Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Engineers & Technicians
Reload this Page >

Ethiopean 787 fire at Heathrow

Engineers & Technicians In this day and age of increased CRM and safety awareness, a forum for the guys and girls who keep our a/c serviceable.

Ethiopean 787 fire at Heathrow

Old 12th Jul 2013, 17:53
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Don't worry, a Boeing fix is on the way, they are encasing the crew rest area in a titanium box....
ballyctid is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 17:57
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 61
3 in 2 days?

On 10th United flt to Houston from London cancelled. Now we hear a Thomson 787 had an air turn-back today. And this Ethiopian flt grounded. What is going on? One thing for sure, the ET fire is not a battery incident. The large Batteries are far away from this fire location. This aircraft has several Remote power distribution panels all over the aircraft and on its ceiling. This looks more like a Galley area fire. But again very strange as no one was on board and no major activity on the aircraft when the fire started.
Hi_Tech is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:06
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 250
If that's composite it will require the entire aft fuselage section be removed and replaced. I'm not sure that is even possible. Sorry, the price you pay for a lightweight carbon airframe, it's a throw-away when a structural component is damaged.
cappt is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:08
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: England
Posts: 67
I'm a tad confused, why are Chris Yates ("aviation expert") & Mary Schiavo (ex NTSB) constantly referring to the batteries when they aren't located where the fire was? Yes, I know fire travels, but that far? Is it just media speculation/misinformation?
Evey_Hammond is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:11
  #65 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 64
Posts: 9,191
As I said in the main 787 thread:

Boeing may have told every carrier and pilot how to operate this machine - but have they explained to every ground crew around the world that this a/c requires handling in a different way?

I might be wrong.
PAXboy is online now  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:16
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1
Flammable material 787

The only flammable material belonging to the aircraft located around the location in question is APU Fuel Line.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...ff/arff787.pdf
ILS27LEFT is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:18
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sol, sector ZZ9 plural Z alpha
Posts: 80
There is a difference between the airport being 'closed' and commercial airlines being unable to land or depart due to lack of fire cover.
...err no there isn't. If the fire crew are engaged in a response callout and the residual equipment/staff is below required fire cat for the airport; or at the discretion of the airport management any ensuing emergency situation in progress otherwise impedes on the capacity of the airport to operate safely, then the word is closed, period. Any other interpretation of closed would probably be DISUSED or ABANDONED.
Clear_Prop is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:21
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belgium, near BRU
Age: 41
Posts: 38
I'm a tad confused, why are Chris Yates ("aviation expert") & Mary Schiavo (ex NTSB) constantly referring to the batteries when they aren't located where the fire was? Yes, I know fire travels, but that far? Is it just media speculation/misinformation?
Well, probably because the initial cause of the fire could well be a battery problem even if the batteries themself are unarmed. For example, if they produced to much power it's possible that the wiring became overheated and at a specific point (a weak point where there's for example flamable material arround the wiring) caused an actual fire. Before such a fire happens it can easily take a while even hours. While there may not be any damage to the batteries they may be the root cause.

So in the end, they cause of the fire could well be the batteries. Which I don't say is the actual cause, this is something the investigation will tell us eventually but because the fire happened somewhere (far) away from the batteries it's not something you can easily rule out.

At this point an electrical cause seems to be the most likely since it can take a while before it becomes a real fire (there needs to be enough heat transfer without an open flame). If an open flame was the cause, like for example a cigarette (yes, even though smoking is prohibited you can never rule this out, maybe someone from the cleaning crew had a smoke for example), it think we would have seen something completely different.

Sad for Boeing that they have such problems with the 787...
Bralo20 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:24
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 16
At least the fire tenders didn't have far to go - the building it's parked next to is the fire station - might also explain the closure of the airport if that building was in danger of being evacuated
time-ex is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:25
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belgium, near BRU
Age: 41
Posts: 38
@ILS27LEFT

The APU fuel line runs below the floor nowhere near the (external) firedamage is visible.
Bralo20 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:26
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 156
Gemini Twin


Edited to correct, this is a reference to 777 Crew Area.

But wouldn't it probably be the case that Boeing would use the same design/parts and perhaps even complete module across it's range where possible?

Last edited by Corsairoz; 12th Jul 2013 at 18:35.
Corsairoz is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:32
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 4
Well, probably because the initial cause of the fire could well be a battery problem even if the batteries themself are unarmed. For example, if they produced to much power it's possible that the wiring became overheated and at a specific point (a weak point where there's for example flamable material arround the wiring) caused an actual fire. Before such a fire happens it can easily take a while even hours. While there may not be any damage to the batteries they may be the root cause.

