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?