Ethiopean 787 fire at Heathrow
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
A quick question - what UK agency does the official investigation on an event such as this?
The AAIB have said:
In exercise of his powers the Chief Inspector of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has ordered that an investigation into this serious incident be carried out, in accordance with the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 and the Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 13 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
Subject to paragraphs (5) and (6) below, the Chief Inspector may, when he expects to draw air safety lessons from it, carry out, or cause an Inspector to carry out, an investigation into an incident, other than a serious incident, which occurs—
(a)in or over the United Kingdom; or .
(b)otherwise than in or over the United Kingdom to an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom.
(a)in or over the United Kingdom; or .
(b)otherwise than in or over the United Kingdom to an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom.
Joined: Jan 2004
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 239
Likes: 41
From: LIVT
According to AAIB:
I think the main doubt would be: was there anybody on board with the intention of flight?
On a similar case, the American Airlines B767 uncontained engine failure in Los Angeles on June 2, 2006, NTSB conducted the investigation, even if there was no intention of flight.
Definition of Accident and Serious Incident
Definition of an Accident
"Accident" means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which might take place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and such time as all persons have disembarked, in which:
Definition of an Accident
"Accident" means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which might take place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and such time as all persons have disembarked, in which:
On a similar case, the American Airlines B767 uncontained engine failure in Los Angeles on June 2, 2006, NTSB conducted the investigation, even if there was no intention of flight.
Last edited by aerolearner; 15th July 2013 at 15:34.
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,346
Likes: 2,187
From: Texas
A and C
It seems we have come full circle, back to Wilbur and Orville.
Eight figures ranges from about 6% of the cost to just over 60% of the cost of a new bird. 
Somebody who once worked for Boeing wrote ...
I think you mean "beaucoup" (as in "a lot") which is pronounced in American slang (origin I think US military slang, Viet Nam era) to sound like "boo coo" or 'bo coo" ... but maybe it goes back to some Cajun/Coonass slang from Louisiana ...
Or maybe have I missed a new slang term and its origin, yet again. :P
Composite repair: it appears to be a growing field of endeavour as more and more of our airframes, rotary and fixed wing, are made of something other than metal.
The techniques are quite different from metal repair....... In fact it is far closer to the techniques used for the construction and repair of wooden
aircraft.
aircraft.
By my math, the ship minus engines costs about $170,000,000.
If repair is feasible, and the cost does not far exceed 8 figures ... then it makes financial sense so to do.
If repair is feasible, and the cost does not far exceed 8 figures ... then it makes financial sense so to do.
Somebody who once worked for Boeing wrote ...
and bucu outsourcing
Or maybe have I missed a new slang term and its origin, yet again. :P
Composite repair: it appears to be a growing field of endeavour as more and more of our airframes, rotary and fixed wing, are made of something other than metal.
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey USA
@Lonewolf_50:
Correct. Accordingly, EXCEEDING eight figures means costing more than about 60%; and FAR EXCEEDING eight figures means costing a lot more than 60%
Unless repair would require equipment only available at the factory, I would be a bit in awe, to learn that a team with a 100 million dollar budget could find no way to accomplish it.
This is Boeing's chance to demonstrate the repairability of their new construction -- if they fail, their customers (or perhaps, their customers' insurance companies) will have to count the increased financial risk of hull write-off as a factor in the cost of operating such planes.
@robertbartsch:
Leaving to one side the journalistic standards of Fox News ... perhaps the concept of battery-related somehow got mangled into electricity-related? A full pack of dim bulbs...
Eight figures ranges from about 6% of the cost to just over 60% of the cost of a new bird. 
Unless repair would require equipment only available at the factory, I would be a bit in awe, to learn that a team with a 100 million dollar budget could find no way to accomplish it.
This is Boeing's chance to demonstrate the repairability of their new construction -- if they fail, their customers (or perhaps, their customers' insurance companies) will have to count the increased financial risk of hull write-off as a factor in the cost of operating such planes.
