View Full Version : Another one bites the dust (787)
Heathrow closed due to 'Dreamliner fire'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760
Tchocky
07-12-13, 12:36 PM
It was already busy in here, then everyone heading for Heathrow needed a new place to land. I'll be glad when this shift is over.
It was already busy in here, then everyone heading for Heathrow needed a new place to land. I'll be glad when this shift is over.
Aye, last thing you needed. At least it's open again now, but the backlog must be horrendous.
When you're done, unwind with this if you haven't already heard it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbUNzi58wM
Jimbuna
07-12-13, 01:41 PM
Aye, last thing you needed. At least it's open again now, but the backlog must be horrendous.
When you're done, unwind with this if you haven't already heard it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbUNzi58wM
One of the greatest :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBca1ixoEbg
Skybird
07-12-13, 02:56 PM
1. Servicestaff mindlessly leaving behind a burning cigarette
2. Sabotage
3. Electric system, batteries
What option shall it be for you to bet your money on?
:O:
Tchocky
07-12-13, 03:12 PM
Aye, last thing you needed. At least it's open again now, but the backlog must be horrendous.
When you're done, unwind with this if you haven't already heard it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbUNzi58wM
That's one to bookmark cheers :up:
Just home, its very much beer o'clock.
It was during a fairly busy period for our Western sectors that we got word about Heathrow. Details were few but you explain to the pilots what you know and what their options are. Leave the decision of where to go to the Captain. They make their decision and then it's up to us to get them there. We get word from London about how much space is available and how many diversions certain fields can accept. Gatwick for example is single-runway so it fills up fast. A busy traffic situation becomes busier quickly, workload goes up very fast. Heathrow usually operates at around 99% capacity so the effect of an incident there multiplies out faster than at most hubs.
Plenty of Heathrow traffic headed into Schiphol or Brussels, the BA Berlin flight turned around and went back to Berlin, I don't know if the crew had enough hours to get up in the air later once Heathrow opened. Everything went as it should and downstream sectors were relaying the information to Heathrow inbounds so they could plan well in advance. Still though, busy period :)
As for what caused it, no idea. Pictures look like fire either ate through the top of the fuselage (nowhere near the batteries) or possibly it's just the paint peeling and bubbling from the heat. I'm not sure how CFRP reacts to fire. Not good for Boeing.
HundertzehnGustav
07-12-13, 03:35 PM
bites the dust?
goes up in flames!
:D
That's one to bookmark cheers :up:
Just home, its very much beer o'clock.
It was during a fairly busy period for our Western sectors that we got word about Heathrow. Details were few but you explain to the pilots what you know and what their options are. Leave the decision of where to go to the Captain. They make their decision and then it's up to us to get them there. We get word from London about how much space is available and how many diversions certain fields can accept. Gatwick for example is single-runway so it fills up fast. A busy traffic situation becomes busier quickly, workload goes up very fast. Heathrow usually operates at around 99% capacity so the effect of an incident there multiplies out faster than at most hubs.
Plenty of Heathrow traffic headed into Schiphol or Brussels, the BA Berlin flight turned around and went back to Berlin, I don't know if the crew had enough hours to get up in the air later once Heathrow opened. Everything went as it should and downstream sectors were relaying the information to Heathrow inbounds so they could plan well in advance. Still though, busy period :)
As for what caused it, no idea. Pictures look like fire either ate through the top of the fuselage (nowhere near the batteries) or possibly it's just the paint peeling and bubbling from the heat. I'm not sure how CFRP reacts to fire. Not good for Boeing.
Bet you folks will be breathing a sigh of relief whenever we get either Boris Island or the new runway at Heathrow sorted. I've seen the flights at Heathrow, it's like watching a clock, no sooner has one touched down then another one is on finals, and one behind that, it's like a giant conveyor belt from ground to the sky, absolutely amazing and a credit to the unseen conductors on the ATC. :salute:
Jimbuna
07-12-13, 04:07 PM
Bet you folks will be breathing a sigh of relief whenever we get either Boris Island or the new runway at Heathrow sorted. I've seen the flights at Heathrow, it's like watching a clock, no sooner has one touched down then another one is on finals, and one behind that, it's like a giant conveyor belt from ground to the sky, absolutely amazing and a credit to the unseen conductors on the ATC. :salute:
Bloody right, every time I fly (usually from Terminal 5) I'm amazed at the constant low of traffic.
