News Heathrow reopens after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire

[Notebook]

Did a quick search for this here, so please delete or tranfer if I missed it.

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

Runways at London's Heathrow airport have reopened after a fire on a parked Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet.
Arrivals and departures were suspended after the incident at 16:30 BST, a spokesman for the airport said. No passengers were aboard at the time

N.

 

[ADSWNJ]

Wow. Boeing stock dropped 6% on this news.

Two immediate questions for me?

1. Was this another battery fire?
2. If so, did this bird have the redesigned battery on it since the 787 return to flight?

 

[Screamer7]

How many bad luck do these Dreamliners have to endure?:blink:
The big question now is what cause that fire.

 

[ky]

Wow, Boeing just can't catch a break.

 

[Urwumpe]

How many bad luck do these Dreamliners have to endure?:blink:
The big question now is what cause that fire.

The plane is looking too hot to just stand on the ground. :lol:

 

[garyw]

1. Was this another battery fire?
2. If so, did this bird have the redesigned battery on it since the 787 return to flight?

Exactly what I asked when I heard about it. If it's a battery fire with a redesigned battery then I think Boeing will lose customer confidence in the 787.

 

[astrosammy]

The batteries are below the passenger deck, wouldn't this mean alot of damage when there are burn marks on top of the plane?

Well, new food for the 787 haters.

I would say several major malfunctions on one of the latest plane models don't make them haters but critics who have quite a good point.

I have no problems with the critics and I certainly didn't talk about those who do it in a constructive way,
but things like using "funny" names for the plane as soon as a problem occurs, even before the cause is know or if it's completely unrelated, are just annoying.

There's a reason I usually keep out of such discussions, I just love planes too much :lol:. You could get me into any Dreamliner or "unsafe Russian plane" at once.

 

[Screamer7]

If you look at that photo, there are some marks (burn marks?) just in front of the vertical stabilizer.
I wonder what equipment is that location?
Anyway, it does not look good.
OUCH!!!!!:facepalm:

 

[garyw]

Not battery related - wrong location.

 

[Screamer7]

T I just love planes too much :lol:. You could get me into any Dreamliner or "unsafe Russian plane" at once.

:thumbup::lol::lol::lol:

---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

The plane is looking too hot to just stand on the ground. :lol:

Especially the wing design.
And that of the B-747-8.
It looks so modern and sexy too me.
Ever saw a eagle in flight?

 

[Urwumpe]

Not battery related - wrong location.

Not automatically, it depends on where the smoke is going.

 

[garyw]

No way is it battery Urwumpe, not unless it's going from below deck, into the cabin then up into the crew rest area near the tail - no other 787 battery fire showed that type of damage.

 

[Urwumpe]

No way is it battery Urwumpe, not unless it's going from below deck, into the cabin then up into the crew rest area near the tail - no other 787 battery fire showed that type of damage.

That is true, but we had not many such fires yet to tell.

It could most likely be a APU fire, but that is not unrelated to the battery fires, since it is the same subsystem

 

[Screamer7]

That is true, but we had not many such fires yet to tell.

It could most likely be a APU fire, but that is not unrelated to the battery fires, since it is the same subsystem

The APU sit right aft in the tail's cone section.
Doubtful.

 

[Notebook]

Batteries?, when I was a lad, there were much more nasty things around...

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

The APU sit right aft in the tail's cone section.
Doubtful.

No, the APU is pretty large including all connected subsystems:

 

[Screamer7]

Wow, but it's big.

 

[ex-orbinaut]

And for an encore... how's about another one for today?

http://airnation.net/2013/07/12/thomson-787-emergency/

 

[garyw]

History of diversions over the past 6 weeks.

A United Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner was forced to return to Houston International Airport (IAH) due to an apparent problem with its brake system.

‘”United flight 94 from Houston to Denver returned to Houston Sunday due to a brake indicator issue,” the US carrier said.

“Following standard operating procedures, as a precautionary measure, the flight landed in emergency status. The aircraft landed safely at 11:58 am CT (around 10:30 pm on Sunday) and our maintenance team is conducting a review of the aircraft,” the statement continued.

A Boeing spokeswoman said the problem with the braking system forced the plane “back to base,” without giving details of the malfunction or how long it might take to repair it.’

There were no injuries reported.

On June 19th, a United Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner flying from Denver to Tokyo diverted to Seattle-Tacoma Airport due to an engine oil issue and on June 21st a United 787 flying from London to Houston diverted to Newark Airport on when pilots detected another oil issue, although Boeing has said those two issues were not related.

Seems that the 787 has quite a few technical issues yet.

http://airnation.net/2013/06/24/united-787-emergency-landing-brakes/

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Per the airline, the problem is with the air conditioning system, not the batteries:

Ethiopian Airlines said a problem had been identified in the Dreamliner’s air conditioning system, and that maintenance staff had seen sparks but no flames.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e41824c-eb0f-11e2-bfdb-00144feabdc0.html