Edited to Correct: This reference is to Ethiopian 777 Crew Rest Area.

I found a picture of the Crew Rest Area, attributed as being from Ethiopian 777.

Go to Post 217 on this link.

ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES DEVELOPMENT NEWS - Page 11 - SkyscraperCity

Don't worry, a Boeing fix is on the way, they are encasing the crew rest area in a titanium box....

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. :ouch:

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.

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?

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.

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

...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.

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...

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

@ILS27LEFT

The APU fuel line runs below the floor nowhere near the (external) firedamage is visible.

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?

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.

...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.

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.

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.

I am sure the recent BBC live programmes from Heathrow said there are two fire stations there, probably for reasons like that.

amicusVery 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?

Well, I had no idea but found this on p2 of Google

Chemical Component FST

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...