• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:27 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 195):
In the crown area?

Well, it's in the United Kingdom, remember? The cleaners were probably from the Royal Aircraft Cleaning Department, very well versed in the art of cleaning the crown!
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:55 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 190):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 168):Sad our standards have fallen so low that no fatalities in one year of operations for a fleet of 50 in this day and age is taken somehow to be a resounding mark of safety and success.
So would the A320, which had a hull loss with fatalities in it's first year of service with a fleet of less than 16 be considered a resounding mark of danger and failure at the time? Or perhaps that it had two fatal hull losses in it's first two years with around 80 frames in service made people decide they didn't want to fly aboard one in 1990?

Stitch -- you prove my point completely: One year of ops and small installed based does not provide sufficient data points to come to a conclusion on safety one way or the other. Only time will tell. However in the meantime having aircraft spontaneously start smoking and smouldering does not inspire much confidence either.

Quoting garpd (Reply 191):

Don't be so naive Stitch. Sweeping generalisations and speculations are reserved only for the 787!

Nope, see above.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 198):
Not at all. Back then the public reaction was indeed worried and concerned as you would expect – the A320 just didn't have the millstone of a thoroughly botched development campaign around its neck, so the investigation results and the subsequent changes to training and operations and tweaks to the systems generally took care of it.

Well put. As well the early A320 incidents were not attributed to failures in the aircraft design or systems itself (none of them spontaneously caught fire, IIRC), it was attributed to the lack of familiarity with the new way of flying. Just like the early 727 crashes were not the result of the aircraft failing, but of early jet pilots not knowing how to handle a t-tail jet aircraft to prevent stalls.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:55 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 193):
Sorry for going off topic, but where do you get that?

Many different sources but well summarized by wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Statistics

So using deaths per hour you get that there are about 4.2 times more deaths per hour by car than air and from that it is just math for the numbers I published. That said per hour is a poor indication of the risks when going by air since about 85% of deaths happen during takeoff or landing and thus the number of hours in between don't matter much. Per km is an even worse method as the airplanes much higher speed compared to other methods skews it even more. Aviation risk is best measured by trip while car is better measured by time or distance. Don't know which is best for car.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3991
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:58 pm

I recall seeing photos of the 787 barrels before join and there was insulation in the crown.. granted CFRP doesn't transfer temperature like aluminum, however without insulation it would be hard to keep the plane warm.

as far as insulation blankets go there are several types depending on conditions, those in wet areas are more water resilient, those in dry areas more porous, and all have fire dampening qualities to some degree that have been tested.

side note, years ago a US airline specified a new carpet .. we tested it for self extinguishing capability.. the fire was still going 12 feet down the sample and only died when it ran out of material.. the airline went back to wool which self extinguished within 1 inch of the ignition point. The point is all potentially flammable materials are tested and their flammability/self extinguishing specs are known before they enter production. Somehow I doubt that CFRP will easily sag and burn like toy soldiers thrown on a barbecue.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26589
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:04 pm

Quoting sankaps (Reply 201):
Stitch -- you prove my point completely: One year of ops and small installed based does not provide sufficient data points to come to a conclusion on safety one way or the other.

Which is why all the claims of the 787 being "unsafe" and "rushed to market" and "inherently flawed" annoy the heck out of me.

Then again, all the claims of the A380 being "built only for pride", "having no viable business case for Airbus or the operators" and "soon to be doomed by the A350/787/777X/PlaneoftheWeek" annoy the heck out of me, as well.

[Edited 2013-07-15 09:28:21]
 
shufflemoomin
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:04 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:35 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 179):
Well, the fire retardant materials seems to have worked as the a/c survived the blaze which seems to have been limited to the rear of the a/c

The aircraft took damage in a fire that happened on the ground NEXT DOOR to the fire station. This could have been much worse if it had happened in the air.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:52 pm

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 205):
This could have been much worse if it had happened in the air.

Who is to say that's true, though? The source of the fire could have been spotted immediately and extinguished in flight.
International Homo of Mystery
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3991
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:56 pm

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 205):
The aircraft took damage in a fire that happened on the ground NEXT DOOR to the fire station. This could have been much worse if it had happened in the air.

read of more than a few fire stations that burned down with the equipment inside.. thank goodness fire engines can't fly.
 
hivue
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:01 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 194):
Let's hope that amicus's post is pure fabrication, and that the real truth behind the ET 787 fire was that the last cleaner to leave the airplane left his smoking cigarette on board.

