Heathrow shut after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire

reply to post by cody599


Crap, I did actually go through the routine here, but I'm not always friend with the search function.

However I posted this to alternative because I just can't believe that with all the problems and new untested stuff it still has got a permission to fly.

Boeing isn't exactly unfriendly to the US government so I would at least raise the question if they have now approved an unsafe plane.

OTH, as mr Zaphod58 sais I might be a victim of the over-sensationalism of the media of today. It's not often new planes are put in production.


I'm not boarding one of these though until this plane has been in the air for a while

reply to post by tyfon


It all depends on what it is. It could be a one off deal, where one of the FAs left the galley on, and it overheated and caught fire, and it spread. Or it could be an APU fire, where something happened to the APU, not related to the overheating they have seen. It's too soon to be calling for another grounding without knowing WHY it happened.

Time we went back to Flying the old Lancasters and the like...i'll take my chances in the old Bone shakers any day of the week..

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by tyfon

 

It all depends on what it is. It could be a one off deal, where one of the FAs left the galley on, and it overheated and caught fire, and it spread. Or it could be an APU fire, where something happened to the APU, not related to the overheating they have seen. It's too soon to be calling for another grounding without knowing WHY it happened.

But that's just it really. To be cautious is surely the better way, and not to forget either that the battery events are still unsolved. Unless then this incident is as straightforward as can be, and not safety related, the aircraft should be grounded right away, no ifs or buts.

reply to post by smurfy


The only two things under where the fire broke out are the APU fuel line, and the aft crew rest area. So it appears that it's going to be pretty straightforward.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

The only two things under where the fire broke out are the APU fuel line, and the aft crew rest area. So it appears that it's going to be pretty straightforward.

It does appear like that as far as we can see, however the secondary APU is not much further forward, and that is where the Boston incident took place, in the aft APU. The Boston APU shut down automatically after a short time overheating, this by the way ended the chance of venting the smoke. It's all very dodgy. APU overheats, noxious smoke, APU resposibility is to vent such smoke, but APU shuts down automatically in overheat, smoke is not vented, that is a serious problem in a confined space.




Above is the Boston plane. You can see where the aft battery is located and the smoke that should not be there, pouring out

reply to post by smurfy


The Boston incident was the APU battery, which is in the aft electronics bay, under the floor near the aft cargo hold.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

The Boston incident was the APU battery, which is in the aft electronics bay, under the floor near the aft cargo hold.

I know, see picture above. Like I said it's not that far away.

reply to post by smurfy


The battery itself is. The battery is under the floor, in the lower electronics bay. This fire was in the upper fuselage ahead of the tail. They're actually pretty far apart. The APU itself is in the upper fuselage, but the battery for it is in the lower fuselage, under the cargo hold.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

The battery itself is. The battery is under the floor, in the lower electronics bay. This fire was in the upper fuselage ahead of the tail. They're actually pretty far apart. The APU itself is in the upper fuselage, but the battery for it is in the lower fuselage, under the cargo hold.

I know that, like I said, you can see the smoke pouring out. In the Boston incident, the fire was confined to a mere 50cm of heat and smoke damage, there was no structural damage or spread, but there was plenty of smoke that's not so good.
As for Heathrow, we don't know what happened as yet.

reply to post by smurfy


No, we don't, but with the fire in the upper fuselage, we can almost certainly rule out battery. If it was battery it would have been in the lower fuselage, not the upper. It would have had to burn through the floor, and up to the upper fuselage to burn where it did, and I would think someone would have noticed it long before it got to that point.

It may be the APU fuel line, or it could be something left in the crew bunk or something in the wiring for either of those, but it's almost certainly not battery related.

With Boston, the APU didn't play a direct role in the fire. The overheating was all in the battery for the APU.

Second 787 incident today, a Thomson 787 from Manchester to Florida turned back due to technical issues.

I'm an airport fire fighter and we were talking the other night as to how long it would be before we saw a 787 fire. 3 days it seems!!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

No, we don't, but with the fire in the upper fuselage, we can almost certainly rule out battery. If it was battery it would have been in the lower fuselage, not the upper. It would have had to burn through the floor, and up to the upper fuselage to burn where it did, and I would think someone would have noticed it long before it got to that point.

It may be the APU fuel line, or it could be something left in the crew bunk or something in the wiring for either of those, but it's almost certainly not battery related.

