- anyone able to post the assets at LHR? Was extinguishant discharged at the PIA incident?

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?

I would not like to be in that situation.

You could end up in deep sh*t just because a coffee cup or an ELT has caught fire in a Boeing 787 on a remote stand at Heathrow.

I had a lovely glass fibre aircraft once...



http://www.funfly.co.uk/images/KISS.jpg

FF

Well, the rudder looks OK!

That's what the Pre-Accident Plan sets into motion - ATC knows the given airport is closed to traffic and executes the established plan to divert flights to nearby (and there are several in the London area) airports. It's the controllers' job to sort out fuel issues. If a pilot failed to adequately plan his fuel, or if winds were greater than forecast, ATC will assist as necessary. In fact, ATC will begin diverting aircraft long before they are "committed" to make room for those that are already committed.

Again, there are sentient life forms in abundance beyond the wing tips, no less the cockpit.

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.

My guess also.

I am eternally grateful that I always worked for an employer who always allowed me to carry a sensible amount of fuel.

As bean counters (try to) micromanage that more in the future (and why should anyone believe otherwise, given trends to date?) one can see the misgivings in your post manifest themselves into some difficult realities for more than a few flight deck crews. :suspect:

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. :cool:

I was a passenger on an Iberia/Vueling flight that had pushed back at around 1630. Before taxying, at about 1640 the captain shut down the engines and announced we were delayed by an aircraft that had just landed and had one (or was it two) burst tyres ahead of us. I presume this was the PIA incident. We were delayed by about 80 minutes in total when the 787 incident came on top of that and we saw the aircraft in question on taxi for takeoff.

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.

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?

"Story" on possible removing of the ELT's

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]

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.

Many aircraft have portable ELT's vs "installed" ones...

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!

Folks,
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.

Fire/incendiary investigations often can be the toughest to crack specially if one looks for a 'root cause'. Six days is absolutely nothing. I would argue that a 'root cause' of TWA800 fire/explosion was never found - only the best theory was adopted after years of futile attempts trying to reproduce events. Did they ever find root cause of the 787 batteries fires/failures - NO. I wouldn't be surprised if the preliminary report in this case will offer temporary recommendations and investigation will continue.

At what point does co-incidence in tandem with the lack of understanding with the prior electrical issues fail to provide comfort for the FAA/CAA/EASA?