cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:02 pm

So hmm... almost certainly not a battery issue, aircraft was most likely powered down, probably no equipment in the galley that can draw from the battery bus anyway. (Unless it was on ground power at the stand, but this appears to have not been the case.) No crew rest area so no flammable bedding or the sort. I'm starting to wonder if the fire, whatever it was, actually started when the aircraft was at the gate but wasn't noticed before it was towed to the stand. Oxygen generator?
 
shufflemoomin
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:04 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:04 pm

Boeing just don't have much luck, do they? I think the only luck involved is that all these issues have happened on the ground and not in the air. People are just trying to dismiss this, but if this is unrelated to the other issues, it's a remarkable coincidence. An aircraft that's been sitting on the ground for hours and apparently no one was interacting catching fire is never a good advertisement.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:06 pm

Quoting cornutt (Reply 200):
Oxygen generator?

Why are we still speculating? Over two hours ago ET said it was in the a/c system.

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 119):
Ethiopian Airlines said a problem had been identified in the Dreamliner’s air conditioning system, and that maintenance staff had seen sparks but no flames.
International Homo of Mystery
 
awthompson
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:59 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:06 pm

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 191):
I'm not a structures expert, and dont know what airliner-quality "plastic" should look like after it's been subjected to a fire. The photo of the Ethiopian 787 looks quite bad to me, but some posters seem to suggest it's just a problem of melting paint!

Whether the marks on the roof are melted paint, or charring, it makes little difference. Both could only have been caused by very high temperatures immediately inside this area, and this to me can only have been a fire.
 
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 11:09 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 145):

I thought it was a big overreaction too.

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 154):

Interesting insight. If the composite is delaminated by heat or otherwise compromised, to me that would be just as bad as being burned through from an airworthiness standard. Like you said, I am interested in how bad the interior damage is.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
User avatar
flybynight
Posts: 1511
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:09 pm

How come the 787 is starting to feel like our generations de Havilland DH 106 Comet.
Heia Norge!
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:13 pm

Quoting flybynight (Reply 205):
How come the 787 is starting to feel like our generations de Havilland DH 106 Comet.

Really, it's falling out of the sky, is it?

Or are you just trying to display your knowledge of aviation history by making that reference? This is nothing more than an effort at self-aggrandizing, and adds nothing to the discussion.
 
User avatar
Acey559
Posts: 1355
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:13 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 158):

Possibly the ground service bus. Not sure what exactly is powered off that on the 787, though.
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie.
 
max999
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:15 pm

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 194):
I'm starting to think this is some sort of Sabotage
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 198):
Note that police were present treating the issue as "suspicious". This could give us a clue.

During the grounding of the 787, several people on here kept re-insisting that the cause of the battery issues were sabotage. I think alluding to conspiracies greatly brings down the quality of conversation on here. The rumor mongering MUST stop unless someone can show hard evidence that this was a deliberate act of someone trying to cause harm.
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:16 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 202):
Why are we still speculating? Over two hours ago ET said it was in the a/c system.

The FT article is a little odd. It wasn't clear whether ET was saying that they had seen this problem earlier and dispatched it anyway, or if they are saying that upon arrival in London they saw this problem and parked the plane (so why weren't they working on it?) or if they are saying that their guys were in there and saw the sparks and while there someone called the fire department. We're going to need more color on that.

However, I agree that any more speculation about the battery is uncalled-for and just grandstanding by pathetic self-promoters like "Scary Mary" Schiavo.

[Edited 2013-07-12 16:17:04]
 
User avatar
flybynight
Posts: 1511
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:17 pm

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 206):

Or are you just trying to display your knowledge of aviation history by making that reference? This is nothing more than an effort at self-aggrandizing, and adds nothing to the discussion.

Don't like the comment don't read it. 787 is lucky it hasn't had a mid-air crisis. No one cheers more for Boeing since I live 20 minutes from Everett. But this is B A D news for Boeing.
It is a very valid comparsion at the moment - two advanced aircraft, but flawed. It is what is.
Heia Norge!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15004
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:17 pm

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 194):
I'm starting to think this is some sort of Sabotage

It is always one of the options with planes sitting for long periods of time that all of a sudden have an issue. Ethiopia is far from a stable country, and even in a stable country, people sabotage things.

