Galley fire? What type of aircraft last had a galley fire and was destroyed on the ground after 10 hours of rest?

 

Here are two links. I suggest we start looking into the electrical system and the batteries (lithium-ion) more in this thread, if I may?

 

Lithium Ion is not very nice and it seems the newest and best fuel saving option (less weight) to Boeing but if this is tilted against safety then why not just go back to traditional batteries (for example the 777 system)? You have a carbon fibre aircraft with a lot of flammable material on board that also has a lot of potential sources of ignition. This is like living in a wood house with candles for lights and open fire places for the air conditioning (heating) system. People might not really care until a few of them do drop out of the sky. Then someone might take notice. But as far as I am concerned this is mega serious. It is a new aircraft with many unknown variables. At least the 777 took a lot of its technology and just improved on it from the 767 and 747-400s. It is a huge gamble and Boeing would want to hire a bunch of trouble shooter and problem solver engineers right about now. I remember a brand new 767 running out of fuel in Canada. I would much prefer that than having an aircraft that is already built to combust in mid air. Since when did a 767 or 777 have a fire on board? Any takers?

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/safety/how-a-battery-fire-could-spell-big-trouble-for-the-boeing-787-14954495

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/safety/can-boeings-battery-fix-save-the-dreamliner-15220754

 

And a very enlightening article on the danger of the lithium batteries.

http://www.komonews.com/news/boeing/Report-Boeing-787-battery-fire-was-hard-to-extinguish-196034611.html

 

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/boeing-fire-highlights-danger-in-planes-ipads-and-plugin-cars-20130111-2cjy5.html

What damage these fires do to the composites really has to be asssed. Because if the composites become in any way damaged the alleged strength is no longer there. I really would be cautious of flying in a previously damaged 787 hull that had not been fully repaired with totally new panels etc.,

 

As for the battery problem the sim comunity can offer Boeing a very quick cure.

[electrical]
electric_always_available=1

Change the 1 to a 0 = no more battery fires!!

IAF747, on 13 Jul 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

Galley fire? What type of aircraft last had a galley fire and was destroyed on the ground after 10 hours of rest?

 

I suggest we start looking into the electrical system and the batteries (lithium-ion) more in this thread, if I may?

You're coming across like a broken record on the battery issue. There are many causes of fire and smoke other than batteries. Talk to an experienced flight attendant--I doubt you'll find many that haven't seen a passenger sneak a smoke in a lavatory, and a smoldering cigarette dropped in a trash bin has started more inflight fires than any battery problem.

 

What I'm hearing is that this was a galley fire caused by leaving a water heater on, which ran dry and burned up when the thermal overtemp protection on the heater failed. If that's true, then in addition to the mechanical failure of the protection circuit, it would appear somebody missed something on the "before leaving aircraft" checklist as well. And 10 hours of "rest" doesn't necessarily equate to 10 hours unpowered--it could have been powered up for maintenance, tow, or cleaning any time in that period. Were this scenario to play out inflight, you would have smoke detection and a crew present to depower the system before it turns into a catastrophic fire. Smoking/overheating electrical components are a fact of life on any passenger aircraft.

 

With regard to lithium batts, any time you get on *any* acft these days, it's chock full of lithium batteries--in laptops, cell phones, cameras, MP3 players, CPAP machines etc, some of which are in checked baggage and inaccessible.

 

Additionally, there are numerous lithium battery chemistries, and their characteristics, including volatility, differ greatly. More, safer battery technologies are constantly in development and emerging regularly. One such example is lithium ferro-phosphate batteries, which are fairly new on the scene and much less volatile than the lithium-cobalt batts used in the original 787 design.

 

The batteries and battery compartments in the 787 underwent an extensive and expensive re-design which had a lot of scrutiny by FAA/CAA after the first two battery fires. It's something of a knee-jerk to immediately assume that every incidence of smoke on the jet after that change must be a battery problem.

 

Regards

The batteries and battery compartments in the 787 underwent an extensive and expensive re-design which had a lot of scrutiny by FAA/CAA after the first two battery fires.

 

What I'm hearing is that this was a galley fire caused by leaving a water heater on, which ran dry and burned up when the thermal overtemp protection on the heater failed. .

 

 

With regard to lithium batts, any time you get on *any* acft these days, it's chock full of lithium batteries--in laptops, cell phones, cameras, MP3 players, CPAP machines etc, some of which are in checked baggage and inaccessible.

Regards

The extensive and expensive redesign amounted to "don't let's solve the problem, let's just hide it in a box!"

 

Thermal overtemperature protection shouldn't fail!!!!! If that were to be the case then that also needs to be corrected.

 

L.ion batteries are notorious for getting hot. They can't take a heavy load. Try making or receiving a phonecall on your mobile whilst charging it at the same time!

 

If ever an aircraft was aptly named it's the "Dream liner" After 6 years it's still a "dream!" Production a/c have been around long enough for them not to have "teething problems" anymore. Boeing overstretched themselves technologically plus the rush to get the product on the market!

 

.

Regards

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23302722

 

 

 

Batteries 'not linked' to 787 fire

There is no evidence of a direct link between the 787 Dreamliner's batteries and the fire at Heathrow Airport on Friday, an investigation has found.

Well isn't that just a bummer, eh volo?

Actually AAIB quote:

 

 

 

There has been extensive heat damage in the upper portion of the rear fuselage, a complex part of the aircraft, and the initial investigation is likely to take several days. However, it is clear that this heat damage is remote from the area in which the aircraft main and APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) batteries are located, and, at this stage, there is no evidence of a direct causal relationship.

vololiberista, on 13 Jul 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

 

The extensive and expensive redesign amounted to "don't let's solve the problem, let's just hide it in a box!"