@robertbartsch:
Leaving to one side the journalistic standards of Fox News ... perhaps the concept of battery-related somehow got mangled into electricity-related? A full pack of dim bulbs...
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
SRMmam
Composite airframes have been around for a lot longer than that ! To the best of my knowlage the first composite repair to primary structure was carried out in the UK in 1965.
Last edited by A and C; 15th July 2013 at 16:38.
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,346
Likes: 2,187
From: Texas
This is Boeing's chance to demonstrate the repairability of their new
construction -- if they fail, their customers (or perhaps, their customers'
insurance companies) will have to count the increased financial risk of hull
write-off as a factor in the cost of operating such planes.
construction -- if they fail, their customers (or perhaps, their customers'
insurance companies) will have to count the increased financial risk of hull
write-off as a factor in the cost of operating such planes.
Let's see how they respond ...
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,848
Likes: 40
From: Dubai - sand land.
Originally Posted by Parabellum
I remember some years ago arriving at CDG one morning to see a very new A340 sitting in a maintenance bay almost completely burnt out, didn't generate a fraction of the hysteria that the Ethiopian B787 is managing.
1. The internet and immediate news was not so widespread...............
2. 340s hadn't already had a history of catching fire
................
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: Czech Republic
Two reasons.
1. The internet and immediate news was not so widespread...............
2. 340s hadn't already had a history of catching fire................
1. The internet and immediate news was not so widespread...............
2. 340s hadn't already had a history of catching fire................
3. Too loud advertising campaign, manipulative name, self-applause. Very nice, good, promising and interesting plane but overweighted with unbalanced ovations, superlatives, glorifying....
4. Increased economy at the expense of safety...?
Sorry for o/t
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 421
Likes: 38
From: London, UK
A clue - Honeywell involved in investigation
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
From: NV USA
Foxnews reports
Reports: Honeywell Part Eyed in 787 Fire Probe
Jul 15, 2013 2:15 PM EDT
Investigators are looking at an emergency locator transmitter built by Honeywell International Inc (NYSE:HON) as the possible cause of a fire on board a Boeing Co (NYSE:BA) Dreamliner in London last week, according to a source familiar with the probe.
The transmitter uses a lithium manganese battery, said the source, who was not authorized to speak on the record.
Honeywell confirmed earlier that it was participating in the UK-led investigation into a fire on a 787 operated by Ethiopian Airlines at Heathrow airport outside London on Friday.
Experts have said lithium-ion batteries likely did not cause Friday's fire, allaying fears about a return of the problem that grounded the Dreamliner for more than three months earlier this year, when one battery caught fire and another overheated.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Reports: Honeywell Part Eyed in 787 Fire Probe
Jul 15, 2013 2:15 PM EDT
Investigators are looking at an emergency locator transmitter built by Honeywell International Inc (NYSE:HON) as the possible cause of a fire on board a Boeing Co (NYSE:BA) Dreamliner in London last week, according to a source familiar with the probe.
The transmitter uses a lithium manganese battery, said the source, who was not authorized to speak on the record.
Honeywell confirmed earlier that it was participating in the UK-led investigation into a fire on a 787 operated by Ethiopian Airlines at Heathrow airport outside London on Friday.
Experts have said lithium-ion batteries likely did not cause Friday's fire, allaying fears about a return of the problem that grounded the Dreamliner for more than three months earlier this year, when one battery caught fire and another overheated.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Last edited by cappt; 15th July 2013 at 19:02.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
So if a few $Ks of ELT were to just about destroy $00Ms of 787, what do our Aircraft Designer readers have to add?
Should an ELT be shielded? The fuselage about it be shielded? Could an ELT battery really cause this much damage itself... or has it "set light to" the fuselage? What would an Aluminium fuselage do?
Is the 787 ELT pretty "standard"? Or has it been made lighter/riskier as part of the 787 weight shedding programs?
