Heathrow shut after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire

If this latest fire is not battery-related, is that better or worse for boeing? Teething problems shouldn't include spontaneous fires from multiple sources. Boeing has been extremely lucky so far with this thing (in terms of no fires at altitude with passengers aboard)

 

If it was a crew error, then the image issue will be with Ethiopian, otherwise ....

 

I missed it. Either way it's inaccurate, this specific bird has been airborne since mid-May.

 

If a fire started at the APU battery location in the bottom RH side of the airplane you would see signs of that fire up the RH side of the A/P, NOT on the aft upper left hand side of the crown.

To have a fire travel through the center of the A/P, through the floor system, galleys, lavs and ceiling panels to scorch the crown without leaving a sign anywhere else on the outside of the airplane is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

 

You beat me to the punch. I'm no fire chief, but have had to diagnose and repair plenty of fire related incident's in automobiles, and I can tell you fire and heat are like a kid with sticky fingers, they leave evidence where ever they travel.

No way IMHO could a fire propagate from the area below the galley where the battery in located to the roof without everything else in between becoming damaged

 

I agree - but here is the deal: They got grounded for battery fires - supposedly fixed it - and yet now one of the "fixed" aircraft caught fire (on the ground, no less) for apparently NO GOOD REASON. The public will not care if it was the battery or the microwave ovens.

This does a control-alt-C reset on the 787 problem record with both the authorities and the general public. On top of the completely unrelated 777 accident in San Francisco - bad news for Boeing. Bad news for the U.S. passenger jet industry.

 

Just heard on the news... radio.

Heathrow just announced that the fire was NOT related to the battery.

They declined at the moment to place blame for the fire, but not battery.

 

You'll know when you read in the Business section above that people are shorting Boeing stock......

 

Somebody that works for Airbus.

GT

 

The public wont know and wont care, because they wont know the difference between a 787 and a Cessna 172. All they care about is getting where they are going. I'm sure airbus will start a huge "don't fly Boeing" media campaign.
Boeing should start a " if a French car isn't safe enough for American roads, why would you fly in their planes"
If I recall a ton of 458's caught fire for the first year (design fault imho) that they where out but people still lining up to by them.

 

True... but once they fixed the problem it never came back. If it did, I think the results would have been different.

Boeing has an image problem with this plane. They need to get on it.

 

Neither of those things will happen.

Airbus won't do that.

Boeing won't do that.

They both live in 'glass houses'. Neither company is without fault.

 

oops, the ELT has a lithium battery.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yikes.

 

When a 787 catches fire you can't pull over and get out

 

The 787 has been designed to only catch fire when its on the ramp and with no one in it.
Clever folks are the Boeing boys and girls

 

I wonder if an aluminum skinned aircraft would have had holes burned through like that. I would imagine the conductivity of heat, and thus spreading the load, is better with metal.

 

Yes, plenty of evidence of similar damage from small localized fires on aluminum aircraft.
Accident: Egyptair B772 at Cairo on Jul 29th 2011, cockpit fire

 

There aren't any holes burned through; all the pics show is charred paint on the 'roof'.

Look at the first page of this thread.

There may be CF damage (certainly there is) but there are not any holes.

 

Ethiopian 787 Fire Update: FAA To Order Inspection But Not Removal of 787 ELTs - Forbes

EASA takes proactive stance while FAA hesitates. In this day and age the ELT is really a redundant piece of equipment on a modern airliner. Seems like a no-brainer to 'make it inert' until investigation is complete.

 

I was thinking the same thing... not needed any longer in commercial airliners?

But, to be safe, wouldn't you need to remove it, not just disconnect it?

 

Remove the battery, which I believe it what they mean by making it inert.

 

ANA found 2 ELT's with damaged battery wires on there 787's.

Japan's ANA finds damaged battery wires on Boeing Dreamliner locator beacons

 

They're still needed in certain cases. These planes will be flying long overwater routes and there isn't radar coverage out there.

Try to find a submerged airplane without an ELT in the middle of an Ocean. Sometimes, in the case of AF447, the ELT isn't even enough.