive that it overwhelmed the vent pipe, and
- The fire propagated within the electronics bay, which it did not in the JAL and ANA incidents, and
- The fire then somehow traveled both laterally (aft) and upward into the crown, apparently without destroying the passenger cabin in between.

Is this sequence of events totally impossible? No, but any number of causes are vastly more likely given what little we know now. The proximity of the aft galley and crew rest are much more reasonable places to start.

As other posters said in the last thread, in a way it would be easier for investigators and Boeing if this were another battery incident, since that is a known issue. Now they face the prospect of a new problem and will probably have to start from scratch to identify what the cause of the fire was, the level of risk it poses, whether it warrants a grounding or other operating restrictions, come up with a fix, and so on.

-B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:22 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 6):
Just a suggestion, but would it be possible to have bullet point summaries of the key bits and pieces at the top of these part 2 threads?

Of course, JFDI!
 
sccutler
Posts: 5835
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:25 pm

So, good news is, it appears unlikely to be the same problem; bad news is - well, what, then?
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
slinky09
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:03 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:25 pm

I have a couple of questions for those who know better than I:

- When a plane is powered down are any systems left active, if so what?
- If a plane is not powered down, what are the consequences if say it sits on the Tarmac for 12 hrs as this one was to?
- If a plane is properly powered down, what energy sources remain, other than the batteries?
- If an oven or a kettle was left on and the plane was powered down, would it stay on?

Thanks
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:25 pm

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 8):
As other posters said in the last thread, in a way it would be easier for investigators and Boeing if this were another battery incident, since that is a known issue. Now they face the prospect of a new problem and will probably have to start from scratch to identify what the cause of the fire was, the level of risk it poses, whether it warrants a grounding or other operating restrictions, come up with a fix, and so on.

To be honest, it doesn't look like a battery related problem. If the APU battery in the aft section had caught fire, we should have seen smoke rising from the belly or from the cargo door, like the JAL incident in Boston. But the fire however could be related to an electrical issue, which would make the story not better IMO.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:28 pm

Well, on a positive note, I guess this will be a good test of the carbon fiber patching process for aircraft damage.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:29 pm

It's just not plausible that it was a fire from these batteries which led to the damage to the frame/roof. As we can't possibly infer what happened above the last few rows of seats whilst sitting @ the terminal empty for 6 hours, my guess is that someone had a servicing appliance which had an electrical short, and the end result was a fire that spread to the upholstery/interior components.

Subsequent Polyester/neoprene/poly-ethylene fires (feeding eventually onto electrical circuits/components, and unattended for probably 5-10 minutes I would guess) can be quite hot.
 
DUSdude
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 4:20 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:30 pm

And not to forget: it's not like maintenance and cleaning crews have not in the past set fire to pefectly safe and functional aircraft before.

E.g.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19910628-4
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2216
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:31 pm

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 8):

Thanks for reminding everyone about the enhanced containment features! To be honest, I simply discounted the battery issue given the location of the scorch marks and the apparent lack of smoke or fire damage from the rear av bay.

The issue could be design related, maintenance related or some one-off bizarre event. We can bet Boeing is pulling their hair out right now.
 
CO953
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:31 pm

Maybe the elusive problem which they couldn't find, that was causing the battery fires, has finally revealed itself.

Wouldn't be the worst outcome for Boeing.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:32 pm

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 13):
good test of the carbon fiber patching process for aircraft damage.

   Yes, I'm curious about repairs to CFRP fuselages.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:32 pm

Quoting DUSdude (Reply 15):
And not to forget: it's not like maintenance and cleaning crews have not in the past set fire to pefectly safe and functional aircraft before.

If that's what happened here, the 787 must really consider itself one of the most unlucky aircraft in the world!  
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:33 pm

Is it possible to patch such a large area of a carbon fibre barrel? The damage apears to get quite close to a seam. Has the fire effected the structural integrety of the vertical stab fastenings?

Could well be a write off.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 4):
One possiblity is that the flight crew may not have completely powered down the aircraft before leaving the flight deck.