In the crown area?

What leads you to conclude that the source was in the crown area?
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
marinbb
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:56 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:05 pm

WSJ reports that investigators are focusing on the ELT as the possible cause of the fire.

Does anyone know who makes the ELTs on the 787 and whether they are easy to replace? For example, how difficult would it be to swap and ELT designed for an used on a 777 to a 787?

[Edited 2013-07-15 10:14:27]
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:15 pm

It would be pretty ironic if the beacon that they use to find an aircraft in distress is actually what caused the underlying distress.

Shouldn't this be a vendor provided component? Its probably better news than it being a complex system.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:19 pm

A (probably) standard component like an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) being the fire source would be the best possible news that Boeing could hope for under the current circumstances.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2275
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:31 pm

Quoting marinbb (Reply 209):
Does anyone know who makes the ELTs on the 787

I could find some references to Honeywell, and - possibly incorrect - reference to another company, Techtest in U.K.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 211):
A (probably) standard component like an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) being the fire source would be the best possible news that Boeing could hope for under the current circumstances.

If ELT operates on built-in battery only, then yes.
If there is a connection to on-board power, it may be just a beginning of the problem.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:32 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 212):
My post, saying that it is not fair to jump to conclusions and how sad A.net had become when such sweeping assumptions are taken for fact, was the only one deleted.

I read that post. Under the rules, it was far too personal towards other members and deserved to be deleted. It could have been less harsh towards individuals, and just generic towards the topic of jumping to conclusions.
International Homo of Mystery
 
astuteman
Posts: 7012
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:34 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 190):
Sweeping generalisations and speculations are reserved only for the 787!

You know better than this. Or should

Quoting cornutt (Reply 196):
the 787 program (and the Sonic Cruiser before it) has been a focus of intense, hysterical hatred since the day the program was announced, before anyone actually knew anything about it

The 787 isn't getting anything the A380 wasn't getting 5 years earlier (and which the 787 arguably deserves more, given the issues that have dogged it from the outset) - and that's without going anywhere near the socio-political "hysterical hatred" which the 787 thankfully avoids.
And the QF "RR Trent" issue was discussed ad-nauseam, along with all the other issues.

The large majority of A-net posters love it and respect it, both for what it is, and for what it will be, me included.
All the melodrama will do is draw more "fire".

Don't worry though. there will be plenty lined up for "payback" on the A350   


Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 198):
You hit the nail on the head squarely

Sorry. But he missed it by a country mile.   

Rgds
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:41 pm

Quoting marinbb (Reply 209):
WSJ reports that investigators are focusing on the ELT as the possible cause of the fire.

How "standard" is this part on the 787? I know that in GA planes, there are multiple ELT vendors...I also know that over the years, the FAR requirements for ELT's have become more strict, which means that the 787 might have a fairly aircraft specific unit in it  
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9535
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:43 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 184):
What blaze was this?

Flight international states that:

"AAIB has yet to determine the source of the damage, and has not used the term "fire" "

Ok, I'll play, two items we know from the report, one is that no one was in the a/c so the EMT's at the Fire Station were not needed, so why exactly did they call the fire department, are we really getting into tomato tomato in our speculation??
But hey, you are quoting the official report so I apologize and move one, there was no blaze on the a/c.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 194):
From the looks of it, the fire already started up top – and the lack of fireproofing might have led to it causing major structural damage.

Your point below.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 194):
I'm not just worried about heat being transferred throught he composite structure itself, but about the heat carried and distributed even wider by hot air which may have been the primary transport medium in the first place. If that was the case, interior damage may be much more extensive, but may just not have reached the outer skin everywhere.

So did fire retardant material prevent the "fire" from advancing horizontally thru the cabin, that was my point, not focusing on the simple issue of the burn in the crown. Fire usually travels along the path of least resistance.

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 205):
The aircraft took damage in a fire that happened on the ground NEXT DOOR to the fire station.

If I follow your logic, obviously a poor job of the fire department, after all, once a fire starts something has to be burning which equates to damage, being next door to a fire station should mean that they out the fire before it starts?
It's an a/c, if a fire starts in a closed a/c damage will be done before the smoke is emitted to even kick off monitors, fire however small equals damage, now one can also debate whether the fire fighters in the course of fighting the fire created additional damage, but to me that is simply nit picking, unless we are talking about battery fires.