BrucePartington
07-12-13, 04:07 PM
1. Servicestaff mindlessly leaving behind a burning cigarette
2. Sabotage
3. Electric system, batteries
What option shall it be for you to bet your money on?
:O:
I'd go with the 3rd being the most likely, although the 1st is also plausible.
There are more electrical wires running along the cabin of a commercial aircraft than most people realise. One possible hazardous area is the galley, where flight attendants have to heat up meals and water for coffee and tea. That takes a lot of wattage, which in turn creates heat and fries insulation.
http://imageshack.us/a/img194/4796/1f0c.jpg
Skybird
07-13-13, 05:45 AM
Almost missed by the news is that at the same time the event at Heathrow took place, another 787 by Thompson Airways was in trouble, too, and enroute to Florida returned in midflight to its airport at Manchester. Reports by passengers indicated they had problems with - you guess what: electrical systems aboard, indicated by malfunctions with the toilets, which also are electrically run, as are the windows (to darken them) and so many other things aboard this over-electrified jet.
The 787 must be the first burn-by-wire jet in history. :D
That thing must be grounded. It is not mature. The electrical conception is a shot into the oven, as we say in German: a fail. I would not fly with it, that is for sure. I rate the risk at the same ranks like a drunk Russian province pilot.
I won't be surprised if this sort of electrification will be industry standard in few years.
Pushing the envelope always comes with problems , in this case a lot of lives are at hand so lets hope Boeing solve all the problems without taking unnecessary risks by pushing those plane into service.
Skybird
07-13-13, 08:49 AM
But they already push the envelope, they already have pushed the planes into service. They did demand to be allowed to fly the planes again although he analysis of the electrical system showed that they could not replicate the errors and faults causing fires, and they could not say why and what makes it happen, they only encapsuled the batteries more tightly than before. And this although not few planes anymore can be said to have burnt and having had problems with the electrical system, I mean there have been far more incidents by now than the media usually remind of. And the root problem is inept battery technology, it seems to me. We simply still do not have the battery technology needed to allow a plane that huge going electric that much like the 787 does. And it is not even needed. Electronic window darkening is not really needed, to name just one example.
They did as much electric as they thought they could squeeze into it. Whether all that really makes sense and is needed or worth to be called "progress", imo was not thought about too much.
The new electric system and e-philosophy is the very heart and core of the 787, and if there is a fault with that, they can practically scarp the whole plane, because you cannot just rip it out and replace it with another one.
Several car manufacturers have said goodby to e-cars over the past 12 months, btw. Because they see no realistic chance to bypass beyond certain technical limits and problems with batteries for e-cars. Those staying with it, do not do that for solid economic expectations, but because they fear the negative fallout darkening their prestige if they would admit defeat by reality. Car experts say that almost all car makers would love to jump e-cars completely, because it more and more turned into a technical nightmare and economic madness for their development departments. There is some physics involved that you simply just cannot get beyond, it seems.
The new electric system and e-philosophy is the very heart and core of the 787, and if there is a fault with that, they can practically scarp the whole plane, because you cannot just rip it out and replace it with another one.
What is this judgment based on?
Skybird
07-13-13, 10:30 AM
What is this judgment based on?
Repeated, multiple, many feedback from experts as quoted in media over the past years. No other jet has pushed the electrification that far,m mas the 787 did. The fuel efficiency of the 787 also bases much on weight reduction, and that weight reduction again has to do with the electrification of the plane (replacing mechanical and hydraulic systems). This is the reason why the plane has so high an electric hunger, and why it must carry so many batteries - and this is also the reason why the batteries were accepted by Boeing during construction although one knew from start on that they are not ideal for the task - there simply was no better replacement available.