I thought one of the problems with the 787 was that a whole cabinet had to be active if any systems wer left powered and that this quickly drained the batteries.
BV
 
nutsaboutplanes
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:37 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:33 pm

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 11):
I have a couple of questions for those who know better than I:

- When a plane is powered down are any systems left active, if so what?
- If a plane is not powered down, what are the consequences if say it sits on the Tarmac for 12 hrs as this one was to?
- If a plane is properly powered down, what energy sources remain, other than the batteries?
- If an oven or a kettle was left on and the plane was powered down, would it stay on?

Thanks

This all depends. You can still have power available to an aircraft (hooked up) but not being utilized. Even if a plane is not powered down, nothing should happen. In fact, many air carriers and the military prefer to leave power applied to electronically sophisticated aircraft to prevent issues that may arise during constant power off/ on cycles. If the plane was powered down, the coffee pots and ovens would not work......but again, power can be applied and available to an aircraft but mot in use.
American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:35 pm

We all have PCs, laptops, cameras,cell phones and so on, each has battery power, and can be switched off. When they are switched on after a period, normally they show the right date/time, because inside is a dedicated battery to keep the device's clock running, quite independent of the state of the system's main battery

A modern aircraft must be brimming with applications that require the date/time to be accurate whenever the application is started. How sophisticated is the automated interface between aircraft systems and the ground-based service applications, would a date/time sync be necessary?

Even when switched off, there is a lot of stuff still powered on!
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:35 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 20):
Is it possible to patch such a large area of a carbon fibre barrel?

I thought one of the ideas behind CFRP was the quicker repairs / lower maintenance?
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2314
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:36 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 18):

This doesn't look like an easy repair either, there is fire damage under the tip of the vertical stabilizer.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
goosebayguy
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:36 pm

If you can see the stringers then I can only guess that the fire went through the frame and repair will be almost impossible if not prohibitively expensive.
 
rj777
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:38 pm

The NTSB isn't going to be getting much of a break are they?
 
CO953
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:40 pm

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 25):
Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 25):
If you can see the stringers then I can only guess that the fire went through the frame and repair will be almost impossible if not prohibitively expensive.

Seems that if the cause if not readily apparent, Boeing may want to buy back this plane just to completely disassemble it down the the last bolt to examine the performance of the carbon-fiber?
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:40 pm

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 13):
good test of the carbon fiber patching process for aircraft damage.

Given the extent of the damage this would have to be a bolted patch rather than a bonded patch. Certainly going to be a case study in CFRP fuselage repair.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1046
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:40 pm

There are a couple of spare tails in the USA (LN 1 and LN2).
 
NYC777
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:40 pm

Quoting rj777 (Reply 26):
The NTSB isn't going to be getting much of a break are they?

The British AAIB will be the lead on this as it's under British jurisdiction. The NTSB and FAA will assist as needed. It has been a busy one week for the NTSB nonetheless.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1287
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:41 pm

One more image, showing the lateral distance between the aft electrical equipment bay and the fire location just forward of the vertical tail:

http://787updates.newairplane.com/Boeing787Updates/media/Boeing787Updates/787%20Electrical%20Systems/787-infographic-large.jpg?width=940&height=555&ext=.jpg

This would appear to rule out a ZA002-type fire in the power distribution panels (P100/P200) as a direct cause along with the batteries.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 16):
The issue could be design related, maintenance related or some one-off bizarre event. We can bet Boeing is pulling their hair out right now.

No kidding. More sleepless nights for the beleaguered folks up in Everett, and just when it seemed like this program was finally settling down...

-B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:41 pm

Quoting rj777 (Reply 26):
The NTSB isn't going to be getting much of a break are they?

Deborah already responded:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BO_oPTkCIAAsacA.jpg:large

  
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
CO953
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:42 pm

I don't know which job I would want less lately - Boeing spokesman or White-House press secretary - YIKES!
 
User avatar
Btblue
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:57 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:42 pm

Are all the aircraft that have had problems powered by GE engines or RR? GE apparently have issued a statement about the engines not being linked... just flashed up on Sky News.
 