I mentioned it right off the bat. Electrical arcing, sabotage, or related to something in the galley are pretty much ALL the possibilities.

ET is saying it's some kind of arcing in the AC system, but we shall see what CAUSED the arcing. Or if that is the correct diagnosis at all.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 196):
Oh yeah, I am sure it is by Airbus personnel  

Who said it was? Why would it be? It could be a disgruntled employee, someone who has a vendeta against ET or the nation, etc.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 198):
Note that police were present treating the issue as "suspicious". This could give us a clue.

They would always investigate such a thing, no?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 202):
Why are we still speculating? Over two hours ago ET said it was in the a/c system.

And yet there very obviously was a fire. Did they see sparks, no flames, and were working on it and then it caught fire? It's kind of a non-answer of an answer for them to claim there was no fire when there was one. I mean, if the ET staff were in the middle of a repair and the aircraft caught fire, it's hardly an issue of a plane just sitting around that catches fire.

If they were testing it and it caught fire, that's on the techs. It's no different than running up the "repaired" AA engine at LAX and having it explode. Sometimes while fixing things, things get worse...

Even the JL plane wasn't sitting around doing nothing. The JL staff (or contract staff) was doing something that lead to the battery loading up and running away. But what they were doing should not have lead to that.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9560
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:18 pm

Quoting awthompson (Reply 197):
Come on guys and gals, we were much further on than this with AAR214 at this stage!

Perhaps its on the other side of the pond where leaks are not as prevalent.....it's after midnight but still no new photos, hoping for a flood of info in the morning east coast time.
The Americans may have landed by then and they definitely do not have "stiff upper lips"  
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2215
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:20 pm

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 201):
An aircraft that's been sitting on the ground for hours and apparently no one was interacting catching fire is never a good advertisement.

Unless its due to a person negligently or intentionally lighting something flammable inside the airplane. Folks are assuming its a design/manufacturing fault. It could be something entirely different. This is especially true since it was sitting powered down at a remote stand. This incident is different than any of the other ones which makes this a bit of a mystery - at least to those of us not in on the investigation!
 
GDB
Posts: 13274
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:21 pm

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 194):
I'm starting to think this is some sort of Sabotage

Though you cannot rule anything out at this stage, worth remembering that when the police called the fire 'suspicious' that's what they do when they do not know the cause of it.

While there have been no crashes, no deaths caused by 787 problems, many people in the UK clung on to the sabotage idea with the Comet 1. Some even after the groundbreaking accident investigation found the true cause.
They just did not want to accept that this aircraft, a national icon, was flawed. Revolutionary but flawed.
 
awthompson
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:59 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:24 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 199):
As stated several times before, it's SOP if the LHR firefighters are committed to tackle an incident, since they'd not be available if something else happened. As also stated before, LHR being run near to capacity all the time, there is no slack in the system. It was not shut for anything like half a day. This is not done lightly either, SE England has the most crowded airspace anywhere.
But the safety record is second to none, there's a reason for that.

I personally still think that to close down a complete busy international airport for a few hours with all the inconvenience to thousands of passengers and knock on effects to airlines etc. etc. is ludricrous and displays safety going way overboard which is typical nowadays in many industries only in the UK.
This was an empty aircraft on a remote stand with a small fire. That should only need one tender and fire crew!!!
Nothing to stop other tenders and crews attending, but, if while attending this ETH incident, another more serious accident were to occur simultaneously (very remote probability), potentially involving loss of life, the fire crews would divert to the more serious accident, perhaps leaving one small tender to deal with the ETH fire.
There had to be something else at play here, someone has hinted that there may have been another incident that occurred during the ETH fire. Perhaps also a tender went tech, or some additional strain on the service culminated in the closure.
LHR has had too many closures during busy periods recently with resulting total costs much higher than that of adding another fire tender and set of crews to the rota!
Well guys, you know what I am trying to say!
 
ely747
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:28 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:27 pm

Just gone over the two threads but see not much discussion going about how is ET going to replace the grounded jet. It will take some time before the 787 in question starts flying again. Not a very pleasant thing to have your jet parked on the other side of the globe. Do we know who's flying stranded pax out of LHR? Any more details on airlines' contingency planing when you loose a plane?

