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 10th Sep 2013, 10:40
  #821 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 75
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Finally, why is it taking Boeing and its insurers so long to even decide whether to repair or scrap since July if no safety of flight issue?
It could just be, given that it seems the Honeywell ELT was a key player in all this, that there are some 'full and frank' discussions going on behind the scenes as to exactly who's insurance company is going to be paying anyway?
fenland787 is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2013, 16:21
  #822 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
It may have nothing to do with safety of flight - but it has everything to do with public perception, not to mention Boeing's stock price.
Boeing stock is trading within a percent or so of it's all time high (and that all time high occurred after the Ethiopian 787 fire) . I'm guessing the public perception can't be all that bad.
tdracer is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2013, 18:49
  #823 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tdracer, you don't understand. The sky is falling, or at least for those that wish to remain clueless about this business.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 00:22
  #824 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,058
Received 28 Likes on 22 Posts
Lots of aluminum airplanes have been lost or badly damaged due to fires. I'd guess almost all of those fires started small, then found fuel somewhere besides the aircraft skin.

Perhaps there will be a whole new class of fires caused by heat sources in proximity only to composite skins. I personally doubt that will happen, but time will tell.
Chu Chu is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 02:31
  #825 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FAA studied fire hazard of composite skin

Sorry I can't find the reference again - I mentioned it a couple of times in the original battery thread - but the FAA commissioned a study at a university on composite material that iirc was specifically that which was intended for the B787. I have no expertise in the area but glanced through the report and at least did not see anything obviously bogus about the tests or conclusions (that the skin would survive fire well.) Of course, they thought the Li-Ion battery system was perfectly safe, too, so some of the points mentioned up-thread here might have been overlooked.

If anyone is interested in the report and can't find it, ask and I'll dig out a link to it.
poorjohn is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 06:23
  #826 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,784
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
If anyone is interested in the report and can't find it, ask and I'll dig out a link to it.
If you have the link handy, I'd certainly appreciate it, thanks.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 13:53
  #827 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
If you have the link handy, I'd certainly appreciate it, thanks.
There is one here http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/07-57.pdf
Ian W is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 18:04
  #828 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From Boeing's 787 Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting Composite Structure





Machaca is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 18:38
  #829 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Machaca
Boeing total PR codswallop And if not a problem, why epoxies banned for interiors since 1970's?
amicus is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 19:19
  #830 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why are you conflating interior fitment and structural epoxies?

Seems disingenuous, particularly when you don't address the specific burn properties of the modern epoxy developed for the 787.

Please enlighten us all by addressing the seven bullet points above.

Last edited by Machaca; 11th Sep 2013 at 19:21.
Machaca is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 19:50
  #831 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
My read between the lines of the Boeing PR is the major source of toxicity is the interior panels of the aircraft.

Neither the aluminum nor the 787 outer structure contribute significantly except for the time to be defeated by an external fire.

My memory of such external fires is almost solely comprised of ground fuel-pooled fires.

An internal cabin fire is clearly another problem.

I am curious what a Asiana fuselage might look like along the fuselage top after the fire breaks through to inside the cabin, but that's just a structural damage question and not germain to toxicity.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 20:27
  #832 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
lomapaseo

My concern is that the vast majority of survivable crashes, (in fact the norm) for commercial aircraft result in compromised, fractured, open doors , open slides,etc, thus allowing ingress into the cabin of toxix gases and smoke from the external CFRP fire. I have cited over 150 such commercial airline survivable crashes to both Boeing and FAA since 1970, all involving compromised and fractured fuselages to no avail.
To my knowledge this critical safety condition was never tested for during development and certification of the 787. Specifically, Boeing did burn-through tests via cone calorimeters only on intact and non-compromised panels and the FAA and Boeing both refused to replicate the Air France A340 Malton overrun crash a few years back, which would serve as an ideal and totally reproducible example of such survivable fuel fed fire crashes. This could easily be performed on on of the four now non-flying 787 prototypes and such a test, replicating a survivable fuel fed fire crash with 100% passenger and crew survival in the case in the A340 with a fuel fed ground fire would end the debate on either side of the FST issue.

To quote the old aviation aphorism "One test is worth 1000 expert opinions".
amicus is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 21:01
  #833 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Then I guess, amicus, passengers flying on the CFRP A350 and the significantly CFRP and composite (GLARE) A380 are also pretty much whistling past the graveyard every time they board one of those planes, as well.

In fact, having flown the 787 and A380 a number of times (and with my airlines of choice also choosing the A350), I guess I better make sure my life insurance is up to date.

And god save us when the CFRP A320 and B737 replacements start entering service in the 2030s... Ralph Nader is no doubt working on a new book to lambast Airbus and Boeing on their decision to move to CFRP. I suggest he go with the title Unsafe At Any Altitude.

Last edited by Kiskaloo; 11th Sep 2013 at 21:04.
Kiskaloo is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 22:44
  #834 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
amicus:
...the FAA and Boeing both refused to replicate the Air France A340 Malton overrun crash...

Refused who? Why reproduce an accident from which everyone successfully evacuated?
Machaca is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2013, 23:58
  #835 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Refused who?
I assume refused HIM. HE suggested and they refused, how nasty and inconsiderate of them.
would end the debate on either side of the FST issue.
Assuming there is a debate. This forum is hardly a place to find out if there is a debate (among real 'experts') or not.

Last edited by olasek; 12th Sep 2013 at 00:00.
olasek is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2013, 18:08
  #836 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well if Boeing should destroy one of the 787s in such a test, Airbus should also be required to sacrifice MSN001 of the A380 and A350, as well.
Kiskaloo is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2013, 18:17
  #837 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Freedom Sound
Posts: 355
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Now that the -9 is flying and gaining orders, what odds on Boeing slipping out the bad news regarding the Ethiopian 787 being "beyond economical repair".
esscee is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2013, 18:23
  #838 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wales
Posts: 461
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wouldnt put the A380 'Glare' in the same league as carbon fibre . Anyone remember the hazards with the harrier composite materials in an accident . Boeing wouldnt be aware of that having responsibility for the AV8B now......!
bvcu is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2013, 21:53
  #839 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Beyond economic repair?

Qantas'll have her...
neilki is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2013, 02:47
  #840 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FAA Orders Inspections of Honeywell Emergency Locator Transmitters

FAA to issue AD:

The FAA is issuing an Airworthiness Directive (AD) identical to the August 26 Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) directive which requires airlines to inspect Honeywell emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) by January 14, 2014 to prevent an electrical short and possible ignition source. The FAA AD has the same deadline for the U.S. fleet and will impact approximately 4,000 airplanes at a total cost of approximately $325,720. The investigation of the July 12, 2013 Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 fire at Heathrow Airport continues under the leadership of the United Kingdom Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB).
Machaca is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.