NYC777
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:43 pm

Quoting btblue (Reply 34):
Are all the aircraft that have had problems powered by GE engines or RR? GE apparently have issued a statement about the engines not being linked... just flashed up on Sky News.

Def. not an engine issue. ANA- RR, JAL/Ethiopian - GE.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7530
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:43 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
I thought one of the ideas behind CFRP was the quicker repairs / lower maintenance?

That is just sales talk.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 24):
This doesn't look like an easy repair either, there is fire damage under the tip of the vertical stabilizer.

Being in UK, they can take help from Edd China (Wheeler Dealers) or Boeing built Aft Fuselage at South Carolina plant. May be they have a spare one.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:44 pm

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 31):
One more image, showing the lateral distance between the aft electrical equipment bay and the fire location just forward of the vertical tail:

Also, a battery fire in the aft section should have looked like this:

http://oi42.tinypic.com/jjmexf.jpg
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3044
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:45 pm

Came in late so miss a lot but here is my two cents.

1) The damage shown from the photo is really the paint peeling off from excessive heat.

2) Don't know what's in that area that could generate that much heat other than a fire.

3) Note the two antenna's near by. There could be some power amplifier or transmitter near by that might have burned. But if the electrical power is off those system shouldn't be on.

Now for the heat damage:

Heat high enough to peel paint may or may not damage the composite structure depending if there is insulation in the area to keep the skin and stringer from reaching 250F or so. The frames are more readily replaceable.

If the area exceed 250F, concervatively you'll want to cut and plug the damaged section. I'm sure Boeing already have a plan on how to do that. Most unlikely that they will scrap the plane or the whole aft section.

And by the way, the dark area shown are not burn mark. Most likely it's just the natural color of the CFRP. Note the grid pattern of the stringer and shear ties. So those area didn't seem to get hot enough to peel the paint.

Now we will see how well the Boeing repair process of a barrel goes and see if the panel process of the A350 make sense.

bt

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:48 pm

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 30):
The British AAIB will be the lead on this as it's under British jurisdiction. The NTSB and FAA will assist as needed. It has been a busy one week for the NTSB nonetheless.

Well, the NTSB is at least sending a representative to LHR:

"NTSB sending accredited representative to London-Heathrow to assist in investigation of fire aboard Ethiopian Airlines B-787"

http://twitter.com/NTSB/status/355741387473420288
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
tonystan
Posts: 1685
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:39 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:51 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 38):
1) The damage shown from the photo is really the paint peeling off from excessive heat.

Looks more like several holes have burnt through the skin!!!! That's not mere paint peeling back!
My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:58 pm

I am reposting since the last thread was locked.... ( quotes form the part 1 thread)

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 18):
Looks like it is parked right next to the fire station, handy!
Quoting hotplane (Reply 30):
One good thing was it was parked just yards from the western fire station.
Quoting tugmaster (Reply 77):

Aircraft is on stand 592.....
Directly next door to the Fire Station

It seems 787 designated area will be the fire station ...

Quoting bendewire (Reply 42):
The 787 is at the forefront of aircraft design and like most new technology it will experience problems Apollo 13, the Titanic the A380 all had there issues

Your argument doesnt fly.. there is no comparison between a spaceship that exploded, a oceanliner that sank and the A380, and even the 787 for that matter...apples to oranges here.

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 121):
Maybe a crew member left his ipad in the crew rest area plugged in....

Maybe it was the cheap Ipad charger..LOL

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 156):
There is NO WAY the battery could cause charring in the top of the fuse. So lets not go there.

I am not saying its the batteries but this is clearly an electrical originated fire, because the plane was empty, and not near flying, most electrical equipment on airplanes is designed to avoid short circuits all all costs, and you acn be sure of that because its quite uncommon for a galley fire, or crew rest fire etc.. Boeing has a handful now...

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 165):
Question - who did the AD work for Ethiopian ??

Good question!

Quoting jlarsson (Reply 170):
My suggestion is Boeing 787 Nightmareliner.

Some A neters here have coined that nickname since the first delay over 4 years ago!...

