Another one bites the dust (787)
 

Heathrow closed due to 'Dreamliner fire'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760

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

One of the greatest :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBca1ixoEbg

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:

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.

bites the dust?
goes up in flames!

:D

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.