So in the end, they cause of the fire could well be the batteries. Which I don't say is the actual cause, this is something the investigation will tell us eventually but because the fire happened somewhere (far) away from the batteries it's not something you can easily rule out.
Well no, not really. Batteries do not 'produce' power in that sense, they supply it. If battery power is available to a faulty circuit then, yes, damage could result as they will supply the energy needed to cause the problem but the 'cause' is still the fault in the circuit, not because of any fault in the battery.

My memory is that the 787 APU batteries are isolated unless they are needed for an APU start and I'm not sure the APU power wires would be routed where the damage is visible anyway.

Last edited by adriannicol; 12th Jul 2013 at 18:42.
adriannicol is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:40
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 0
There is a difference between the airport being 'closed' and commercial airlines being unable to land or depart due to lack of fire cover.
...err no there isn't. If the fire crew are engaged in a response callout and the residual equipment/staff is below required fire cat for the airport; or at the discretion of the airport management any ensuing emergency situation in progress otherwise impedes on the capacity of the airport to operate safely, then the word is closed, period. Any other interpretation of closed would probably be DISUSED or ABANDONED.
...err, sorry, there's a huge difference.

In the UK, pretty much the only reason that an airport is closed is if the runways are covered in snow. In other parts of the world there are other criteria which require the airport to be promulgated as closed.
LookingForAJob is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:43
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 48
787 fire at LHR

Just remember that both Boeing and the FAA in their (lack of) wisdom did not put any internal insulation on upper half of 787,a dangerous FST failure point that I debated long and hard with the FAA and lost. The self ignition temperature of Toray 3900-2 epoxy on 787 is around only 580 degrees F vs 2000 degree F for a decent aluminum, so it doesn't take much. Plus copious amounts of toxic FST released inside the aircraft.

Last edited by amicus; 12th Jul 2013 at 18:45.
amicus is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:55
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hazel Grove, Stockport
Age: 79
Posts: 83
Paxboy
As I said in the main 787 thread:

Boeing may have told every carrier and pilot how to operate this machine - but have they explained to every ground crew around the world that this a/c requires handling in a different way?

I might be wrong.

Sorry unable to put this in the correct quote box, but Paxboy what have you got against maintenance, you seem to always have a dig at them. They have at least 100% more knowledge than you, and from my own 45 years as maintenance, will have been trained and have more in depth knowledge of the aircraft than the crews that fly them. This is not to take anything away from the crews, but they do not need the deep knowledge of the systems that techs require to keep the aircraft flying.
lakerman is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:56
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 42
At least the fire tenders didn't have far to go - the building it's parked next to is the fire station - might also explain the closure of the airport if that building was in danger of being evacuated
I am sure the recent BBC live programmes from Heathrow said there are two fire stations there, probably for reasons like that.
mbriscoe is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 18:59
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
amicus
Just remember that both Boeing and the FAA in their (lack of) wisdom did not put any internal insulation on upper half of 787,a dangerous FST failure point that I debated long and hard with the FAA and lost. The self ignition temperature of Toray 3900-2 epoxy on 787 is around only 580 degrees F vs 2000 degree F for a decent aluminum, so it doesn't take much. Plus copious amounts of toxic FST released inside the aircraft
Very interesting and maybe relevant?

Can you expand on what you think should have been done? And do you know what the A350 has done in this regard?

And what does FST stand for?
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 19:03
  #78 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
Originally Posted by NoD
And what does FST stand for?
Well, I had no idea but found this on p2 of Google

Chemical Component FST

Last edited by BOAC; 12th Jul 2013 at 19:04.
BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 19:07
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Probably NOT Battery Related (I hope)

What looks to be a couple of roof burn-through spots are simply in the wrong place to be related to the aft electronics bay Li-Ion battery. Obviously, something is not right, but common sense says that it is probably not the batter this time. The New York Times ran a couple of pix, one showing fire crews examining the door for the aft elec bay, well after the airplane had been doused with foam; the door is not even open. What look to be small burn through spots are on the wrong side of the airplane. Somehow, this one just does not compute into a 'battery issue.' For Boeing's sake, I sure hope not! In any case, the A350 sales force is probably toasting this evening...
No Fly Zone is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 19:08
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 4
FST = Fire, Smoke, Toxicity (I think!)
adriannicol is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.