This is why we need leaks and the Brits secrecy needs to go, we are getting cranky with no new information  
 
747megatop
Posts: 1749
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:49 pm

Quoting cornutt (Reply 196):
the 787 program (and the Sonic Cruiser before it) has been a focus of intense, hysterical hatred since the day the program was announced, before anyone actually knew anything about it. Thirty years from now, whenever a lav stops up on a 787, there are going to be screaming news headlines, and concern trolls on a.net posting "It would be such a shame if this led to the 787 being grounded, wouldn't it now?"

What's your point? No other aircraft type has had these many fire related issues in recent memory in so short a period. So far we have been lucky that a 787 hasn't gone down with fatalities. In my opinion FIRELiner has been rushed into revenue service and is not ready for commercial service yet. We are not talking about minor issues like toillet not flushing or something like that. The last thing we want is a fire on a transpacific flight with the nearest airport being 2 or 3 hours away; so the 787 grounding was for good reason and looks like the authorities considered it so critical and life threatening so as to ground the entire type.

[Edited 2013-07-15 10:54:13]
 
CO953
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:50 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 211):
A (probably) standard component like an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) being the fire source would be the best possible news that Boeing could hope for under the current circumstances.

All this talk of various components catching fire like coffeemakers, ELTs, A/C packs, etc., has me wondering something:

I have noticed that in the last 10 years - but especially the last five, quality control has really just fallen apart when it comes to items I buy in my daily life. I buy a lot of parts, tools and specialty equipment for use in restoring classic cars, and nowadays it has become a constant frustration how often I have to restore/repair/alter the brand new part/tool before it's usable. I have had so many tools and devices fail on first use lately, or be missing parts, or have sloppy machining, or just be so underbuilt and rickety that you can injure yourself. The vast majority of these items are made in China, but I have noticed QA problems pretty much everywhere. Even the single-edge razor blades I use to scrape gaskets - which say "Made in USA" - shatter on me constantly these days and I have to be extremely careful with my fingers and eyes. During a recent timing-chain/cam upgrade on a Ford 400 engine I shattered four blades while simply scraping timing-cover gasket surfaces, whereas 10 years ago I could bear down hard and scrape ALL gasket surfaces of a 390 engine without breaking one blade. I had purposely switched this year to the American-made blade after Chinese blades were shattering, and the American blades are no better.

All you aviation industry folks - are you encountering the same frustrations? Are more ELTs and coffeemakers failing right out of the box? Has the input or output quality of QA declined since the introduction of say, the 767? Is the QA department being overwhelmed by a flood of bad parts, thereby letting more slip through, or is QA able to keep up?

In an airliner as electronics-heavy as the 787, especially with the outsourcing, it seems to me that each bad part that slips through QA just tars the reputation of the whole design. The public, reading about another 787 fire, never reads far enough to know - or care - whether it was the battery or the ELT.

[Edited 2013-07-15 10:55:13]
 
NYC777
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:53 pm

The 787 ELT is manufactured by Honeywell. WSJ is reporting that they are now participating in the investigation.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21343
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:59 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 217):
So did fire retardant material prevent the "fire" from advancing horizontally thru the cabin, that was my point, not focusing on the simple issue of the burn in the crown. Fire usually travels along the path of least resistance.

I don't see what you're getting at.

The crown area where the heated air may have spread is above the cabin ceiling.

Cabin furnishings would have had no impact on that at all.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21343
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:03 pm

Quoting CO953 (Reply 219):
I have noticed that in the last 10 years - but especially the last five, quality control has really just fallen apart when it comes to items I buy in my daily life. I buy a lot of parts, tools and specialty equipment for use in restoring classic cars, and nowadays it has become a constant frustration how often I have to restore/repair/alter the brand new part/tool before it's usable.

My impression is that there is not (much) less quality around than it was – there is just more cheap crap easy to get.

If you still want quality, you can generally still get it, but it won't be much cheaper than it had been (if at all).

The main problem is the belief that things are supposed to get ever cheaper, but most things just don't – you may just now be able to get cheap crap as well which was not available in previous times, creating that false impression.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9535
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:06 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 221):
I don't see what you're getting at.

The crown area where the heated air may have spread is above the cabin ceiling.

Cabin furnishings would have had no impact on that at all.