All, of course, in the hypothetical case it is anything to do with the ELT
Should an ELT be shielded? The fuselage about it be shielded? Could an ELT battery really cause this much damage itself... or has it "set light to" the fuselage? What would an Aluminium fuselage do?
Is the 787 ELT pretty "standard"? Or has it been made lighter/riskier as part of the 787 weight shedding programs?
All, of course, in the hypothetical case it is anything to do with the ELT
Pegase Driver
Joined: May 1997
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 4,457
Likes: 1,170
From: Europe
Investigators are looking at an emergency locator transmitter.... as the possible cause of the fire '.... according to a source familiar with the probe.
The transmitter uses a lithium manganese battery, said the source,
The transmitter uses a lithium manganese battery, said the source,
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Joined: Jan 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 486
From: England
Amicus. Could you please shed some light on the following. What temperature could one reasonably expect from, say, a laptop catching fire in an overhead locker, and its possibility of reaching a dangerous temperature for the upper fuselage? I ask as a concerned observer, having logged many hours flying, but all in metal aeroplanes.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 374
From: PLanet Earth
The ELT being only allowed to be transported by ground, just to be installed in a critical and hardly accesible Location in a 'plastic' aircraft really takes the cake.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: UK
What are the drivers to return damaged aircraft to service? Loss of revenue, loss of manufacturer prestige, the insurance companies who have to pay out? Higher insurance cost for this type of aircraft? A new aircraft expected to fly on for more than 25 years damaged in its first year of operation? a combination of all these probably.
A tailstrike can damage the lower rear fuselage area. Whatever caused the fire, the structural damage on the crown of the rear fuselage appears similar to that caused by a tailstrike, damaged skin and damage to the structure in the vicinity of the rear pressure bulkhead. Any repair would be accomplished to the manufacturers requirements but there is the chance that a latent failure site could be created. Returned to service the aircraft continues to fly and the repair appears fine only to suffer catastrophic failure much later.
I sincerely hope that history doesn't repeat itself because there has been precedents and I highlight two that anyone can research.
1 - JAL Flt 123 in 1985 747 bulkhead repaired only to fail about 12000 flights later.
2 - China Airlines Flt 611 747 tail section repaired only to fail 22 years later.
All humans that were involved in the repairs on these two aircraft thought they had done a good job, they wouldn't have knowingly built in a latent fault.
A repair could be done to this aircraft, it will be a logistical difficult task given it's location. Eventually the aircraft could be back in service but unless everyone is absolutely convinced history won't repeat itself, this damaged 787 should be taken out of service. The industry should take the financial hit. It costs money but technical development in aviation has never been easy and safety has to be seen to be paramount to maintain passenger confidence.
A tailstrike can damage the lower rear fuselage area. Whatever caused the fire, the structural damage on the crown of the rear fuselage appears similar to that caused by a tailstrike, damaged skin and damage to the structure in the vicinity of the rear pressure bulkhead. Any repair would be accomplished to the manufacturers requirements but there is the chance that a latent failure site could be created. Returned to service the aircraft continues to fly and the repair appears fine only to suffer catastrophic failure much later.
I sincerely hope that history doesn't repeat itself because there has been precedents and I highlight two that anyone can research.
1 - JAL Flt 123 in 1985 747 bulkhead repaired only to fail about 12000 flights later.
2 - China Airlines Flt 611 747 tail section repaired only to fail 22 years later.
All humans that were involved in the repairs on these two aircraft thought they had done a good job, they wouldn't have knowingly built in a latent fault.
A repair could be done to this aircraft, it will be a logistical difficult task given it's location. Eventually the aircraft could be back in service but unless everyone is absolutely convinced history won't repeat itself, this damaged 787 should be taken out of service. The industry should take the financial hit. It costs money but technical development in aviation has never been easy and safety has to be seen to be paramount to maintain passenger confidence.