The electrical system is being quoted by many as the nervous core around which the airframe, the general plane design, new materials and all that have been arranged, to cover that core with a plane. Ripping the electrical system out to replace it with something different, a mix of more hydraulic and mechanical system again, scraps the whole design, from the very first idea for it on. I mean you can do that: but you give up everything what the the 787's conception was about and made it actually the 787. In the end, you get a new plane: for higher costs and more delays, with more angry customers and compromised economic arguments, and a tremendous image loss (which already is suffering).
Good for Airbus. :)
Airplane makers maybe need to do like the Russians did with their tanks: going back to what is proven and reliable, tested and trustworthy. There was a time when many thought that tanks would need to have gas turbines, the Americans built them for their M1s, and so did the Russians for the T-80. But Germans and Brits and French and Israelis did not only not follow, but the Russians abandoned the concept again. The Russian tank conceptions formed after the T-80, are Diesel engined again, and so is the latest T-90 as well. - And that is a harmless comparison. The gas turbine at least did work and does work, it is logistic and maintenance and cost arguments making almost everybody desinterested in gas turbines in tanks. The electrical concept in the 787 obviously just does not work reliably, with major components being critically at risk, and a key component - batteries - simply being inadequate for the task even after the latest encapsuling. The plane is still young, but a quick Google search showed me 14 incidents in the time between July 2012 and January 2013 alone. The biggest share of that incident pie is related to the electrical system. And before that time, already two or three 787 - this I tell by memory now - had fires aboard due to the electric system and batteries failing.
Sorry. I would not fly with that plane.
Boeing seems to have outsourced quite some things from their internal production. Amongst that: the batteries. I bet they are cursing at that cost-reduction of theirs now. Would be interesting to learn whether Boeing reverses that policy in the forseeable future.
I imagine this will work well for the 797 though when it comes around, things that they learn through (constantly) repairing and altering the 787 will carry over into the next designs.
The Comet was a ground-breaker when it came into service, the first production jetliner, and look at how many of them fell apart in service, but they paved the way for the other jetliners that followed with better and safer designs.
Tchocky
07-13-13, 11:26 AM
Given the position of the damage, the battery location, and the amount of time the plane was idle i find it difficult to imagine this is another battery problem. Looks more like something gone wrong in the rear galley right now.
Given the position of the damage, the battery location, and the amount of time the plane was idle i find it difficult to imagine this is another battery problem. Looks more like something gone wrong in the rear galley right now.
That's the latest word on the..errr...taxi-way? That someone left the galley heater trip switch on.
...But following your logic we would still have T-34s and DC-3s .
When it comes to computers MS Dos is the best operating system considering the usual whining every time new OS comes out....
Some ideas are better than other in hindsight but what will become of 787 is yet to be seen.
I'm sure the best of minds(not prophets) are working on solutions to this issue so it is early for passing judgments here.
I agree though that it may be fun sometimes.:haha:
Boening had issues with some earlier planes as did Aerobus , at the end it all came together.
HundertzehnGustav
07-13-13, 11:53 AM
after a few hundred people had payd the price for the errors commited by others.
;-)
Plane not bad! looking sharp there in fact.
needs more testing!
after a few hundred people had payd the price for the errors commited by others.
!
True.
Also pay attention , things got much better compared to 60s and 70s in the way the planes are designed and put into service.
Schroeder
07-13-13, 12:10 PM
I imagine this will work well for the 797 though when it comes around, things that they learn through (constantly) repairing and altering the 787 will carry over into the next designs.
The Comet was a ground-breaker when it came into service, the first production jetliner, and look at how many of them fell apart in service, but they paved the way for the other jetliners that followed with better and safer designs.
That might be true but I refuse to play guinea pig in an aircraft that still seems to have some problems. I actually don't care whether an airliner crash will improve future designs when I was aboard that airliner and I'm definitely not willing to pay a price in human lives for the next step in technological evolution when this is not necessary! We do have safe air planes. No need for gambling with lives!:shifty:
That might be true but I refuse to play guinea pig in an aircraft that still seems to have some problems. I actually don't care whether an airliner crash will improve future designs when I was aboard that airliner and I'm definitely not willing to pay a price in human lives for the next step in technological evolution when this is not necessary! We do have safe air planes. No need for gambling with lives!:shifty:
Alas, progress always has a cost somewhere...but progress we must.
soopaman2
07-13-13, 01:15 PM
Can I blame Boeing itself for moving out of Washington state, in favor of cheaper non union in Southern Mexifornia?
