Ethiopean 787 fire at Heathrow
 

Both runways apparently closed, ATIS saying AFRS Cat Zero.

Pilots are being asked for preferred alternative airports - something to do with "fire cover"??

lots of aircraft holding and a BA 320 has just diverted to Luton

The word on Tw*tter is that it's an Ethiopian Airlines aircraft on fire.

Posted on Tw*tter:

https://twitter.com/DaPakiGuy/status...943234/photo/1

R4 saying Ethiopian Airlines

Hearing talk of Ethiopian 787 fire?!?

@HeathrowAirport "Due to an incident on an aircraft, arrivals and departures are currently suspended. @metpoliceuk advise that no passengers are on board."

@FlightRadar24 "Latest reports says it's Ethiopian 787 ET-AOP"

sky news showing ethiopian airlines 787. saying fire towards the rear of aircraft. looks as though it is out now. could it be the infamous electrical panel in the back????

Sky news currently showing live footage from helicopter of the aircraft parked at gate, entry doors on RHS open (no slides), no signs of damage certainly to RHS but lots of water/foam on the ramp below the aircraft and fire crews in attendance but no obvious signs of "urgency".

Crews now appear to be carefully examining lower rear RHS of aircraft with ladder in place against hull side but hold doors remain closed.

Also a TOM 787 returning to MAN after holding for 3 hours over the Irish Sea. Just flown downwind and had his gear down at about 6000 feet. Not sure how long it's been down for but could point to a hydraulic issue. The Daily Mail's going to have a field day over this.

Why close the airport if plane at the gate and fire is out?

lack of fire cover and foam.

The little details that are so easily forgotten - by those who don't work in that environment.

Doubtful that they'd deploy foam (or water) unless there was an active fire. That's more likely to delay it getting back in the air.

@lookingforajob

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps98964653.jpg

foam there?

@skytrax
 

Runways are closed because in the event of another emergency, fire crews would be unavailable as they are dealing with the current situation.

The fire damaged hole in its roof near the tailplane will probably do more to delay it getting into the air again!
What is under there?

It looks from the photo (and I realise that appearances can be deceptive) like a pretty minor event, quite surprised that an airfield the size of LHR can't cope with that and still provide enough fire cover to at least keep one runway open.

But if it had happened in flight ... ?

Give them a break! When the alarm goes and the tenders are sent out, there isn't time to start asking if it is a little, medium of big fire.

I'm sure they will have everything back to normal as soon as is technically possible, positioning sectors from Luton are not good for anyone, nor are empty departure lounges.

One commentator already said fire not relating to previous 787 issues, but I wonder how much damage there is that can't be seen. Thankfully no injuries reported, but a hull loss so early on would not be good for the type.

Maybe other fire services attending another event on the airport (just suggesting)?

Thomson 788 G-TUIC has also just returned to Manchester nearly a quarter of the way enroute to Orlando with as yet unknown issue, the 787 has had some pretty bad days..

BBC footage in last 10 mins clearly shows charring, possibly even fuse burn through on the fuse crown, immediately forward of the vertical fin.

The obvious question - are the batteries there or further back and lower down, nearer the APU?

From what I understand, Boeing has said there has never been a 787 that has caught on fire before. :ugh:

EDIT: Boeing stock immediately dropped 7%

R4 report Thomson say that the Manchester flight incident is unrelated to what has happened at Heathrow.

Burn marks not evident on starboard side:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...130712_BA3.jpg

Unbelievable!!!!! :mad: :eek: If I am not mistaken, Ethiopian conducted its own repairs on its 787 fleet and got them into the air the quickest of any airline.

Fingers crossed this does not shut down the 787 flying again....

If that is hull damage from 'whatever fire' then:

1. 787 gets bad Press again.
2. I will not fly on one.

Looking at the damaged area (about 1-2 meters on the topside in front of the fin) and bearing in mind this is composite, how will they repair that?

I saw a fair few incidents in my time at Heathrow, including aircraft accidents, but I never saw the place closed. Bizarre.

It appears the damage is directly above the overhead crew rest cabin.

maybe a better pictures?

http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/...%20Air/etz.jpg

Have you ever read the requirements?

i haven't for years, but I doubt that LHR has the 300% cover you are imagining.

Runways now open at Heathrow.

Anyone know if that is directly over the rear galley, forward of the rear galley or is there a rear galley on a 787? Thus possibly a galley fire?

You wouldn't expect batteries there in most other types but I have no idea for the 787.

The aircraft was reported to be either being prepared to be towed or had been towed.

Battery located in aft electronics bay wherever that is?

There is a difference between the airport being 'closed' and commerical airlines being unable to land or depart due to lack of fire cover.

Do ET have the rear crew rest loft fitted because the scorch marks would be about right if they do?

APU batteries are located in the in the aft eebay. There are no batteries at the fire location in the crown afaik