FST = Fire, Smoke, Toxicity (I think!)

Re:FST
 

Perhaps this will help: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2012218081.pdf

And the fuselage and frames that you are forgetting. Self ignition of the epoxy is a mere 580 degrees F.

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

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.

Re amicus's interesting: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?

Just read this: Not sure when this problem had been identified.

Investigators probe 787 fire at Heathrow - FT.com

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.

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?

Looks like an extensive repair similar EK's A340 - patch it & fly unpressurised back to USA for whole section replacement

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 :eek: it would not be impossible

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.

@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.

agree
 

Totally agree, but why right inside cabin crew rest area then?

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.

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.

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!)

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!

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:eek: limited damage.

I would not want to breath in smoke from carbon or go anywhere near the ashes, nasty nasty stuff :sad: