I think he was being sarcastic.

maybe.

Not being sarcastic.

It's one thing to have an active investigation with a timeline. Quite another to have a pseudo investigation with no time line when it comes to high value assets.

If you leave this open then you will quickly have no industry to investigate.

We may have different opinions but I see no data to support frozen high value assets without a time line.

It is possible but I see slim to zero chance it will uncover anything new or significantly change the current findings, otherwise we would have known by now.

"Detailed examination of the ELT and the possible mechanisms for the initiation and sustaining of the fire in this aircraft continues. Further updates on progress will be published as appropriate."

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...3%20ET-AOP.pdf

Sounds like an open investigation to me.

Re: Ethiopian 787 'Queen of Sheba' | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Is it me, or have the once clearly visible scorch marks at the base of the fin disappeared?

http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/...3/07/snip6.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2881/9...c02e76cb_c.jpg

white speedtape........

Or Krylon rattle-can spray paint :rolleyes:

Even right after the fire, it doesn't look like the damage was very visible from the starboard side:
http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-co...eg-640x351.jpg

Agree


but using what required resources. Are they by demand (impounding) or as available under some terms of agreement?

With ref the 787 that is parked up on stand 616 in cargo, there is a pile of scaffolding on the ground to erect so they can start some sort of work,

watch this space over the next few days for something to happen !!!

The fact that the a/c has been on the ground for lo these many $$$$ suggests that someone thinks there is something important to learn. Yet another 787 surprise for Boeing engineers to unwrap?

Your own guesswork.

It was recently explained in an article in AW&ST that Boeing is working with Ethiopian and insurer to come up with the best fix and a lot of engineering work is required.

Even though the investigation is ongoing I doubt (and I am sticking with it) anything new will be learned about the fire since there would be plenty of leaks by now.

The 787 haters must wait for something else ...

There probably is quite a bit to learn from this accident in the direction of structural repair techniques for CFRP.

I'll expect that the engineers are hard at work inventing and testing new techniques for restoring heat damaged CFRP structure. Perhaps even something other than just cutting the damaged structure away and replacing it.

Then there are going to be a lot of damaged internal systems in the vicinity of the fire that will need outright replacement and thus will need to be procured.

The first reassures me, not, is it the engineers or the beancounters driving this "fix"?
The second is just :yuk: SLF, like me now, don't hate the 787, we are just, shall we say, apprehensive about flying on one.

Den, the fixed costs should be readily estimated......cost of capital to finance aircraft......cost of time -constrained maint/overhaul/replacement
depreciation.
Fluid costs are storage and admin (plus lawyers?)

Assets are the reusable components/contents of the hull, less cost of dismantling and removal.

Bean-counters will want a big gap between the projected cost of re-commissioning and net revenue from breaking.
the repaired hull may well have a reduced resale value but that's not relevant as the owner would tend to use it's full life in revenue service (this (ethiopian) would produce the same return as a non-repaired hull)

The longer it sits, the more the gap in viability of repair shrinks. Remember, the "industry" surrounding the loss/ repair all want paying, as does the airport.

Rome /Nero / Fiddle /Burn (highly appropriate under the circumstances :\ )

Steve,

Seems to me the gap shrinks significantly only if you know in advance that the aircraft will sit for an extended period before repairs begin. If the repair decision is made (or reconsidered) at the end of the waiting period, the storage/debt service/etc. costs are sunk and have to be subtracted from either the salvage value or the value of the repaired hull.

If the engineers are busy inventing and testing repair techniques, as has been suggested, does this mean they are going to use the plane and SLF as a flying test bench?

IF they do scrap it, its not going to be cheap.

All that yummy carbon fibre with no home to go to.

I'd have thought there were two main options:

1. Repair what they can in-situ, then add enough strengthening inside and outside to make it airworthy (but ugly). Fly it empty and depressurised to Boeing or somewhere that can do the job properly in a controlled environment. This will probably involve the replacement of a large section of the fuselage with a new construct.

2. Attempt to get it back to 'showroom standard' while it's parked outside at LHR during the winter (if they can't hire some hangar space). Largely a voyage into the unknown, I'd guess.

C/Steve, I understand.
Whichever way one looks at it though, this is going to be costly for Boeing.
I hope they succeed in overcoming their problems, Thomson's 787's go over me at around FL 15-20 and they look nice through the video amps :)