Cheaper is always better!
God bless the job creators *salutes the flag*
Hey at least they aren't Airbus! (Not yet)
Tchocky
07-13-13, 01:19 PM
Yes, Airbus are well known for aggressively pursuing non union labour :confused:
soopaman2
07-13-13, 01:27 PM
Airbus has had weird accidents. IMHO it is not as safe as a Boeing, I see Boeing going that way.
I was not accusing Airbus of not being a great employer, just being inferior in design. (IMHO)
Asiana was caused by WEE TOO LO, and his co-pilot WEE TOO SLO.
Oh and the non working glideslope beacon at SFO.....
Jimbuna
07-13-13, 01:44 PM
Batteries not at fault:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23302722
Catfish
07-13-13, 01:54 PM
...But following your logic we would still have T-34s and DC-3s . .
Pah, i'd prefer a flight with a DC3 anytime, to any modern jetliner :D
And my car at least sounds like a T34 :O:
And regarding over-electrification, the Airbus is as bad as the 787. The accident happening to the 777 recently was based on an automated thrust landing, especially the far eastern airlines try to automate everything. The Airbus also has that of course, and had its own share of problems with it.
When it comes to my personal preferences, i would take an older hydraulic-controlled and well-maintained Boeing from the 1980ies, with a russian pilot. I take it this combination would have the highest survival rate :03:
HundertzehnGustav
07-13-13, 02:51 PM
okay...?!! why a russian pilot?
okay...?!! why a russian pilot?
Hydraulics ....
http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp153/martensimmelsgaard/buran/brn12.jpg
:haha:
Catfish
07-13-13, 03:12 PM
^ 'xactly, that's what i had in mind :up:
American components
Russian components
ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!!
Jimbuna
07-13-13, 03:30 PM
American components
Russian components
ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!!
Usually China these days :)
Schroeder
07-13-13, 03:43 PM
Alas, progress always has a cost somewhere...but progress we must.
Actually no. Sure we progress but we aren't forced to do so by playing Russian roulette. Planes can be extensively tested and we do have safe designs that are available. It's not like we have to scrap all proven designs and go with a modern, probably less safe design just because of progress. If I buy a flight ticket I want to be sure I actually arrive at the destination and I don't give a hoot whether the aircraft is a Boeing an Airbus or an Ilyushin as long as it gets me safely where I want to go. We can't risk lives just for "progress" when more reliable solutions are at hand.
Although the number of accidents per flight has been decreasing with time, the number of fatalities per year has been variable, without dropping.
http://www.1001crash.com/stats/graph/accrate_en.gif Evolution of the number of accidents and fatalities
Aircraft accidents are less likely to occur today than 20 years ago. Nevertheless, the growing number of aircraft in operation and their increasing capacity cannot result in a reduction of onboard fatalities
Air travel safety is definitely a data-driven activity. Although the number of aircraft in operation is constantly on the rise, accident rates are falling, making air transport the safest of all means of transportation.
Improvements bear fruit, and the usefulness of aircraft monitoring and redundancies can be witnessed everyday.
The increase in flight length also contributes to explain the drop in the number of plane crashes. Since accidents mainly occur during the take-off and landing phases, a long-haul aircraft performing only one or two long cycles a day is indeed less likely to be involved in an accident than a short-range aircraft performing in the region of ten short cycles a day.
Finally, the introduction of regulations and of checks by authorities and the growing experience of aircraft manufacturers all contribute to the safety of air transport.
However, what with a growing number of aircraft now operating, even though the rate of accidents per flight may drop slightly, the actual number of accidents will increase. Since aircraft carry an ever increasing number of people, the number of onboard fatalities will per force rise too.
.
.....
