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:

"Limited" visible damage on the outside maybe, but what does it look like on the inside, given it's burnt through the skin?

Curious - other than not using Li-on batteries, what differences in terms of build / construction are there between a 787 and an A350? Do the same concerns exist?

Mcginty engineering confirm boeing in discussion to retrofit Mk I solid mahogany Li-on battery containment structure within 787 section 47.

http://www.designfax.net/news/archiv...703df-401a.jpg

Lead airlines evaluating minor performance penalty:ooh:

Joking aside, does anyone else remember the first 70 or so 777s delivered with Carbon pax cabin floor beams connected to flight deck aluminium floor beams? Thermal expansion was not identified in the design or test phase as an issue and as it turned out the launch customers became the guinea pigs for revolutionary weight saving ideas. Ultimately, Boeing paid out. Instead, manufacture a four engined, 3 crew aircraft crafted from Stainless Steel and arrange payment to launch customers for several years free fuel. Huzzah.

Initial BBC reports as I posted before said the airframe was being prepared to be towed having been parked for 8 hours. Engineering daily checks before being moved?

This report says Metropolitan Police are treating the fire as "suspicious":-

Ethopian B787 Fire

You will need to find the thumbnail titled "Heathrow airport closed after Dreamliner fire" (3:13 in length)

Something burning in the crew sleep station could have been accidental or deliberate but the PR damage has been done fault or no-fault of the manufacturer.

If this had happened at altitude would it have led to explosive decompression?

If you read that rather dreadful site Airliners net, it has been agreed that ET do not have a rest area in the rear for cabin crew, only fwd for FD crew.

For this to be an electrical resistance caused fire, I would first have to believe that some Boeing engineer was so incompetent that he was unable to read a very basic chart that defines the wire/cable size required to handle x current (amps) over y distance (feet). Additionally, if the aircraft were powered down, how much current would be flowing through these circuits? Are there circuits in the area of the burn (e.g. ELT) that are left live and do they carry enough of a load to generate the resistance/heat to trigger combustion? Once again, I would find it incredibly unlikely that the cables wouldn't be sized for the current loads.

So much naive speculation.

Any fire on a plane is a serious fire and requires a full turn-out.
It's only a small fire after it has been contained, and before then could have involved full fuel tanks going up.
The fire crews can only deal with one incident at a time, so the airport closes.
Or would you be prepare to pay for double crewing and equipment that is never used?

It's a public relations disaster.
Just the sort of incident Boeing did not want with this aircraft.
Look a the share price nosedive.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/m...bel_spacing=30

Imagine the marketing guys trying to sell with images like this?
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...0_68706149.jpg

The Dreamliner is fast becoming a nightmare for Boeing.

To clarify locations of crew bunks and batteries on 787-8:


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps9a247a6c.jpg

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps4ffafd62.jpg

He/she and all the peer reviewers, line managers etc. would also be pretty incompetent not to protect the wire/cable (in the old days we used to call it a 'circuit breaker', probably its got a more important name now ;)).

Have you seen how quickly a small aircraft fire can turn into a large one? What's more this one is made of plastic and a new type, that has had well publicized battery overheating problems. Finally it is parked next to buildings and other aircraft.

I would say that they did absolutely the right thing. I also think Boeing will be very grateful that a) we are not looking at pictures of a charred wreck (whatever the cause) and b) there should be little enough damage to be able to determine exactly what went wrong.

Postman Plod

I read somewhere the A350 has a higher percentage of composite use than the 787. I was a little surprised.

I have often wondered about how many airport firecrew members get to go through an entire career without every being called out to a live incident. I hope there are loads of them. However, wondering is all I do, because I understand why they are there, and they are part of the reason why the airline industry is so safe.

So to hear repeatedly on this thread that this is just a "minor" problem, or that they should use "common sense" is frankly getting rather tedious. :ugh::ugh:


By the same logic, let's have an option button on 999 so that in addition to police / fire / ambulance, you also get to pre-determine whether it is trivial, serious or life threatening. Daft? Of course it is, so why do you expect any different at Heathrow? Is there not also the small question of smoke from a fire meaning loss of visibility?

The whole point of contacting the emergency services is that you let the experts make any decisions about when it is safe to return to normal. One report said LHR's runways were operational again after about an hour. That sounds pretty good to me, well done to all concerned - and time for the ill-informed to show some appreciation of that.

I thought a PIA incident had first triggered the emergency services to a stand then the Friday Fryer erupted.

Airport closed due firefighters from both runways dealing with potential airside incidents.

In hindsight.........!

There was another fire incident happening at the same time with a 777.
Highly trained and experienced professionals knew that a third incident at the same time could not be handled adequately.
How many simultaneous fire incidents should Heathrow be able to handle?

I like to fly safe so am happy at the closure. Less happy about plastic aeroplanes. I can see 777 orders ramping up.

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

Ethiopian 787, empty and parked away from gates for 8 hrs, no incident. It's prepped for towing and then smoke/fire is discovered?

I find this very suspicious.:confused:

Fire brigades have always worked on a worse case scenario basis. A minor fire in a waste paper basket at an oil refinery might get something like a dozen appliances on the way immediately, another dozen following within ten minutes etc. I would think they do similar with an aircraft fire and treat it as if it was full of passengers and full fuelled up rather than wait whilst they make a few telephone calls first to check. With all fires they like to be absolutely sure they are completely out before leaving the scene.

Per Boeing website...

RFFS Experts?!
 

I thought it was bad enough when uninformed "pprunexperts" pontificated about knowing better than those with real knowledge. Now I've got to put up with people Monday-quarterbacking firefighters? FFS! :ugh:

If you had a tube full of smoke, 2 hot spots & no clear ignition source, your plan would be to tip out just 1 appliance from the fire service? So would you be the firefighter donning breathing apparatus to go in & tackle the fire? Or are you the bloke reaching for the remote control to pause Sky News whilst you put the tea on?

So, FlatSpin, RexBanner - which are you?