With Boston, the APU didn't play a direct role in the fire. The overheating was all in the battery for the APU.

edit on 7/12/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Yes its' the battery I was talking about previously. Put it another way, it was a system failure, the battery overheats and the APU shuts down automatically, that's not good. I have also seen somewhere that it is difficult to put out this type of battery fire, as was the case in Boston.
This is some text from the FAA report,

" It is noted that the 787 aft electrical equipment bay contains two smoke detectors which trigger the dispersal of smoke overboard using fans in the cooling ducts and a change in the position of the electrically-driven air supply valves, as well as taking advantage of differential pressure if the aeroplane is in flight. However, since there was no electrical power once the battery had failed and the APU had shut down, this process did not work, thus allowing a build up of smoke in the affected bay and in the cabin area above."
It's worth remembering that it was cleaners who discovered the Boston fire, "electrical burning smell and smoke" probably all the same thing.

That system is not unlike my cars' ventilation, heating and AC. A mass of electric fans opening and closing this and that and blending, and it is complex computer controlled, even the dealer mechanics mistakenly rerouted air through the wrong ways when doing a routine maintenance, it took twice to get it right.

reply to post by smurfy


Exactly. But this fire is in the upper fuselage. There is nothing battery related there. Therefore, logically, it's not battery related. It could be APU related, as there is a fuel line in the area. But there is no reason to ground them, until we know more. It is more than likely a one off condition, such as a fuel leak, and not a design related issue.

Originally posted by yeebsy
Second 787 incident today, a Thomson 787 from Manchester to Florida turned back due to technical issues.

I'm an airport fire fighter and we were talking the other night as to how long it would be before we saw a 787 fire. 3 days it seems!!

Just posted a couple of links to this event in the other post.

www.pprune.org... (The Professional Pilots Rumour Network).

www.bbc.co.uk...

The woes, although not connected, continue for this new aircraft.

reply to post by dowot


A lot of these are teething problems, that are being blown out of proportion due to the bigger problems. The 787, if you remove the grounding, had (the last time I heard anything about it) the same dispatch rate as the 777 did when it entered service. The 777 is now one of the best designed aircraft ever, with only three aircraft lost in over 18 years, and only two fatalities in those losses.

I just thought I'd bring this as an update I caught across the AP wires a few minutes ago...

UK AGENCY: 787 FIRE NOT CAUSED BY BATTERY FAULT

LONDON (AP) — A fire onboard an empty Boeing 787 aircraft at London's Heathrow Airport didn't appear to be caused by faulty batteries on the plane, a British investigative agency said Saturday.

Investors in Boeing, which calls its newest plane a Dreamliner, had feared that Friday's blaze meant that the battery problem that had grounded the whole fleet of such planes in January had not been fixed. News of the fire sent Boeing shares down 4.7 percent on Friday.

Britain's Air Accidents Investigation Branch said Saturday there was "no evidence of a direct causal relationship" between the Dreamliner's batteries and the fire.

Source

They sound pretty sure on that point anyway. Whatever did the dirty deed, it wasn't a battery this time. Hmm...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It couldn't be the batteries this time. One battery is in the electronics bay under the cockpit, and the other is just behind the wing in the lower fuselage. There's a galley, and APU fuel line, and a power junction box in the area where the fire occurred. I'm betting either something was left on in the galley, or the power junction box caused it based on the timing.

The Financial Times quoted an Ethiopian manager in Britain as saying that maintenance workers had discovered a problem with the plane’s air-conditioning system during a routine inspection and had seen sparks but no flames. The report did not say when the inspection occurred, and aviation-safety officials in the United States were not sure what to make of it.

www.nytimes.com...

Looks like it could be air conditioning or wiring related.

It appears to be caused by a short in the Honeywell Emergency Locator Transmitter, which if it happened in flight could lead to big problems.

The AAIB statement said: "Detailed examination of the ELT has show some indications of disruption to the battery cells. It is not clear however whether the combustion in the area of the ELT was initiated by a release of energy within the batteries or by an external mechanism such as an electrical short."

As the ceiling space where the ELT is located "do not typically carry the means of fire detection... had this event occurred in flight it could pose a significant safety concern and raise challenges for the cabin crew in tackling the resulting fire."

www.bbc.co.uk...