Ethiopean 787 fire at Heathrow
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: on an island
Age: 81
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what happens to those aircraft who have creatively "committed to Heathrow" due to a shortage of fuel (on the basis that Heathrow has two runways and the weather is reasonable) when both runways suddenly shut?
Do they land at Heathrow without fire cover or do they now demand priority over everyone else who is diverting at the same time?
Do they land at Heathrow without fire cover or do they now demand priority over everyone else who is diverting at the same time?
Again, there are sentient life forms in abundance beyond the wing tips, no less the cockpit.
Last edited by tilnextime; 17th Jul 2013 at 16:28.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW - I guess the "intelligent life forms out there beyond the wing tips." would have allowed the 2/3 short final traffic to land and thrown the rest off on Maydays.
I am eternally grateful that I always worked for an employer who always allowed me to carry a sensible amount of fuel.
One's best self defense is to stay well ahead of the aircraft and the flight/mission so that when these things crop up, there is an out.
Best wishes to all on that score. The "interesting times" are arriving sooner and sooner.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Jul 2013 at 17:27.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Below (and looking upwards)
Age: 59
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest: What was the PIA incident that was ongoing at the same time?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure this thread is titled "Ethiopian 787 fire" can we keep it to that? I really don't care what people think over whether the place should of been kept open or closed, I just want to find out about the fire on said aircraft not the ins and outs of what the airport did !
Why the delay ?
It seems to be taking a very long time to find out the root cause of this fire.
Six days seems to be unusually long and If past history of aircraft fires is anything to judge by it seems to normally only take a few days to find out the cause.
Given the past history of the B787 one would think an answer would be forthcoming ASAP.
Six days seems to be unusually long and If past history of aircraft fires is anything to judge by it seems to normally only take a few days to find out the cause.
Given the past history of the B787 one would think an answer would be forthcoming ASAP.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: USA, Vermont
Age: 79
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest news says that the AAIB will issue a preliminary report in the next couple of days. Until then Boeing can say very little, except that the the LiOn batteries are in no way involved, which was pretty obvious from the beginning.
An interesting side note was Honeywell's willingness to remove the ELT's, if they are asked to. Can a commercial aircraft legally operate without an ELT?
An interesting side note was Honeywell's willingness to remove the ELT's, if they are asked to. Can a commercial aircraft legally operate without an ELT?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Story" on possible removing of the ELT's
Honeywell says would remove 787 beacons if asked as fire probed
Honeywell says would remove 787 beacons if asked as fire probed
WSJ comments
A newish Wall Street Journal online story which leads with the assertion that an AAIB interim report is expected soon goes into some ELT detail--including a strong suggestion that someone thinks a possible ELT role in the cause likely enough to consider a possible recommendation for temporary removal of them from 787s.
Regarding the legalities of ELT-free operation, the WSJ article asserts that while they are required on planes to be used for passenger flights in the US, it is allowed to continue operation with them inoperative for as long a 90(!) days before replacement or repair, and further asserts that no case of ELT actually being useful in a large airliner incident has been recorded in the last couple of decades. It asserts that European rules are similar to the US rules.
Lastly, and not in the WSJ article, I learned that this ELT battery is far larger than I might have thought. I've lost the reference, but believe that for this Honeywell model the battery weight was given as a bit over six pounds. If true, that is plenty of energy to serve as a major ignition source if something goes seriously wrong.
[edit: another poster has cast very serious doubt on this battery weight claim. I know I saw it written, but it surprised me. Most likely it was false--possibly by misconstruing the entire ELT weight as being the battery weight]
Regarding the legalities of ELT-free operation, the WSJ article asserts that while they are required on planes to be used for passenger flights in the US, it is allowed to continue operation with them inoperative for as long a 90(!) days before replacement or repair, and further asserts that no case of ELT actually being useful in a large airliner incident has been recorded in the last couple of decades. It asserts that European rules are similar to the US rules.
Lastly, and not in the WSJ article, I learned that this ELT battery is far larger than I might have thought. I've lost the reference, but believe that for this Honeywell model the battery weight was given as a bit over six pounds. If true, that is plenty of energy to serve as a major ignition source if something goes seriously wrong.
[edit: another poster has cast very serious doubt on this battery weight claim. I know I saw it written, but it surprised me. Most likely it was false--possibly by misconstruing the entire ELT weight as being the battery weight]
Last edited by archae86; 18th Jul 2013 at 01:29. Reason: cast doubt on battery weight
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ELT + Battery is 6.6 Lbs.
A wag would be about 2 Lbs for the battery itself.
ETA: on an Artex C-406 the battery pack is about 1 Lb, and the whole thing, ELT + Tray + Battery is 4 Lbs 11 oz.
A wag would be about 2 Lbs for the battery itself.
ETA: on an Artex C-406 the battery pack is about 1 Lb, and the whole thing, ELT + Tray + Battery is 4 Lbs 11 oz.