Ok, so I'll take it that this fire incident was contained to the crown of the a/c only.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:13 pm

Quoting sankaps (Reply 201):
As well the early A320 incidents were not attributed to failures in the aircraft design or systems itself (none of them spontaneously caught fire, IIRC), it was attributed to the lack of familiarity with the new way of flying.

If it was all pilot error then why did Airbus modify the A320's alpha-protection control laws, with the stated intent "to increase the flight crew's authority" after the second accident in three years? Every aircraft has its ups and downs and they get identified and improved and thankfully flying is 20% safer this year than last year and shockingly 5X safter then flying in the 1980s.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 220):
The 787 ELT is manufactured by Honeywell. WSJ is reporting that they are now participating in the investigation.

Ok, good to know. Another Fortune 100 company's resources to figuring it out has to be a good thing. Can we get Deb from the NTSB out there, I miss her daily briefings.

tortugamon
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:18 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 202):
Quoting D L X (Reply 193):Sorry for going off topic, but where do you get that?Many different sources but well summarized by wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Statistics So using deaths per hour you get that there are about 4.2 times more deaths per hour by car than air and from that it is just math for the numbers I published. That said per hour is a poor indication of the risks when going by air since about 85% of deaths happen during takeoff or landing and thus the number of hours in between don't matter much. Per km is an even worse method as the airplanes much higher speed compared to other methods skews it even more. Aviation risk is best measured by trip while car is better measured by time or distance. Don't know which is best for car.

It makes no sense not to consider the distance travelled. If you're saying that you are at greater risk flying from JFK to LAX than driving, I disagree. I can't rationalize your earlier statements when there hasn't been a single fatality on major U.S. airlines in over 10 years, compared to I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of driving fatalities.
 
Unflug
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:21 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 211):
A (probably) standard component like an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) being the fire source would be the best possible news that Boeing could hope for under the current circumstances.

I'm not so sure about that, because it means that the same thing could have happened in flight.
 
by738
Posts: 3036
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 7:59 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:25 pm

Quoting Unflug (Reply 226):
I'm not so sure about that

....but potentially relatively easy to replace or isolate ?
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:29 pm

Quoting Unflug (Reply 226):

Yes, it could have happened during the flight and there even might be a Li-Ion battery in the ELT. But considering the circumstances. No grounding ahead as far as I can see.
 
Unflug
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:29 pm

Quoting by738 (Reply 227):
....but potentially relatively easy to replace or isolate ?

To be honest I have a hard time to believe that a defective ELT can produce that much heat, assuming that everything else is OK.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21343
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:33 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 223):
Ok, so I'll take it that this fire incident was contained to the crown of the a/c only.

We don't know for sure yet, but right now there seems to be more evidence for that than against it (the apparently undamaged interior visible from the outside being one argument).

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 224):
If it was all pilot error then why did Airbus modify the A320's alpha-protection control laws, with the stated intent "to increase the flight crew's authority" after the second accident in three years?

Because even in case of pilot error this would make a last-ditch correction easier, as far as I can tell. Many incidents / accidents have to do with systems usability on some level even without it being the main cause (this may even apply to the recent Asiana crash), and many systems tweaks have to do with making human mistakes less severe or easier to detect and correct.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 224):
Every aircraft has its ups and downs and they get identified and improved and thankfully flying is 20% safer this year than last year and shockingly 5X safter then flying in the 1980s.

Very few have multiple fires and a global grounding on their resumé, however, especially this close to their EIS and especially purpose-built long-range models with particularly high ETOPS aspirations.
 
CO953
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:36 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 222):
My impression is that there is not (much) less quality around than it was – there is just more cheap crap easy to get.

If you still want quality, you can generally still get it, but it won't be much cheaper than it had been (if at all).

The main problem is the belief that things are supposed to get ever cheaper, but most things just don't – you may just now be able to get cheap crap as well which was not available in previous times, creating that false impression.

Yes, your point is correct about the availbility of low-price/low-quality things.
The problem I am more concerned about is the cheapening of known brands, and also the cheapening (meaning more-flimsy) of what is considered "industry-standard."

The razor blades I referred to are "Great Neck" brand - a time-honored American brand, and should maintain a certain strength and ductility - but now they don't - but are being sold as industry-standard. Gates rubber company - a time-honored brand in automotive belts and hoses and many other things - is starting to do massive outsourcing and reboxing as well. So the problem is that where we once could rely on a widely respected brand name to deliver a reliable product, nowadays two or three respected brand names within the same product field may be outsourcing the part to the same offshore company so that you are getting the exact same part in a different box.

