Ethopian B787 fire incident at Heathrow

[Airbus Commander 563]

7 Beta 7 strikes again.

 

Screamliner? Beats Scarebus anyways...   ^_^

[oskiatl 27]

Ole Sparky 7 Beta 7 strikes again.

LOL!!!!

[Gavin 99]

Screamliner? Beats Scarebus anyways...   ^_^

 

Maybe Flameliner?

[Andrew Hansen 37]

I never thought it was a good idea for Boeing to hire unemployed Microsoft Flight! programmers in the first place.....

[bukeyolacan 24]

I never thought it was a good idea for Boeing to hire unemployed Microsoft Flight! programmers in the first place.....

[guy 24]

The APU battery is located in the electronic bay on the lower fuselage at the intersection with the wings (FAR AWAY  from the fire) . Look at this picture:

http://787updates.newairplane.com/Boeing787Updates/media/Boeing787Updates/Batteries%20and%20Advanced%20Aircraft/787_battery_info_graphics_master-large.jpg?width=900&height=675&ext=.jpg

 

The overhead cabin crew rest area is EXACTLY where the burnt part is. Look here:

http://yunoinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/b787_schem_021.gif

 

Guy

[James Bennett 52]

guy, on 12 Jul 2013 - 7:31 PM, said:

 

The APU battery is located in the electronic bay on the lower fuselage at the intersection with the wings (far from the fire) . Look at this picture:

http://787updates.newairplane.com/Boeing787Updates/media/Boeing787Updates/Batteries%20and%20Advanced%20Aircraft/787_battery_info_graphics_master-large.jpg?width=900&height=675&ext=.jpg

 

The overhead cabin crew rest area is exactly where the burnt part is. Look here:

http://yunoinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/b787_schem_021.gif

 

Guy

Interesting to note that the crew rest is there though, i would not sleep easily in there!

[Q_flyer 766]

This problem has crossed the line now - I don't mean to be the profit of doom but I honestly think this could ruin Boeing now.

 

I am an extremely confident, time-served flyer (I flew Manchester to London twice per week for 11 years on A320s and 734s), but I can honestly say, I would not set foot on a 787 at the moment.

[Airbus Commander 563]

Quite the drastic share price drop for Boeing! 

 

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:BA&sa=X&ei=6kngUZeGGumL7Aag_4DACw&ved=0CC0Q2AE

 

Regards,
Ró.

[ESzczesniak 128]

To be fair, my understanding is that this was an unmanned, unserviced aircraft on a remote parking site.  While batteries could be at fault again, it could have just as easily been an old crew members still lit cigarette...ok, maybe that's a stretch, but you get the idea).

[Q_flyer 766]

To be fair, my understanding is that this was an unmanned, unserviced aircraft on a remote parking site.  While batteries could be at fault again, it could have just as easily been an old crew members still lit cigarette...ok, maybe that's a stretch, but you get the idea).

 

As a one off incident, that may have been a credible set of alternative explanations.....  :wink:

 

But considering the history, and considering Shamrock 727s post further up, indicating that there were potentially 2 incidents concerning the 787 in one day, in one (small) country;  I don't think many people would take a slant white as positive as yours!

[Airbus Commander 563]

To be fair, my understanding is that this was an unmanned, unserviced aircraft on a remote parking site.  While batteries could be at fault again, it could have just as easily been an old crew members still lit cigarette...ok, maybe that's a stretch, but you get the idea).

 

Yeh, but the aircraft had been on the ground for 9-10 hours at the time with no-one on board, I'm pretty sure that makes a left over cigarette butt pretty unlikely, or a galley fire as the aircraft would likely have been de-energised for such a long stay on the ground.

 

In one (small) country.

The UK isn't exactly a small country, yeer pretty decent sized population wise.

 

Regards,

Ró.

[IAF747 8]

To be fair, my understanding is that this was an unmanned, unserviced aircraft on a remote parking site. While batteries could be at fault again, it could have just as easily been an old crew members still lit cigarette...ok, maybe that's a stretch, but you get the idea).

 

Yeah right. I suppose you believe in birds giving you the correct lottery numbers too? How come you haven't won the lotto then?

Anyone know how to repair and replace burnt composites? Back in my day we'd just remove the unit, but I don't think you can do that with an entire tail section. It couldn't be a write off could it? :mellow: :huh:

 

Wonder how this is effecting the 787s ambitions for ETOPS. I'd feel very uncomfortable at the minute taking on of them more than 60 mins from an airport... :(

 

Regards,

Ró.

I think Boeing is going to be in bigger problems than just trying to repair one fuselage. Thank God this wasn't in the air. They need to change the lithium-ion batteries. They need to go back to something less dangerous. Do you know how easy it is for lithium-ion to catch fire? Cathay Pacific doesn't allow any lithium-ion battery to be carried on board non checked luggage over 5g I think the weight is......

 

Daniel

[ESzczesniak 128]

 

 

Yeah right. I suppose you believe in birds giving you the correct lottery numbers too? How come you haven't won the lotto then?

 

Look, I'm not saying it wasn't the batteries either.  The 787 certainly has a history with battery problems.  My point is there is very little information and it's possible the same thing could have happened on a 777, Scarebus or anything else.  I'll wait myself until there's some more information to pass judgment.

 

I'm no expert on how the 787 electrical systems run, but if this was truly an parked, unmanned, unpowered aircraft, then there may have been zero load through the batteries.  Batteries with zero load are effectively thermodynamically inert until someone completes the circuit again.  Although, as I said, perhaps they have some low level of power supplying computers or such even when unpowered...I don't know.

[Airbus Commander 563]

I think Boeing is going to be in bigger problems than just trying to repair one fuselage. Thank God this wasn't in the air. They need to change the lithium-ion batteries. They need to go back to something less dangerous. Do you know how easy it is for lithium-ion to catch fire? Cathay Pacific doesn't allow any lithium-ion battery to be carried on board non checked luggage over 5g I think the weight is......

 

Daniel

 

I think at this point based on what we've heard we can rule out the batteries as the most likely cause, if even a cause. I do believe it's systems related as no one had touched the aircraft for a number of hours so not likely to be a handbag left in the galley or a cigarette in the crew rest bunk. 

 

I've heard that BA are going to ground their 787s for the moment until this blows over, of course that's much easier for them to do seeing as they're not in passenger service, but we'll see if others follow suit. They've only been in the air two months at this stage and already they could be getting grounded again...  :rolleyes:

 

Regards,

Ró.