Last edited by LASJayhawk; 18th Jul 2013 at 01:35.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just experienced the Dream Maker and the Thomson Premier Club product to Orlando, all I can say as a passenger is WOW!
My vacuum is noisier than a full load departure compared from the forward cabin and the pressurisation meant that after a nine hour flight we arrived amazingly refreshed!
For me, this aeroplane is frankly brilliant. No smoke, no fires and no drama! Loved the HUD for the crew!
Thomson have it 100% commercially aligned with the market. Premium it certainly is!
My vacuum is noisier than a full load departure compared from the forward cabin and the pressurisation meant that after a nine hour flight we arrived amazingly refreshed!
For me, this aeroplane is frankly brilliant. No smoke, no fires and no drama! Loved the HUD for the crew!
Thomson have it 100% commercially aligned with the market. Premium it certainly is!
ELTs, whether fixed or portable (and most “fixed” ELT can, if accessible, be un-clipped and used as a portable) which conform to TSO C-126, can and most do have an inbuilt GPS chip.
It will be a very interesting situation if the fire was cause by a fixed ELT.
Extensive Australian research has shown that fixed ELT are an expensive waste of money, as the failure rate in service (failure to broadcast a signal after an accident, or broadcasting a signal when they shouldn’t) is worse than 90%, and 100% in water.
If this fire is caused by the the ELT, the answer is to get rid of them, and rely on the portables contained in or adjacent to the slide-rafts, the type shown in the illustration.
The “mandatory” fitting of fixed ELTs resulted from political pressure in the US, after a well known politician was killed in Alaska. No cost/benefit analysis was ever carried out.
ICAO picked up the FAA rule, again without detailed consideration.
The Australian research could find no case where a fixed ELT in an airline aircraft had worked after an accident, including accidents where the tail of the aircraft was substantially intact.
It will be a very interesting situation if the fire was cause by a fixed ELT.
Extensive Australian research has shown that fixed ELT are an expensive waste of money, as the failure rate in service (failure to broadcast a signal after an accident, or broadcasting a signal when they shouldn’t) is worse than 90%, and 100% in water.
If this fire is caused by the the ELT, the answer is to get rid of them, and rely on the portables contained in or adjacent to the slide-rafts, the type shown in the illustration.
The “mandatory” fitting of fixed ELTs resulted from political pressure in the US, after a well known politician was killed in Alaska. No cost/benefit analysis was ever carried out.
ICAO picked up the FAA rule, again without detailed consideration.
The Australian research could find no case where a fixed ELT in an airline aircraft had worked after an accident, including accidents where the tail of the aircraft was substantially intact.
The above is a reader comment from the Australian blog, "Plane Talking", run by Ben Sandilands, a well known and highly respected transport journalist.
Australian aviation regulations are generally consistent with these finding.
After the Australian rules (dropping mandatory fixed ELT) were put in place in about 1997, a five year post implementation review was carried out by CASA Australia, and the ongoing failure rates of fixed ELT was confirmed, as was the very low failure rates of portables in survivable accidents.
All in all, fixed ELT have proved to be a very expensive waste of money --- and all brought about by a knee-jerk political reaction to a single GA accident in Alaska.
PS: As to what FAA require in US airspace, I would suggest some who have made definitive statements might re-consider.
For any foreign carrier on a FAR 129 Certificate/Operations Specification, it is all in the detail, and unless there has been a major change in recent times, quite a number of foreign carriers, who normally only carry a number of portables, usually attached to the slide-rafts, have not had to fit useless fixed ELT to operate in US airspace.
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Jul 2013 at 03:48.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to be taking a very long time to find out the root cause of this fire. Six days seems to be unusually long and
Last edited by olasek; 18th Jul 2013 at 07:23.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you think they should be able to respond to to 3 worst case scenarios simultaneously? Because all fires are treated equally. I'm sure we all know how quickly a fire on board an aircraft full of fuel can escalate, especially when you add in hazardous materials like Lithium and Carbon Fibre
I think you MAY have a point. I assume each fire station in LHR is responsible for 1 runway and the gates/terminals/hangars are assigned to whichever station is closest?
When was the last time LHR had 2 fires at the same time? I also wonder how long it takes to turn around the airport fire vehicles after they have discharged their foam and get them ready to roll again
I think you MAY have a point. I assume each fire station in LHR is responsible for 1 runway and the gates/terminals/hangars are assigned to whichever station is closest?
When was the last time LHR had 2 fires at the same time? I also wonder how long it takes to turn around the airport fire vehicles after they have discharged their foam and get them ready to roll again
Rather than each fire station being responsible for a different runway, I wonder if there are two separate ones to protect against a worse case scenario where an aircraft hit the fire station and disabled the whole fleet?
They might not often have two serious fires simultaneously but they have to allow for training where one fleet of the fire appliances might be involved in training with a dummy fire so could have emptied their tanks of at least the water.