Would this incident make BAA redesign the Heathrow business readiness policy? We saw dozen of fire trucks merely parking by the plane in addition to London Fire brigade making their way to the scene. I can't help it but to shut down the whole of ground operation was a bit of over reaction, causing more misery to the travelling public to say the least. Yes the fire crew were attending to the smoking plane but for one there was no visible fire. Secondly, it was not a real emergency scenario like seen at SFO or crash landed (BA38) 772. They should be able to handle a mid size emergency as well as keep one runway open for arrivals. Quite common with big airports so can't LHR cope?

Hope this incident will support the 3rd runway being pushed through.
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 2

Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:59 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 22):
I thought one of the ideas behind CFRP was the quicker repairs / lower maintenance?

Without seeing what an aluminum skinned aircraft subject to the same fire/heat you really cannot compare if this is better or worse.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 23):
This doesn't look like an easy repair either, there is fire damage under the tip of the vertical stabilizer.

I would agree.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 26):
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?

I doubt it - many better way test CF.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 32):
Boeing spokesman or White-House press secretary - YIKES!

Well - at least if you were a Boeing spokesman you would be talking about smoke and fire, not smoke and mirrors.

Quoting bcal dc10 (Reply 84):
So far all I have got out of him is that the fire was in the roof of the plane.
I just txt'd him for more details. Soon as I know I'll let you know.

Probably not going to talk about it. My fireman would not - much to high profile.

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 88):
If this is true, the 787 will be grounded again!

Why? We need to understand what caused the fire to discuss any need to ground it.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 149):
If you were ever to need 6 million lines of code to activate landing gear,

I think I'm on pretty safe ground saying it does not take 6 million lines of code to activate the landing gear.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 160):
Well, I admire your confidence!
But not me!
It's just melting paint - wait till tomorrow when it's all cooled down, slap on a coat of white, then off we go!

In his defense, he is not saying there was not a fire or heat. He is not saying "paint just melted" He is saying what you see in the picture appears - to him - to be discolored paint, not burned CF. That discoloration came from heat. Just that the extent of heat is different. The skin got hot enough to discolor the paint - and that looks like charred CF.

I'm not sure I agree that it is discolored paint - I simply cannot tell from the pictures. But the point is valid - it could be that the fire under it caused enough heat to discolor the paint without burning through.

That would likely require more repair that new paint in any case - but it does require less heat.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 191):
The photo of the Ethiopian 787 looks quite bad to me, but some posters seem to suggest it's just a problem of melting paint!

No - not true. He said that heat could cause discolored paint at a lower temperature than burn through. No "just" about it.

Quoting GDB (Reply 199):
Were they as flippant just after the two fires in January?

They are about as flippant as those who jump to conclusions that it is a major coverup by Boeing with the goal of killing people.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 197):
No poster as yet has provided any factual information about what components are found in that exact area which could possibly have caused a fire.

  

Quoting awthompson (Reply 197):
One useful point; we have I believe established that we are unlikely to be looking at a recurrence of the past battery fire scenario, mainly on grounds of this fire being in a completely different location and no evidence of a fire having burned between the battery location and the area indicated by the charred roof.

  

Data: Our data is very limited.
- Report of a fire and a couple of pictures
- It was a 787.
- The fire department responded.
- It was parked.
- Damage is visible on the outside.

That's about it

We can infer that
- Fire was in the crown area in the rear
- This is where the cabin crew rest area would be - if the aircraft had one.
- Reports (non authoritative) indicate it does not have a this rest module installed.
- Fire did not seem to extend to the cabin or baggage - based upon photos where you can clearly see no smoke or fire damage in the cabin. If the fire started below and extended, likely it would be visible.

We have no data about:
- Cause.
- Extent.
- Damage
- Cause

and I say again
- Cause.

It could be anything from a faulty wire to an electrical problem to sabotage to a somebody smoking.
rcair1

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