Heathrow 787 fire – July 2013

Good news!

Flew again yesterday (21 Dec) on an airtest after repairs

Boeing opponents taking cheap shots. The 787 is a great airplane fundamentally, the problems arose when Boeing contracted the work out.

Over on A.net they’re coming up with every sort of twisted and outlandish methods for the 787’s batteries or wiring to be the cause of this.

Despite the fact that the ELT is stated in the AAIB report and the 787 manual to not have any physical connection to the aircraft’s power systems.
It is completely independent and delivered to Boeing certified, tested and sealed.

But they’re not letting a little factoid like that get in their way. LOL

Thanks Jay! It will be interesting to see why the ELT went thermal runaway like that.

AAIB Bulletin S5/2013 SPECIAL

[ATTACH]218934[/ATTACH]

And here is the AAIB Bulletin S5/2013 SPECIAL http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-AOP.pdf attached

Picture of the damaged bit on Sky news along with a story of another 787 hitch
http://news.sky.com/story/1117696/dreamliner-turns-back-after-fuel-pump-warning

The AAIB have spoken:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23364389

Naughty Jay 🙂
Well visited at 2am very hard to get a look at the damaged bit..but no hole as I had thought..could just make out the damage we all saw..looked no different..anyone wanting a look see she is next to the bmi hangar nose out..basically in what used to be the thru road

Tartan Pics
In addition to the camera take some coffee in case the Pot is still warm.
Happy ‘snapping’:D

Am en route to LHR now..with camera..I will have a wee sniff around if its still outside

Cloud9, Cloud 9, calling Cloud 9 photo op. is waiting!

Sorry, I’ve only just caught up with this thread.

As much as I’d love to be able to take photos of aircraft in hangers/engineering areas whilst at work I’m far too busy looking after another airlines B787 on a daily basis; plus I don’t have an airside driving licence so am unable to get around unless accompanied by someone who does and like I just said, we’re all too busy.:apologetic:

I do just want to go back to something that was said previously though…

How many Joe Public are interested in the type of plane they are going to fly on when they book? Not many I would suggest. They may have a question when checking in, but by then it is too late to change their mind.

Agreed, most wouldn’t even know they type of plane they last flew on.

If your talking about your average once-a-year family package holiday customer, then sure they will not be that bothered about the aircraft that they fly on, as long as it leaves on time, they get seated together with their family members then they couldn’t really give two-hoots.

That said, I can assure you that people still do care very much about what type of aircraft they fly on.

In recent weeks, the airline that I represent has had quite a number of issues with their B787 aircraft that they operate. Granted these issues have not been as serious as a fire, however they are issues that have led to several lengthy delays and subsequent cancellations. Whilst going through the process of having to re-book customers for the following day and providing accomodation in hotels overnight I am often asked for alternative flight options because the customer no longer wants to travel on the particular aircraft type, and it is purely because in their mind the aircraft is unsafe or they perceieve there to be an increased risk in travelling on it.

I personally think that it could be more so as a result of the media/press reports. Nowadays the slightest problem seems to get reported due to it being the same aircraft type that has recently been reported about, so it gives the sense that the aircraft is even more dangerous/unsafe/risky as it is/was initially thought.

Who made the coffee-pot? :dev2:

The ELT is indeed in the limelight. Honeywell (the manufacturer) is helping with the investigation and has already issued a denial that their presence is, in any way, significant.

I suppose we shall see.

HAHAHAHA, true that.

I’m as interested as anyone else here to find out what caused this fire. Latests reports indicate they may be focusing on the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter).

Then I wait with baited breath to see if they scrap the plane or repair it.

Thanks for the backup Jay 🙂

Tartan, interesting information.

There is speculation that due to the prestige of the aircraft and not wanting to have a write off so early in it’s career, Boeing will replace the entire rear fuselage. There is a barrel join located 2 to 4 window frames forward of where the damage is. If the CFRP barrel forward of that is undamaged in any way, they can “simply” swap out the rear fuselage for another. (Over simplification. There will be a lot of work to be done!)

It would be an expensive “save of face” procedure. But not without precedent.

For example: The Qantas 747 that over ran the runway a few years back. It was deemed a write off. But Boeing and Qantas worked together can replaced a heck of a lot of fuselage, landing gear, etc. at Qantas’ own expense so as to not have the loss of an aircraft on their books. Qantas is thus still the only airline to never have lost a jet aircraft in it’s service. The PR that gives them is immeasurably precious and worth the effort.

Similar might happen to this 787

You know, as long as the numberplate is still the same, the plane issn’t -technically- written off or scrapped. Even if the whole airframe was to be changed 😉

Cloud9, Cloud 9, calling Cloud 9 photo op. is waiting!

Just to reiterate lads this is the opinion of an engineer in the hangar..not to my knowledge a Boeing specialist..but clearly taking an interest in the case
Sandy what you describe above is probably what he meant by “cut and shut” I thought he was kidding!
Perhaps if it is still sitting outside in daylight someone could get a shot of the damage

Hi Sandy,
I sincerely hope you are right as scrapping a 787 so early in it’s history will not make great PR for Boeing.
As for the Pompous Know All maybe he can become a politician or use the General Discussion area where insults form most of the content.
Your opinions are always welcome.

Thanks for the backup Jay 🙂

Tartan, interesting information.

There is speculation that due to the prestige of the aircraft and not wanting to have a write off so early in it’s career, Boeing will replace the entire rear fuselage. There is a barrel join located 2 to 4 window frames forward of where the damage is. If the CFRP barrel forward of that is undamaged in any way, they can “simply” swap out the rear fuselage for another. (Over simplification. There will be a lot of work to be done!)

It would be an expensive “save of face” procedure. But not without precedent.

For example: The Qantas 747 that over ran the runway a few years back. It was deemed a write off. But Boeing and Qantas worked together can replaced a heck of a lot of fuselage, landing gear, etc. at Qantas’ own expense so as to not have the loss of an aircraft on their books. Qantas is thus still the only airline to never have lost a jet aircraft in it’s service. The PR that gives them is immeasurably precious and worth the effort.

Similar might happen to this 787