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 188):
That is not too likely. An aircraft coffee maker costs around $3,000 each because of circuitry to prevent fires, among other things. Ovens too are built to prevent fires. When was the last airliner with a coffee maker or oven fire?

Considering the location, could it be an electrical fire behind the panels, like the one that downed Swissair Flight 111?

My bet is some wiring had a short and the circuitry did not work as designed.....let it marinate for a few hours and this is the result..

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 210):
I know everyone is saying it could just be coincidental that this involved a 787, but how often to aircraft catch fire, especially when shut down and unattended..?



Off the top of my memory.... seldom of not almost never...

Holy guacamole!!!, will this plane ever catch a break? When is Aeromexico Due to recieve their 787´s???

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:00 pm

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 41):
When is Aeromexico Due to recieve their 787´s???

August and September.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2314
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:00 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 38):

Paint burning indicates temperatures in excess of 250*F, no?
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3044
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:01 pm

Quoting tonystan (Reply 40):
Looks more like several holes have burnt through the skin!!!! That's not mere paint peeling back!

The reason why I discounted burn through is that if any fire coming out of the galley or below the crown would have to go though the insulation blanket that covers the skin and stringer. To go through the insulation blanket would require much more heat, something like a fuel or oil fire.

The other reason is CFRP don't really burn. It chars, and when the plastic gives way, the fiber weave would still have some integrity. The CFRP was compromised you would see the roof sag. As shown by the white stripes between the black sections, the structure still retained it's shape.

We definitely need a more close up photo to refine our guesses.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
GDB
Posts: 13274
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:01 pm

Quoting CO953 (Reply 17):
Maybe the elusive problem which they couldn't find, that was causing the battery fires, has finally revealed itself.

Wouldn't be the worst outcome for Boeing.

Quite. While Boeing's fix for the two fires was robust, not being able to really get to the root cause has to be worrisome.

While I get why garpd is annoyed by some of the speculation around this fire today, I cannot agree that the battery fires earlier this year were not somehow to do with the aircraft, try telling that to the NTSB and FAA.
Though it's also true that, unlike the DC-10 problems, the 1974 cargo door related crash and 1979 engine detachment, no one has (thankfully) died in any 787 incident, both did result in groundings.
The airworthiness authorities do not order those lightly.

As I said before, let's hope that today was a freakish event of some kind, that the full cause of it can be determined and that the 787 can go on and be the plane that Boeing and the airlines want and need it to be.

Aside from the engineering perspective, whatever the cause of the LHR fire, who'd want to be working in Boeing's PR right now?
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:02 pm

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 30):

The British AAIB will be the lead on this as it's under British jurisdiction. The NTSB and FAA will assist as needed. It has been a busy one week for the NTSB nonetheless.

The NTSB should have its best brains assist with this. After all is said and done, the 777 is a proven aircraft and I don't think anyone seriously thinks it is the aircraft itself that caused Asiana 214 to hit the seawall. The 787 on the other hand really needs to be better studied and understood, the risks are much higher.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3044
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:03 pm

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 43):

Paint burning indicates temperatures in excess of 250*F, no?

Don't know. I know a little about CFRP. I know nothing about paint.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
asetiadi
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 5:05 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:07 pm

I don't understand something... why these battery / electrical wire issue things never appear during their flight test?

This month is a bad month for transportation business... Asiana, ET, Thompson, Train Crash, Train Explode... all withing few days apart...
 
boeingorbust
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:44 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:07 pm

Boeing stock down over 4% today. Not as bad as I would have expected. All anyone can really do is wait for a cause before jumping to conclusions.
 
CO953
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:07 pm

That's a pretty lengthy area of heat, longitudinally speaking, isn't it? Being just an interested layman/experienced auto mechanic who has had to trace wiring harness melts before but has no idea of the inner structure of the 787: Since heat rises, it makes me immediately wonder how few or many structures (or any?) would have to be breached to allow the square footage of charring to creep that far fore and aft - i.e. - whether any type of "stovepipe" effect or odd venting route took a concentrated heat source and spread it out, or whether the heat source actually was that long, such as a burning wiring harness? I know I'm not asking the question well, but does anyone see what I'm getting at?

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