Says who--you?? Boeing spent $millions and put more than 100,000 man-hours into the problem, with a list of fixes including addition of electrical isolation of each individual cell, heat and chafing resistant wiring on the intercell harnesses, enhanced nonconductive insulation and spacers around the battery pack, and a new NASA-grade battery monitoring unit, among others. FAA and CAA would not have allowed them to hide the problem in a box. You clearly do not know what you're talking about here.

 

vololiberista, on 13 Jul 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

 

Thermal overtemperature protection shouldn't fail!!!!! If that were to be the case then that also needs to be corrected.

No it shouldn't fail. Then again neither should any other system on any acft. But yes, if that's what happened it needs to be fixed.

 

L.ion batteries are notorious for getting hot. They can't take a heavy load. Try making or receiving a phonecall on your mobile whilst charging it at the same time!

The batts in an aircraft are not the same--AT ALL--as the lithium chloride batts found in a cell phone. And Lithium batts, especially the lithium-cobalt chemistry used in the 787, are renowned for being able to supply a *very* heavy load and take a high recharge rate with proper monitoring and cooling. Lithium-polymer batts are the standard in model aircraft and dozens of other high-current applications because of their excellent high current capacities. And all this slagging of lithium-chemistry batteries ignores the long history of incidents with thermal runaways on other older battery technologies (i.e. nickel-cadmium) spanning many years. You are clearly misinformed on the physics of these devices.

 

vololiberista, on 13 Jul 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

 

If ever an aircraft was aptly named it's the "Dream liner" After 6 years it's still a "dream!" Production a/c have been around long enough for them not to have "teething problems" anymore. Boeing overstretched themselves technologically plus the rush to get the product on the market!

The 787 has barely entered production when you compare it to the long-running production lines of its predecessors like the B737, B747 etc. The A380 has also had its share of problems well after the initial delivery. At least the 787's teething problems didn't include a Boeing test pilot flying a 787 into the trees in front of a crowd of airshow spectators! ;-)

 

Regards

At least the 787's teething problems didn't include a Boeing test pilot flying a 787 into the trees in front of a crowd of airshow spectators! ;-)

 

Regards

 

That's because the pilot was too full of superbia!! And nothing to do with the a/c itself.

The said pilot stll blames the a/c and not himself.

When it was done in a VC10 at White Waltham they got it absolutely spot on.

At least Boeing is being forthright about what's going on. I prefer that instead of sweeping it under the rug or being completely silent.

Given the location of the fire damage, everybody is saying this was a galley fire, yet the galley is positioned farther aft. The location of the fire damage on the fuselage makes me wonder if this fire was in the aft crew rest area, as that is where a rest area is positioned right? 

Um, there's a tiny crew galley in the crew rest area.

Talk to an experienced flight attendant--I doubt you'll find many that haven't seen a passenger sneak a smoke in a lavatory, and a smoldering cigarette dropped in a trash bin has started more inflight fires than any battery problem.

 

That should have been impossible in this incident if the cleaning crew cleared out all of the international garbage after arrival which includes emptying the lavatory trash bins.

Um, there's a tiny crew galley in the crew rest area.

 

Is that a 787 thing because the CRA in the 773ER does not have a galley or a lav.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23302722

Still a fire is a fire. When did a 777 or a 767 last have a fire on the ground (or n the air!)? Tell me that.

 

Daniel

You're coming across like a broken record on the battery issue. There are many causes of fire and smoke other than batteries. Talk to an experienced flight attendant--I doubt you'll find many that haven't seen a passenger sneak a smoke in a lavatory, and a smoldering cigarette dropped in a trash bin has started more inflight fires than any battery problem.

 

What I'm hearing is that this was a galley fire caused by leaving a water heater on, which ran dry and burned up when the thermal overtemp protection on the heater failed. If that's true, then in addition to the mechanical failure of the protection circuit, it would appear somebody missed something on the "before leaving aircraft" checklist as well. And 10 hours of "rest" doesn't necessarily equate to 10 hours unpowered--it could have been powered up for maintenance, tow, or cleaning any time in that period. Were this scenario to play out inflight, you would have smoke detection and a crew present to depower the system before it turns into a catastrophic fire. Smoking/overheating electrical components are a fact of life on any passenger aircraft.

 

With regard to lithium batts, any time you get on *any* acft these days, it's chock full of lithium batteries--in laptops, cell phones, cameras, MP3 players, CPAP machines etc, some of which are in checked baggage and inaccessible.

 

Additionally, there are numerous lithium battery chemistries, and their characteristics, including volatility, differ greatly. More, safer battery technologies are constantly in development and emerging regularly. One such example is lithium ferro-phosphate batteries, which are fairly new on the scene and much less volatile than the lithium-cobalt batts used in the original 787 design.

 

The batteries and battery compartments in the 787 underwent an extensive and expensive re-design which had a lot of scrutiny by FAA/CAA after the first two battery fires. It's something of a knee-jerk to immediately assume that every incidence of smoke on the jet after that change must be a battery problem.

 

Regards

Common sense isn't a given these days I suppose. Anyway thanks for your reply, I suppose there are always two sides to a debate.

 

I'm just wondering, has a Boeing aircraft ever had so many fire incidents in such a short amount of time?

 

You can try poking fun at me but it just goes to show that your argument is pretty hollow when you have to start criticising those posting remarks in a personal way.

 

This is an aviation forum. Those that question things learn more. Pilots. Those that do not, well they think they know it all. Prime indicators of someone who is more than ready for a crash.

 

Criticism won't get you far, but having a mind open to learn new things will.

 

Those people that designed the cargo door on the Boeing 747 ended up being wrong. And so could you. And so could I. But if this s about you scoring the most points to prove that you are better than me, we'll you win! Yes! I'm past thinking I'm better than others.