Having had a good look around said airplane. If it had been a fire in a metal fuselage and left unchecked as in this case it would have seriously compromised the skin.

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.

@gas_path:

Interesting report!

Given the doubts and concerns about performance of epoxy/carbon composite skins in fire, I think it very important that the accident investigation address -- to the extent feasible -- how the damage (and its projected effects, had the fire occurred in flight) would compare to a similar fire scenario on a plane of conventional construction.


*** Links that may be of interest ***

An Airbus presentation from last year on Li battery fire hazards, that identifies the ELT batt as one of the "permanently installed batteries," along with the Airbus approach to mitigating the risks:

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2078.pdf

A little brochure for a Honeywell transport ELT (I do NOT assume this is the same model as installed on the incident 787 -- just an example for those curious about these kinds of gadget):

http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/comm...06_AFN_ELT.pdf

time-ex:Yes, all these, plus the total cost of the repair (including EW gain, special recurrent inspections, ...) compared to the "as-repaired" market value of the ship, and the alternative market value of parting out the ship for LRUs and major components.

@time-ex:

In both of the B747 disasters cited (thanks for that, by the way -- I was not familiar with the China crash), the repairs were NOT in accordance with repair procedures approved by Boeing, even though in the JAL case the incorrect repair was made by Boeing technicians.

Modern aviation has a long history of really extensive airframe repairs, including components as fundamental as wing carry-through structures. To my knowledge, the safety record of such repairs is fine, when they are performed correctly.

My expectation (God knows, I could be wrong) is that any team conducting a repair on this burnt 787 -- if the ship will indeed be repaired -- will include people who know the heart-breaking history of the JAL crash. It was a massive loss of life that was Boeing's fault, the worst nightmare for most people in the industry, and one not readily forgotten. [Anecdotally, in the mid 90's I was talking with a Boeing-Seattle engineer who referred to the Associated Grocers' B-29 crash from 50 years earlier ... not only before his time, but before he was born.]

If Boeing makes/supervises a repair to the 787, and they aren't truly able to assure the safety of that repair, then what is their understanding of the materials and processes? How could they make an airworthy ship in their own factory, without such understanding? Carbon composites are not magical/mystical materials. People have been making lots of things with them for a long time, breaking those things, and repairing them. It is precisely BECAUSE these materials are so well understood, that the naturally cautious air transport world has by stages introduced them into airframe structures.

time-ex - if you look into it, you'll see that JAL123 was not repaired properly, and failed almost exactly where predicted when they worked out the mistake had been made in hindsight.

still, the fix for the 787 looks far from straightforward - the damage area for the structure will be extensive - far more that what is visible and could well be very complex, and could be a write off.

more worryingly, if the ELT just ignited with no obvious manufacturing defect, then we could be looking at another rather costly AD.

still, on the bright side, the ELT was probably almost brand new, which may mean that there is a hopefully an obvious issue to find.

it is only speculation that the ELT is to blame - too early to assume that I think.

time-ex:
I do not believe either of these incidents support your point, in that in both cases, the aircraft were improperly repaired, contrary to Boeing specifications.

There could be another reason that Honeywell was "invited" (that sure is one invitation that would be hard to decline) to participate in the investigation.

It is possible that the ELT was damaged by fire and the investigators need help in determining if it started/accelerated the fire or more likely was just a casualty.

Having very modest knowledge of fire/arson investigation I know that one of the harder calls can be cause and effect:

Did old house wiring start the fire or did it short as a result of the fire?

In both cases the wire can have similar features including melted "beads" etc.

Unfortunatly it is easier to just say "bad wiring" and stop rather than dig deeper, especially in cases where arson is not suspected.

Nigel and Herod,
Any fire in the upper passenger half or crown of this flammable epoxy FST loaded A/C is a clear and present safety hazard and should be addressed via an emergency AD ordering both grounding and full internal 360 degrees of fuselage insulation. But will it be the NTSB, JAA or EASA forcing our inglorious FAA to comply?
Also cancellation of any or all ETOPs certification might finally get Boeing's attention.
And dumping all Li-ion batteries, be they primary or secondary such as Honeywell's is required.
And note that the Airbus A350 is in the same FST sinking boat.

amicus

Your declaratory statement is without support specifically regarding the word "any"

I do however accept any opinions you may have in this regard as your own even though they are impossible to comply with.

Meanwhile let's see what the official investigators recommend

Even though @amicus is quite committed to getting his message across and obviously has a strong (yet apparently not totally un-founded) opinion on this topic I have to admit that as it is today I would not be really comfortable in a 787 on a North Atlantic Crossing or an ETOPS 210+ across the Pacific.

Just ask yourself: Would you?

I for one refuse to fly on B787.
No fire insulation on the top part of the fuselage:ugh:...

Lithium Ion batteries have NO business inside any aircraft, and especially not connected to any system.:ugh:

I urge the travelling public not to fly on this type of aircraft until these worries have been adressed by eliminating them, not by caging them:ugh:

AFAIK: All the 406 ELT's use lithium batteries, not just Honeywell's. They are also in the ULB's (pinger) The FMS's for memory retention....they are all over the place. But the ELT is the only place I can think of where they are in a plastic box, not metal.

I obviously like the ELT theory, since it was my 1st thought, but I hope MurphyWasRight is on to something, that some other thing heated the ELT to the point of failure. The thought of an AD on every 406 ELT makes me shudder. :sad:

I'd fly it tomorrow

amicus

Why would it make any difference by having insulation when all the occupants of an aircraft that has a 550 degree fire would be incinerated long before the fuselage could burn through.

To all of you who think that having a problem with an elt is a big setback for Boeing, you obviously know nothing about aircraft.

The elt is not connected to the aircraft wiring and the elt in the main cabin would be contained inside a life raft !!!

despegue:
You do realise that on every commercial flight the pax will be bringing aboard dozens to hundreds of Lithium Ion batteries in their mobiles, tablets and laptops?

Honeywell supplies quite a variety of items on the 787:

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps8b015c84.jpg

Good; all the more room for me to stretch out. Also less chance of sitting beside some know-it-all getting lectured about something they know nothing about.

JFZ90
 

What are you on about, this thread is a serious issue not a please pay attention pax to our safety demonstration!

By the way I was less than 100 feet from that 787 in a bus going to the BA 0500 flight to Lisbon on Friday morning!

Repeat.

More simply:- why would the ELT have any power when the ac is parked?