Previous thread discussed the 787's problems including the Ethiopian example which had an on board fire while parked at Heathrow.
The AAIB have today published a Special Report detailing their findings to date.
www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S4-2014%20ET-AOP.pdf
Not absorbed all detail but it seems lithium batteries suffered a thermal runaway. Probable cause is wires being pinched/frayed and subsequent short circuit.
|
>> Not absorbed all detail but it seems lithium batteries suffered a thermal runaway. Probable cause
>> is wires being pinched/frayed and subsequent short circuit.
>>
Shame it happened on the 787, really, since in reality it was a ticking time bomb waiting for any aeroplane and bad luck.
Exceptionally lucky that it happened on the ground, though. Could you imagine that happening three hours away from any airport? Inaccessible location, impervious to BCF extinguishers and self-sustaining.
|
>> Could you imagine that happening three hours away from any airport? Inaccessible location,
>> impervious to BCF extinguishers and self-sustaining.
Trouble is it's happened once albeit on the ground.... What if it did happen again whilst a 787 was flying...
|
|
It would be very bad, plus, unless modifications have been made, the only fire extinguishers fitted are for the engines. There are hand held ones for dealing with cabin fires but they are not going to deal with a self-sustaining fire in a battery bay
|
>> It would be very bad, plus, unless modifications have been made, the only fire extinguishers
>> fitted are for the engines. There are hand held ones for dealing with cabin fires
>> but they are not going to deal with a self-sustaining fire in a battery bay
>>
According to Airbus, the only way to deal with a lithium battery fire is to dump it in a metal box filled with water and let it run its course.
|
>>>According to Airbus, the only way to deal with a lithium battery fire is to dump it in a metal box filled with water and let it run its course.<<<
So are Boeing going run training courses for cabin crew to access in flight the battery boxes, armed with tools and a bucket of water:)
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MFPSfGoT1U
I'll grant you that the human factors issues are the overriding cause of this crash, but what a stupid b***** autothrottle system.
|
Lithium batteries catching fire have been a known problem with various makes of laptops over the last 10 or more years and there have been many recalls as a result.
Very surprised that such batteries were used for their purpose in an aircraft.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33985615
>>
>> Crap build quality.
>>
along with crap design process. I can't believe anyone did an FMEA and came up with 'the battery going flat' as the worst case consequence of shorting out any battery power cabling, nevermind a Lithium one.
The statements at the end of the article are more than a little worrying:-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
However, had the aircraft been in the air, the outside of the aircraft would have been cold enough to limit how the fire spread.
Cabin crew would have had difficulty locating the fire, as the device is located behind panels.
The fuselage would probably have remained airworthy had the fire happened during a flight, but cabin depressurisation would have been a possibility.
The toxicity of the fumes was unknown, they added.
But the BBC's Jonathan Sumberg says the Dreamliner was built with carbon composite materials which, when burnt, give off toxins.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
No mention of what's happened to the airframe? can't say I'd want to fly in a plane with a composite airframe that's been repaired near the tail root.
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Wed 19 Aug 15 at 12:36
|
Details of the composite used:
www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_06/article_04_2.html
There was an excellent Extreme Engineering programme on Quest recently about the evolution of the Dreamliner and the many techniques used or adopted from existing technology.
|
|
On the Trip advisor flight forum I'd swear that some people think the Dreamliner is built by Thomsons, and flying on it is the highlight of their holiday. Very clever marketing by Thomsons.
|
|
Can you provide a link !?
|
>> flying on it is the highlight of their holiday.
The rest of the holiday can't be up to much then :-)
|
>> The rest of the holiday can't be up to much then :-)>>
You even have to do without a "P"..:-)
|
From a users point of view, I was impressed by the Norwegian Dreamliner that took us to LA and back this summer.
Noticeably quieter, good leg-room, good overhead storage and funky electro-dimming windows rather than old fashioned blinds.
|
Electro-dimming?
Nah, that was smoke from the batteries.
|
|
I've no plans to go on one in the short term, my next flights are 767 & Airbus 330, but I do have a soft spot for the 21 yo KLM 747s which I use on the AMS>LAX route. Nice comfy big old birds, especially now with the revamped IFE, although watching 'Fury' on a small screen loses lots of its intended visual effect!
|
Legroom is much more about the operator than the type. SAA had one of the more tolerable economy layouts in its A340s (both 300 and 600). Then it got new A330s - same fuselage - and lopped fully 3 inches off the seat pitch; bad news if you have a full-recliner in front of you for 12 hours.
Agree about the 787 interior, though. I flew back on one from my first trip to Santiago - the time I met up with NoFM - and the effect of the big windows is remarkable.
|
Dreamliner Problems (Cont) - Fursty Ferret
