GT.. Only in Fairyland would anyone miss the implications for ETOPS...

You are the first one who had the b---s to bring it up.... :ok:

keel beam.... There is a monumental possibility the implications will be missed if a solution is really that simple. For now, explanations are being tested that have to do with wishing and hoping, both that there is a simple fix, and/or, the problem is at least seen that way....or that the 'creation' of a separate headache will diminish the import of the real deal.

Fire has nought to do with teething... If it was simple, it would not have happened the first time. It is either too expensive, too complicated, or too time consuming to remedy with an "Ah-HAH".

My first impression, with Laredo, was a systemic, or design issue.... Space weight and cost are the goblins of a/c design; throw in safety and reliability, and the designers are simply incarnations of Merlin, the alchemist. Their degree is in magic, as much as anything else.

It is forgivable, that new aircraft will have issues. But that does not make the problems acceptable. Especially fire. I am not telling tales, and I hope with all my heart the aircraft is soon as dependable and profitable as the Fat One.

Cheers, they're on it....

Lyman

Yes a simple solution, but I do agree that a thorough investigation is required, leaving no stone unturned.

I think more disturbing is that though Boeing appeared to have a similar incident with one of their test aircraft a year or two back, the problem arises again. Clearly not as simple a solution as I may have implicated!

The WSJ reported a short while ago online that UA has discovered "wiring issues" with one of its 787s after inspecting them following the gate fire on the JAL 787 in BOS yesterday.

Earlier, it reported that the same bay was involved in the November 2010 test aircraft fire and the recent UA emergency landing in MSY. It speculated that the ETOPs certification was at risk.

SeenItAll, the fuel leak incident at BOS today has already been reported in reply #38 and minutes later in #39.

Here's an update from Reuters: UPDATE 3-Boeing 787 with fuel leak returns to gate in Boston | Reuters

Boeing stock is down . . . big surprise!

Today's aircraft, the one involved in the fuel leak, did eventually depart BOS Logan after a three hour delay.

There should be some tower communication with the aircraft on this link:

Second Japan Airlines plane stopped before takeoff at Logan | Metro News - WCVB Home

Fire on board, just what you need central Pacific.

I won't be paxing on these things anytime soon.

A320 doesn't catch fire and we know it can land on water.

Not the 330...

The A330 deserves little slack. It is too old to still be coming up with gotchas.
I cannot wait to greet the 350. We need progress desperately.

I'm still Boeing all the way vs Airbust. Always a kink or two in a radical new design. Boeing always comes out on top though. Thing is with Airbus, at best they are junk IMO. Pilots like them sometimes though and that is because they have no idea what is actually going on within an Airbus.

The NTSB have a link to a photograph of the affected area on their twitter feed

Apologies for feeding the troll.

Temp Spike

"Thing is with Airbus, at best they are junk IMO" and other random crap.

In your opinion perhaps....

Have a word with yourself sunshine, you're embarrassing.

For my part, I absolutely reject such drivel....

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAHpuT_CIAAgjPn.jpg:large

Pic.?
 

Is that pic. the 787 test aircraft incident in Texas a few years ago, or yesterday's incident at Logan?

The NTSB are saying that it isthe JAL aircraft.

CT Yankee...the Seattle news is reporting that the image shown in that post is NTSB investigator Robert Swaim evaluating the damage to the 787 Dreamliner in Boston on Jan. 8, 2013. (Photo: National Transportation Safety Board)

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Boeing is confirming that a fire on one of its new 787s appears to have started in a battery, as scrutiny of the problem increases.

Also Tuesday, the National Transportation Safety Board said it will send two more investigators to Boston to examine the Japan Airlines plane. The NTSB says the battery had "severe fire damage."

The fire happened on the ground Monday, with no passengers on board. But in-flight fires can be catastrophic, so the matter is getting close scrutiny by aviation authorities.

United Airlines says it checked its own 787s overnight. It would not say what the inspections found, but the Wall Street Journal reported the airline found improperly installed wiring on one of its 787s.

Boeing says the problem appears to be unrelated to previous electrical problems on the 787. Boeing Co. shares have fallen nearly 5 percent since the fire was reported.

It was the first of two issues this week involving a Japan Airlines 787 in Boston.

Massachusetts Port Authority spokesman Richard Walsh said the Boeing 787 was towed back to the gate for evaluation early Tuesday afternoon after about 40 gallons of fuel spilled. He said the plane had 178 passengers and 11 crew members on board.

A JAL spokeswoman said the crew reported a "mechanical issue" before returning to the gate.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...r-united-8.jpg