Actually no. Sure we progress but we aren't forced to do so by playing Russian roulette. Planes can be extensively tested and we do have safe designs that are available. It's not like we have to scrap all proven designs and go with a modern, probably less safe design just because of progress. If I buy a flight ticket I want to be sure I actually arrive at the destination and I don't give a hoot whether the aircraft is a Boeing an Airbus or an Ilyushin as long as it gets me safely where I want to go. We can't risk lives just for "progress" when more reliable solutions are at hand.
:hmmm:
They had pretty safe, available and reliable designs for prop driven airliners. Does that mean we should have stayed with them and not developed jetliners?
No-one is asking the worlds companies to scrap all modern airliners and adopt 787s only (although Boeing would quite like to do that) so there are plenty of options for airlines to take, the 787 is just attractive because of the miles per gallon it has, and once it shakes its bad karma from the battery issue (which, I remind people, does not seem to be the cause of this latest fire in the first place) then it will likely go on to be a successful aircraft in its own right, just like the Comet which is still flying today in a modified form as the Nimrod, despite killing some 426 people durings its career as an airliner (the Comet is not to blame for all of those, five of the crashes were controlled flight into terrain from pilot error). No aircraft is perfectly safe, no machine is perfectly safe, and to be honest, every time you get on an aircraft you could very well be playing Russian roulette, just the same as if you get in a car, on a train or on a boat, sure safety records and improvements can tilt the odds in your favour but nothing is perfect, even the fabled A340 could still have a fatal accident one day, it's just been incredibly lucky so far.
Besides, as an aircraft passenger, you pay your money and take your chance, unless you have enough money to spare that you can afford to not take the cheapest fare, or reject boarding the flight if you see it's a 787.
Usually China these days :)
Beijing would say that it's the same thing. :03:
Schroeder
07-13-13, 04:48 PM
:hmmm:
In a nutshell:
Don't use me for Guinea pigging! Give me a reliable ride that works.
Test the stuff thoroughly and only give it into mass productions once it works as intended. Bug fixing after the release might be too late for several hundred people. This is not a video game that you can patch after you have screwed your customers over at release with a half finished product.
(I'm not talking about the 787 here but about aircraft / vehicles in general)
Catfish
07-13-13, 04:54 PM
But all do it, it is called bananaware.
Ripens at the customer ..
(jealous tongues say this is how Mickeysoft improves its products)
In a nutshell:
Don't use me for Guinea pigging! Give me a reliable ride that works.
Test the stuff thoroughly and only give it into mass productions once it works as intended. Bug fixing after the release might be too late for several hundred people. This is not a video game that you can patch after you have screwed your customers over at release with a half finished product.
(I'm not talking about the 787 here but about aircraft / vehicles in general)
Generally that's what companies are supposed to do, obviously in some cases due to financial concerns corners are cut...who gets the blame there, the cutter or the creator of the reason for the cut? That's a completely different thread right there.
Skybird
07-15-13, 02:34 AM
Why is there no news on the 787 that on the same day started from Manchester to Florida but had to return in midair due to, as the passengers said, technical problems with the electric system, starting in the toilets? I read it briefly mentioned in two reports only, and then nothing as if being switched off.
As far as Boeing is concerned, they will move all heaven and hell if they can to have any problems of their 787s not being linked in the media to the electrical system. They already tried that with two fire&smoke incidents before 2012, but the authorities, Japan or Korea it was, did not buy it.
Skybird
07-23-13, 03:53 PM
German news Die Welt refers to British official investigation reports, quoting that the Brits make again issues with the Lithium batteries linked to the emergency transponder responsible for the fire. Report says that fires in that part of the plane cannot be extinguished in mid flight since the extinguishers cannot reach there, and thus this fire could have led to disaster if it had happened in midair, over the Atlantic - less than one third of incidents with such fires ended with anything less than total loss of the plane, says an earlier British report on such flight accidents which gets also referred to.
The batteries again. Quelle surprise.
