The Irish blessing! Can you call yourself Irish if your family resides in the North? ;-)

That depends, half refer to themselves as Irish, the other half refer to themselves as British, but you're allowed hold a passport from either country or play for either countries national sports teams, so it's a bit of a limbo state up there... 

 

Regards,

Ró.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-AOP.pdf

 

I think this is the final report. Not sure.

 

 

Nope, last sentence of the report reads: ``further updates on progress will be published as appropriate''

The Irish blessing! Can you call yourself Irish if your family resides in the North? ;-)

 

 

That depends, half refer to themselves as Irish, the other half refer to themselves as British, but you're allowed hold a passport from either country or play for either countries national sports teams, so it's a bit of a limbo state up there... 

 

I hold an Irish Passport, yet I was born in Manchester UK. Its because my dad is originally from Limerick, so I am eligible to have an Irish passport. I find when I go away to different countries, the immigration officers tend to treat you nicer than if you were to hold a British Passport. Thats just what I've noticed from my travels across the globe. 

That depends, half refer to themselves as Irish, the other half refer to themselves as British, but you're allowed hold a passport from either country or play for either countries national sports teams, so it's a bit of a limbo state up there...

 

Regards,

Ró.

Yes. Some Irishmen from there get right offended calling their accents Irish.....

 

I like to say I'm both British and Irish.

 

Regards

 

Daniel

So... may we consider this thread Closed since the conversation has drifted so far off topic?

It's amusing how quickly the tone of this thread changed.

I have been sitting back with my popcorn enjoying all the speculation and Dreamliner bashing.

 

Then the ELT, a innocuous and seemingly harmless device that's installed in thousands of aircraft gets the blame and the conversation quickly changed to the weather. Haha.

Thanks for the entertainment.

 

I guess it's time to move along and wait for the next sensationalized Dreamiliner event.

 

Nevermind, Let's start talking about how we need to ground them now for have such horribly engineered boost pumps. /sarcasm

 

Chuck

I wouldn't say it is sensationalised. I love Boeing but when fires are a normal part of operations then I'm staying away from them.

 

Also when folks try to dramatise certain posts I think it is not friendly.

 

That's my two cents, you can disagree with me but do it respectfully or I'll start talking clouds, rain, sun and temperatures again...... :-)

 

Regards,

 

Daniel

In a feeble attempt to get back on topic: If this was the ELT I think we can agree this is not a 787, or even Boeing, problem but something potentially industry wide. My question to those with more technical knowledge than me: If this happened in flight how would it be dealt with? There's no circuit breaker to pull to deactivate it, are they located in an easily accessable location? If one were emitting smoke and flame do you drop it in a bucket of water? Depressurize the cabin and chuck it out the door? Inquiring minds would like to know.

I guess the fire would be suppressed by fire extinguisher easily. Crew would notice smoke early enough to prevent any airframe damage.

I guess the fire would be suppressed by fire extinguisher easily. Crew would notice smoke early enough to prevent any airframe damage.

That all depends on how accessible the ELT is. Or whatever is on fire. The Egyptair 777 that caught fire had a fire extinguisher exhausted on that and it didn't put it out.

I guess the fire would be suppressed by fire extinguisher easily. Crew would notice smoke early enough to prevent any airframe damage.

 

Firefighters tried using the onboard halon extinguishers but to little effect, they had to forcibly remove some of the ceiling panels to spray water up there so that plane probably has to get a good amount of water damage repaired. Had the plane been airborne this may have not turned out well, another reason why I feel that Lithium batteries have no place in civil aircraft system whether its in an ELT or part of the electrical system. 

 

Also firefighters reported heavy smoke in the cabin so they had to open doors to help clear it out, they have SCBA which are designed for that type of environment but pax have no protection and the crew smokehood's are only good for a few minutes. 

Fire was noticed much later than it would be in flight.

Airbusman330, on 21 Jul 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

Had the plane been airborne this may have not turned out well, another reason why I feel that Lithium batteries have no place in civil aircraft system whether its in an ELT or part of the electrical system.

If you ever had an electronic 35mm camera, it was probably powered by a lithium manganese battery much like the one in the ELT. They've been in use for decades in billions of devices.

 

A battery is an energy storage device, just as the fuel tanks in an aircraft are an energy storage device. Any time you have a weight-limited machine that needs a lot of available stored energy to operate, you assume some amount of risk. Fires involving fuel tanks, fuel lines, fuel trucks, and the engines that burn fuel are an ever-present risk in aviation, as are fires involving wet-cell (i.e. lead-acid), nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydroxide, and lithium batteries--and the devices that they power. Just as more volatile fuels require more safeguards, so do more volatile batteries. Just as a push to ban jet fuel and (even more dangerous) avgas on aircraft would be ridiculous, so are the hysterical cries to ban all lithium batteries from aviation use. You improve the engineering to mitigate the risk, you don't just categorically throw the technology out at the first sign of a problem.

 

An electrically-powered device that's inaccessible and can't be depowered by the crew is trouble looking for a place to happen no matter what powers it, or what kind of plane it's installed in.

 

Regards

I guess the fire would be suppressed by fire extinguisher easily. Crew would notice smoke early enough to prevent any airframe damage.

 

Questionable. I doubt the ELT is normally or easily accessible from the cabin. It's probably tucked away behind some ceiling panels.

If you ever had an electronic 35mm camera, it was probably powered by a lithium manganese battery much like the one in the ELT. They've been in use for decades in billions of devices.

 

A battery is an energy storage device, just as the fuel tanks in an aircraft are an energy storage device. Any time you have a weight-limited machine that needs a lot of available stored energy to operate, you assume some amount of risk. Fires involving fuel tanks, fuel lines, fuel trucks, and the engines that burn fuel are an ever-present risk in aviation, as are fires involving wet-cell (i.e. lead-acid), nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydroxide, and lithium batteries--and the devices that they power. Just as more volatile fuels require more safeguards, so do more volatile batteries. Just as a push to ban jet fuel and (even more dangerous) avgas on aircraft would be ridiculous, so are the hysterical cries to ban all lithium batteries from aviation use. You improve the engineering to mitigate the risk, you don't just categorically throw the technology out at the first sign of a problem.

 

An electrically-powered device that's inaccessible and can't be depowered by the crew is trouble looking for a place to happen no matter what powers it, or what kind of plane it's installed in.

 

Regards

Thanks Bob,

 

You make some very sound observations in that post. I'm not advocating banning lithium ion but I am saying that it is an unknown quantity. You even say the technology is still developing.

 

My main point is to say until proven then we should use batteries that have been used in aircraft such as the 777 and 747 until the lithium ions are tested in a test bed long enough to basically give us reliability. With 330 minutes ETOPs flight the last thing you want is a fire and no where to land but sea or ice......

 

Regards,

Daniel

Thanks Bob,

 

You make some very sound observations in that post. I'm not advocating banning lithium ion but I am saying that it is an unknown quantity. You even say the technology is still developing.

 

My main point is to say until proven then we should use batteries that have been used in aircraft such as the 777 and 747 until the lithium ions are tested in a test bed long enough to basically give us reliability. With 330 minutes ETOPs flight the last thing you want is a fire and no where to land but sea or ice......

 

Regards,

Daniel

 

 

Even if the emergency is unrelated to the plane 330 minutes can seem like an eternity especially to a passenger who is suffering from a major medical emergency.