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, 20:09
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: texas
Posts: 1
Re:FST

Perhaps this will help: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2012218081.pdf
psc85c is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:14
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 48
And the fuselage and frames that you are forgetting. Self ignition of the epoxy is a mere 580 degrees F.
amicus is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:16
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
Is it true AB won't be putting L- ion batteries on the A350 as a direct result of all the Dreamliner's issues?
My crude understanding is that the test A350s are using Li batteries. Airbus propose to deliver A350s with non-Li batteries since they can easily "swap".

Boeing was unable to swap since the 787 requires the high discharge capability of the Li batteries for the braking system in emergency cases. Top man at Airbus "thanked his engineers" for talking him out of the electric brakes.

In short Airbus have moved away from Li (temporarily) because they can, and revert as and when the issues are solved (by Boeing!). Boeing have no choice but to stick with Li...

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:18
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 48
FST = Fire, Smoke and Toxicity which is simple reason why epoxies are banned for interiors since the 80's until this epoxy nonsense of an aircraft came along and was certificated.
amicus is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:19
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
Re amicus's interesting:
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
I have just found Paper re FST / CF/Expoxies and 787/A350 which I shall try to digest

NoD

PS Amicus... jumping ahead, can you give a precis as this FST aspect, and maybe relate to a recent widebody crash in N America where an external fire burnt through and into the Pax Cabin, but only after the Pax had been able to escape?

Last edited by NigelOnDraft; 12th Jul 2013 at 20:24.
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:24
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Feriton
Posts: 72
Just read this:
Ethiopian Airlines said a problem had been identified in the Dreamliner’s air conditioning system, and that maintenance staff had seen sparks but no flames.
Not sure when this problem had been identified.

Investigators probe 787 fire at Heathrow - FT.com
Diamond Bob is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:31
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 48
Nigel,
I would,as a minimum, require complete 360 degrees internal insulation and FST barriers just as a starter, however I have strong and ongoing doubts whether that would fix all safety and FST issues. I would, of course, immediately ground all 787 A/C and if not adequately fixed ground it permanently. Not using epoxies might be the best and permanent way to go just as off shore oil platforms were after the dreadful Piper Alpha fire that I am familiar with.
amicus is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:31
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,484
How does the internal insulation on upper half of 787 differ from that of the 767 or 777? Are they all the same or is the 787 drastically different?
Iver is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:37
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dubai
Age: 60
Posts: 29
Looks like an extensive repair similar EK's A340 - patch it & fly unpressurised back to USA for whole section replacement

Last edited by avspook; 12th Jul 2013 at 20:38.
avspook is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:41
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 212
cabin crew rest area

Maybe just a smartphone or laptop left charging and forgot behind in cabin crew rest area, quite hot day at LHR it would not be impossible
ILS27LEFT is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:48
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 48
Nigel,
I promise to keep it short, but happy reading re FST and the paper that I wrote. Regarding the recent Asiana crash at SFO, I would note that the passengers had a good chance to survive precisly because of the phenolic (not epoxy) interiors.I worked a long time on FST issues with NASA, Ciba et al back in the early 70's and finally in the 80's the FAA edicted no internal epoxy usage plus carbon fire blocker layers for seats.The 777 A/C at SFO also benefited from upgraded higher g level seats. I ihink if you cross- check the 80's Manchester 737 fatal incident you will clearly see the difference reFST between epoxy and phenolic interiors regarding PAX safety.
Hope that this is a satisfactory precis, Nigel.
amicus is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:50
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Bucuresti
Posts: 48
@ILS27LEFT

It's my belief that many aircraft spend a lot of time parked on airfields in places a lot warmer than Heathrow in even the balmiest of British summers.

It's also my suspicion that laptops or mobile phones have probably been left on aircraft before.


So while that may indeed be the explanation, one can't help thinking that either we have been extraordinarily lucky to date, or the Dreamliner is extraordinarily unlucky.
SLFandProud is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:53
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 212
agree

Totally agree, but why right inside cabin crew rest area then?
ILS27LEFT is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:54
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
I had a bad dream about my flight catching fire ..

If Boeing find out what caused it, and fix it, then ok.

Until then, all Nightmareliners should sleep tight. On the ground.
toffeez is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 20:57
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 48
Iver,
Not related. The 787 inadequate only lower half internal insulation is intended to allow 5 minutes prior to burn-through. However, Boeing fought FAA myself and unfortunately won regarding putting such insulation on upper half of A/C. And the Ethiopian 787 fire today proves their folly. Ground it.
amicus is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 21:06
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 540
How to fly it for repairs?

Is anyone willing to give odds that in order to fly the 787 to a repair facility, they will most likely find a big sheet of aluminium and use at least 50 pop-rivets, to cover over the burn marks.
(and sometimes temporary repairs turn out to be more permanent!)
phiggsbroadband is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 21:08
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: gateshead
Posts: 20
just another note also, if the fire inside was hot enough to burn and scorch the skin, i wonder what sort of state is the cabin in

and

if the skin has become hot in that area, i wonder if it has put more stress on the sides of the a/c as i know the skin on aircraft are fairly stressed in that area.

personally, being a contractor engineer, if i had a composite qualification, i would be rubbing my hands now!
stuminisprite is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 21:15
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 212
I said "minimal" in the sense that it should be very easy to locate the source of this fire; once cause is known, if confirmed as aircraft related rather than external then this is extremely serious of course. Source of fire should be easy to find due to limited damage.
ILS27LEFT is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 21:28
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Not here
Posts: 174
I would not want to breath in smoke from carbon or go anywhere near the ashes, nasty nasty stuff
Scissorlink is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 21:29
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
"Limited" visible damage on the outside maybe, but what does it look like on the inside, given it's burnt through the skin?

Curious - other than not using Li-on batteries, what differences in terms of build / construction are there between a 787 and an A350? Do the same concerns exist?

Last edited by Postman Plod; 12th Jul 2013 at 21:30.
Postman Plod 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.