Amicus was vocal on the issue in 2011 when LOT had the unfortunate wheels up landing.

See http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post6784032

Edited to say: Amicus was vocal as far back as 2007...!! Search for his enlightening posts ...

A quick question - what UK agency does the official investigation on an event such as this?

The Toulouse A340 runup accident was classified as an industrial accident, not an aviation accident, and thus BEA did not do the final report. Similarly, in the US, it would probably be OSHA and not NTSB doing the official investigation.

Fox News is reporting that investigators have determined that the fire was not electrical related....

Hmmmmmm....

It does not fall under the AAIB definition of an "Accident" - the definition is less clear as to what is a "Serious Incident".

The AAIB have said:and in the 1996 Regs it says:which gives the AAIB powers to investigate even outside the strict definitions...

According to AAIB:
I think the main doubt would be: was there anybody on board with the intention of flight?

On a similar case, the American Airlines B767 uncontained engine failure in Los Angeles on June 2, 2006, NTSB conducted the investigation, even if there was no intention of flight.

A and C
It seems we have come full circle, back to Wilbur and Orville.

Eight figures ranges from about 6% of the cost to just over 60% of the cost of a new bird. ;)

Somebody who once worked for Boeing wrote ...
I think you mean "beaucoup" (as in "a lot") which is pronounced in American slang (origin I think US military slang, Viet Nam era) to sound like "boo coo" or 'bo coo" ... but maybe it goes back to some Cajun/Coonass slang from Louisiana ...

Or maybe have I missed a new slang term and its origin, yet again. :P

Composite repair: it appears to be a growing field of endeavour as more and more of our airframes, rotary and fixed wing, are made of something other than metal.

Composite Structures
 

One mustn't forget that composite primary structure on aircraft has been around for a LONG time, e.g. A300-600 with CFRP fin entered service in 1983.

@Lonewolf_50:

Correct. Accordingly, EXCEEDING eight figures means costing more than about 60%; and FAR EXCEEDING eight figures means costing a lot more than 60% ;)

Unless repair would require equipment only available at the factory, I would be a bit in awe, to learn that a team with a 100 million dollar budget could find no way to accomplish it.

This is Boeing's chance to demonstrate the repairability of their new construction -- if they fail, their customers (or perhaps, their customers' insurance companies) will have to count the increased financial risk of hull write-off as a factor in the cost of operating such planes.

@robertbartsch:

Leaving to one side the journalistic standards of Fox News ... perhaps the concept of battery-related somehow got mangled into electricity-related? A full pack of dim bulbs...

SRMmam
 

Composite airframes have been around for a lot longer than that ! To the best of my knowlage the first composite repair to primary structure was carried out in the UK in 1965.

An opportunity to excel. :ok: Let's see how they respond ...

Two reasons.

1. The internet and immediate news was not so widespread...............

2. 340s hadn't already had a history of catching fire:{:{................

Maybe third and fourth reasons:
3. Too loud advertising campaign, manipulative name, self-applause. Very nice, good, promising and interesting plane but overweighted with unbalanced ovations, superlatives, glorifying....
4. Increased economy at the expense of safety...?

Sorry for o/t

A clue - Honeywell involved in investigation
 

Foxnews reports

Reports: Honeywell Part Eyed in 787 Fire Probe
Jul 15, 2013 2:15 PM EDT


Investigators are looking at an emergency locator transmitter built by Honeywell International Inc (NYSE:HON) as the possible cause of a fire on board a Boeing Co (NYSE:BA) Dreamliner in London last week, according to a source familiar with the probe.

The transmitter uses a lithium manganese battery, said the source, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Honeywell confirmed earlier that it was participating in the UK-led investigation into a fire on a 787 operated by Ethiopian Airlines at Heathrow airport outside London on Friday.

Experts have said lithium-ion batteries likely did not cause Friday's fire, allaying fears about a return of the problem that grounded the Dreamliner for more than three months earlier this year, when one battery caught fire and another overheated.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

Surely the ELT would not have been turned on?

So if a few $Ks of ELT were to just about destroy $00Ms of 787, what do our Aircraft Designer readers have to add?

Should an ELT be shielded? The fuselage about it be shielded? Could an ELT battery really cause this much damage itself... or has it "set light to" the fuselage? What would an Aluminium fuselage do?

Is the 787 ELT pretty "standard"? Or has it been made lighter/riskier as part of the 787 weight shedding programs?

All, of course, in the hypothetical case it is anything to do with the ELT ;)

If this is confirmed and the battery was starting point then it is truly becoming a nightmare, and not only for Boeing and this perticular type.:uhoh:

Amicus. Could you please shed some light on the following. What temperature could one reasonably expect from, say, a laptop catching fire in an overhead locker, and its possibility of reaching a dangerous temperature for the upper fuselage? I ask as a concerned observer, having logged many hours flying, but all in metal aeroplanes.

That would be indeed kind of - ooouuuchh.

The ELT being only allowed to be transported by ground, just to be installed in a critical and hardly accesible Location in a 'plastic' aircraft really takes the cake. :}

I'm not a believer in coincidence. How many other aircraft could have had a Honeywell ELT let go? What, if anything, is different about this installation?