I know of an auto-shop owner who started to put a non-BMW, Japanese-made part on a customer's car, only to have the customer throw a fit and insist on the correct BMW part. The shop owner ordered it from BMW - only to find the exact same Japanese part inside a German-made BMW box, for thrice the price.

I am not as good at making sharp points as many here, and so I apologize that I'm not sharply on topic. What I am trying to get at is whether, due to globalization, the outsource companies Boeing is hiring to make the parts are themselves outsourcing more than they used to... so that when you get a couple layers deep into the outsourcing, maybe quality can suffer? Weren't the 787 batteries sold by Yuasa but made by someone else, or vice versa? And so say you have an aircraft component that goes three or four layers deep into outsourcing, and each successive company is relying on the QA guarantee of the company below it. Is each company in the product stream that hands the part off to the next thoroughly checking for quality, enough so that by having multiple checks, Boeing receives a stream of highly reliable parts? Or are some companies just waving the parts through, forcing Boeing into being the backstop and finding a significant number of flaws?

I guess those are pretty broad questions, with lots of different answers.

[Edited 2013-07-15 11:38:41]
 
747megatop
Posts: 1749
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:36 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 225):
It makes no sense not to consider the distance travelled. If you're saying that you are at greater risk flying from JFK to LAX than driving, I disagree. I can't rationalize your earlier statements when there hasn't been a single fatality on major U.S. airlines in over 10 years, compared to I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of driving fatalities.

Agreed 100%. Bottom line is flying is far more safer than driving. Best example is for an any individual to pick a list of deceased people in his or her lifetime whom he/she knew. I can bet that the chance of finding a road accident or cardio vascular or cancer related death are 99% compared to finding an air crash related victim on that list.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3036
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:38 pm

Quoting Unflug (Reply 226):

I'm not so sure about that, because it means that the same thing could have happened in flight.

In flight, any issue with the ELT would have showed up in a warning in the cockpit and the pilot would be able to shut that system off prior to the fire getting out of control.


Is the ELT antenna one of the antenna visible in the photos? If so, then the power amp for the antenna may be near by. A malfunctioning power amp can produce great amount of heat if power is not shut off.

And if the fire is in the crown area, then the ceiling panels and stow bins should keep the fire from spreading to the cabin area.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
hivue
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:38 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 210):
It would be pretty ironic if the beacon that they use to find an aircraft in distress is actually what caused the underlying distress.

Even more ironic if the ELT battery is the culprit and that battery is Li-Ion.  
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
D L X
Posts: 12607
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:38 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 202):
Many different sources but well summarized by wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Statistics

So using deaths per hour you get that there are about 4.2 times more deaths per hour by car than air and from that it is just math for the numbers I published. That said per hour is a poor indication of the risks when going by air since about 85% of deaths happen during takeoff or landing and thus the number of hours in between don't matter much.

The number of hours between matters the most! Sure, if you take out the safest part of flying (the part that is the reason WHY people fly), you can certainly skew the statistics in a way that suggests it is not safe. That is the natural result of shrinking a denominator.

But it is not proper statistics. I'm honestly at a loss for why the measure "by journey" is even included on the wikipedia page considering that journeys, especially across modes, are not comparable to each other. (One journey in a car, from the house in the city to the local grocery store for instance, is not suitably compared to a journey from remote Canada to remote Alaska.)

Flying from LA to Chicago is and will always be safer than the drive to LAX or the drive from ORD.
 
NYC777
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:41 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 228):
Yes, it could have happened during the flight and there even might be a Li-Ion battery in the ELT. But considering the circumstances. No grounding ahead as far as I can see.

This ELT is Lithium-Manganese.

[Edited 2013-07-15 12:12:31]
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
starrion
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:46 pm

Quoting CO953 (Reply 219):
In an airliner as electronics-heavy as the 787, especially with the outsourcing, it seems to me that each bad part that slips through QA just tars the reputation of the whole design. The public, reading about another 787 fire, never reads far enough to know - or care - whether it was the battery or the ELT.