Are jobs and profits still more important than lives, or when will they ground these damn planes, finally? The neon-red, bold-printed, capital lettered writing on the wall does not become any clearer. The electrical system is bull. Just this: bull. You pushed that dependency too far, Boeing, and with too inapt energy carriers.
Skybird
08-14-13, 01:00 PM
http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article119032403/Loeschsystem-haette-intaktes-Triebwerk-geloescht.html
It is about Japanese airline All Nippon Airlines having discovered wrong wiring in the firing extinguishers aboard one of its 787s. In case of an engine fire it would have caused the fire extinguisher emptying into the intact engine, leaving the burning one untackled. After that find, ANA examined all its 787s and found the same mistake in two more planes. ANA rival Japan Airlines rated the findings so serious that they called back midair flights by their own 787s.
Meanwhile it was reported that a 787 by Quatar Airliners was grounded for ten days as well.
World's first burn-by-wire jet, really. :D
Aktungbby
08-14-13, 01:40 PM
German news Die Welt refers to British official investigation reports, quoting that the Brits make again issues with the Lithium batteries linked to the emergency transponder responsible for the fire. Report says that fires in that part of the plane cannot be extinguished in mid flight since the extinguishers cannot reach there, and thus this fire could have led to disaster if it had happened in midair, over the Atlantic - less than one third of incidents with such fires ended with anything less than total loss of the plane, says an earlier British report on such flight accidents which gets also referred to.
The batteries again. Quelle surprise.
Are jobs and profits still more important than lives, or when will they ground these damn planes, finally? The neon-red, bold-printed, capital lettered writing on the wall does not become any clearer. The electrical system is bull. Just this: bull. You pushed that dependency too far, Boeing, and with too inapt energy carriers.
Of course! look at the O ring on the Challenger. The safest plane is a Cessna 172...when I'm not in it- "clear prop magneto on" (allright master switch)! Imagine my shock one time when on pre flight inspection, I found the prop hub bolts not wired!!! and the certified mechanic, who cleared the plane, said he'd "get to it.!!" He is no longer certified and my hand still hurts; and I'm in VIIB's now. My landing in front of the now defunct 98th aerosquadron theme restaurant at a certain airport was a classic-flat mainspar tire-the thud tripped my emer. xmitter.... Two rules: anyone you walk away from is a good one and it's the little things that kill you-tighten those gas caps on the upper wing slipstream after the fueler is done.:arrgh!:
Gargamel
08-15-13, 08:02 AM
Aye, last thing you needed. At least it's open again now, but the backlog must be horrendous.
When you're done, unwind with this if you haven't already heard it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbUNzi58wM
As a sim pilot, I know just enough to appreciate this. I thoroughly enjoyed this, thank you.
What year was that done?
Skybird
08-16-13, 06:31 PM
Boeing has called for all 787 customers so far to immediately check all their Dreamliners delivered so far over the wrong wiring in the fire extinguisher system.
As a sim pilot, I know just enough to appreciate this. I thoroughly enjoyed this, thank you.
What year was that done?
About 1981 I think. :yep:
mako88sb
08-17-13, 02:36 AM
Boeing has called for all 787 customers so far to immediately check all their Dreamliners delivered so far over the wrong wiring in the fire extinguisher system.
Obviously this is a pretty ridiculous mistake to make and it seems inconceivable that a company with Boeings long history doesn't have the appropriate final inspection to have kept this from happening. Of course they do have something in place but what was different about the 787 that allowed such a error to occur? Or has something similar happened in the past?
Skybird
08-17-13, 05:28 AM
The 787 is the mostr electrified jet ever. Classical, hydraulic, mechnaical systems have been repalced with e-system and e-motors to a much wider degree than in any other airliner in service today or in the near future.
They wennt too fast, too far ahead with that. And with a misdesigned electrical and especially battery system. The battery problems result from the hugely increased demand for electrical power aboard these airplanes. They needed much more batteries to be build in, and with higher capacity if possible. But the batteries they used, did not fulfill that demand. Plus their technology in itself is a more risky technology than other battery types (with lower capacity).
And so they are where they are.
You will never see me boarding any of these planes. I do not trust the design by its very philosophy and components chosen.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.