That is absolutely going on. My director stood in front of the company last week and said that cost containment is a critical focus in maintaining competitiveness. Quality costs money, and people have become so price focused that it drives management into a race to the bottom. Look at the airlines themselves. What is the difference in the quality of a flight in the 1980's versus today? People don't joke about airline food anymore, because for the majority of the flights there isn't any! I am waiting for the credit card readers to appear on the Lav doors any day now.
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
NYC777
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:49 pm

If the Honeywell ELT is the culprit then the risk may extend beyond the 787. The WSJ is saying that the battery that powers the ELT is Lithium-manganese. The ELT design, I would think, is a common design among different commercial aircraft thus regulators will need to re-look at the design of the ELT and see what the risk(s) are.

[Edited 2013-07-15 12:13:05]
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7012
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:56 pm

Quoting starrion (Reply 237):
That is absolutely going on. My director stood in front of the company last week and said that cost containment is a critical focus in maintaining competitiveness. Quality costs money, and people have become so price focused that it drives management into a race to the bottom.

I have to agree that this is absolutely what has been happening in all walks of engineering.
And guess what - we're getting what we pay for - it's the customer that's demanding price.
For what its worth, thoguh, I'm going to predict that the tide is about to turn back again towards quality in many kinds of engineering.

It's a sad world when my 1998 TDI estate car was more durable, more economical, and far more tolerant of abuse than my 2008 diesel estate car is (both cars same size, power and performance).
Helped by the fact that back then the fuel was better and so was the oil.
It's a trend that's not sustainable IMO

Rgds
 
Unflug
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:57 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 233):
Is the ELT antenna one of the antenna visible in the photos? If so, then the power amp for the antenna may be near by. A malfunctioning power amp can produce great amount of heat if power is not shut off.

An ELT transmits at around 5 Watts and won't consume more than 10 Watts. 10 Watts is not enough to produce the damage we see, and any power consumption significantly above 10 Watts should blow a fuse...

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 233):
In flight, any issue with the ELT would have showed up in a warning in the cockpit and the pilot would be able to shut that system off prior to the fire getting out of control.

Would or should? If this incident originated in a defective ELT, is the outcome we see really the outcome like it should be? I don't think so. And to assume that in flight everything would be like it should be seems a bit far fetched to me, if it's not even the case on the ground.

[Edited 2013-07-15 12:00:09]
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3036
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:05 pm

Quoting Unflug (Reply 240):
Would or should?

Would? Should? Not sure. But the ELT should be one of those items that must be operational if you are to dispatched. I am not in the know, so I can't give a definitive answer. Such item usually have checks to make sure they are operational.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 240):
If this incident originated in a defective ELT, is the outcome we see really the outcome like it should be?

Zeke can probably answer this question.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:06 pm

Quoting Unflug (Reply 240):

If it is a battery thermal overrun inside the ELT, a fuse does not stop it.
 
RubberJungle
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:16 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:08 pm

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 236):
This ELT is Lithium-Magnesium

Or perhaps lithium manganese.
 
Unflug
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:13 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 242):
If it is a battery thermal overrun inside the ELT, a fuse does not stop it.

Exactly. I was responding to:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 233):
In flight, any issue with the ELT would have showed up in a warning in the cockpit and the pilot would be able to shut that system off prior to the fire getting out of control.
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:18 pm

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 236):
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 228):
Yes, it could have happened during the flight and there even might be a Li-Ion battery in the ELT. But considering the circumstances. No grounding ahead as far as I can see.

This ELT is Lithium-Manganese.

[Edited 2013-07-15 12:12:31]

For years, NiCAD was the battery of choice in ELT's...and there was a regular test/replacement schedule to compensate for the known defeceincies is the battery life of that particular technology.
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
mcdu
Posts: 1563
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 233):
In flight, any issue with the ELT would have showed up in a warning in the cockpit and the pilot would be able to shut that system off prior to the fire getting out of control.

The 787 has a 3 position cockpit ELT switch. The selections are ARMED, ON and RESET. There is no OFF selection. RESET is a momentary position switch that stops transmissions if transmitting (doesn't remove power) and starts self test if not transmitting.

There is one EICAS message associated with the ELT. That is ELT ON: emergency locator transmitter is on. There is not ELT fire, overheat etc messages and no way to control the power to the ELT.

So where would the crew find the switch you are referring to that would depower the ELT.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:33 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 230):
Because even in case of pilot error this would make a last-ditch correction easier, as far as I can tell. Many incidents / accidents have to do with systems usability on some level even without it being the main cause (this may even apply to the recent Asiana crash), and many systems tweaks have to do with making human mistakes less severe or easier to detect and correct.

The change to the system was not to make human mistakes less severe but to get more of the control back into the pilots hands. The point is that every aircraft is complicated and OEMs are going to uncover problems and fix them. The problem is that engineers learn more from failures than successes.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 230):
Very few have multiple fires and a global grounding on their resumé, however, especially this close to their EIS and especially purpose-built long-range models with particularly high ETOPS aspirations.

No doubt there have been issues and no doubt they will solve them. There will probably be more problems and they will solve them too. I also have zero doubt that it will be yet another extremely safe aircraft when we look back on it.

tortugamon
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3625
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:34 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 233):
In flight, any issue with the ELT would have showed up in a warning in the cockpit and the pilot would be able to shut that system off prior to the fire getting out of control.


Is the ELT antenna one of the antenna visible in the photos? If so, then the power amp for the antenna may be near by. A malfunctioning power amp can produce great amount of heat if power is not shut off.

The fixed ELT antenna is just in front of the discoloured area in the photo. The ELT is attached to the fuselage crown just below it. Access is through an access panel in the Overhead Crew rest roof. (If you have one) The battery is not charged by the aircraft. It has a long life, as it is never used!
The only flight deck message I can see is ELT ON when it is transmitting.

On our aircraft there are also two portable ELT, one fwd and one aft.

The ELT antenna is the rearmost one on the crown before the fin. It is just behind the much larger Centre VHF antenna.

[Edited 2013-07-15 12:36:36]
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:43 pm

There has to be some reason why this particular ELT got hot if it is the culprit. Maybe the warm weather and no A/C for 8 hours contributed to the event. In that case the emergency AD would be do not leave your 787 on sunshine for extended periods without A/C  
 
Klaus
Posts: 21343
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: ET 787 On Fire At Heathrow Part 4

Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:44 pm

Quoting CO953 (Reply 231):
Yes, your point is correct about the availbility of low-price/low-quality things.
The problem I am more concerned about is the cheapening of known brands, and also the cheapening (meaning more-flimsy) of what is considered "industry-standard."

With some brands, that certainly happens over time. Others get better.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 231):
What I am trying to get at is whether, due to globalization, the outsource companies Boeing is hiring to make the parts are themselves outsourcing more than they used to... so that when you get a couple layers deep into the outsourcing, maybe quality can suffer?

The thing is that Boeing is the system manufacturer and the entity with the ultimate responsibility, which also means they need to exercise the ultimate supervision based on their ultimate competence.

The problem appears to be that Boeing management actuall believed that they could cut down on their own expensive staff simply by outsourcing everything – including their competence and responsibility.

Turns out they couldn't. The 787 is a Boeing plane. And that's where the responsibility ultimately lies. And that means they absolutely need the competent staff to maintain and justify that responsibility.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 231):
Weren't the 787 batteries sold by Yuasa but made by someone else, or vice versa?

The batteries were a design error – Boeing apparently wanted to shave every little bit of weight from the plane after failing to make their initial weight targets and apparently they accepted the substantial risk of using the riskiest battery configuration available (Li-Ion with Cobalt electrodes) instead of slightly bigger and heavier, but safer ones.

The whole thing is a prime illustration of what it really means to save weight at any cost – as in massive reputation damage and substantial compensation payments due to the fires and the grounding.

Such demands sound great in a movie, unless it proceeds to show the actual consequences, which is often not the case.

Quoting starrion (Reply 237):
That is absolutely going on. My director stood in front of the company last week and said that cost containment is a critical focus in maintaining competitiveness. Quality costs money, and people have become so price focused that it drives management into a race to the bottom. Look at the airlines themselves. What is the difference in the quality of a flight in the 1980's versus today? People don't joke about airline food anymore, because for the majority of the flights there isn't any! I am waiting for the credit card readers to appear on the Lav doors any day now.

At the same time quality can still achieve good prices – a race to the bottom is not always the best path, it's just the most obvious one.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 248):
The change to the system was not to make human mistakes less severe but to get more of the control back into the pilots hands.

Just for fun or with actual reasoning behind it?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 248):
No doubt there have been issues and no doubt they will solve them. There will probably be more problems and they will solve them too. I also have zero doubt that it will be yet another extremely safe aircraft when we look back on it.

There is almost nothing I have actually "zero" doubt about – but we all know Boeing needs to be on this to make that happen. Let's hope it will indeed turn out to be safe and reliable over the long term.

[Edited 2013-07-15 12:50:57]
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

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