New 787 Dreamliner Fire Problem

[Guest fountainhall]

London’s Heathrow airport has been closed to all traffic as a result of a fire which has broken out on an Ethiopian 787 Dreamliner. The airliner was parked at the time with no passengers or crew on board. Presently there is no indication where the fire was located in the aircraft.
 

Pictures of the Heathrow fire on Twitter show an aircraft close to a building and surrounded by fire vehicles. London Fire Brigade said its crews were standing by to assist Heathrow staff.

 

Fire-retardant foam appeared to have been sprayed at the airliner, but no damage to the aircraft was immediately apparent . . .

A Heathrow spokesman said: "We can confirm there has been an on-board internal fire involving an Ethiopian Airlines aircraft and the airport's emergency services are in attendance.

 

"The aircraft was parked on a remote parking stand. There were no passengers on board and there are no reported injuries at this time.

 

"Arrivals and departures are temporarily suspended while airport fire crews attend to this incident. This is a standard procedure if fire crews are occupied with an incident."

. . . A Boeing spokesman said: "We're aware of the event. We have Boeing personnel on the ground at Heathrow and are working to fully understand and address this."

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

 

Heathrow has now announced that all flights are now operating again.

 

Photo: news.sky.com

[Guest fountainhall]

Curiouser and curiouser! Photo evidence from the Ethiopian 787 fire seems to show some scorching at the top of the fuselage near the tail. The batteries in the 787 are located near the front and middle of the aircraft. As some of the media is reporting, Ethiopian has the main galley close to the tail section. More worryingly, according to the New York Times, this would be 

 

. . . the first time a fire had burned through the 787’s carbon-composite skin, raising questions about its fire-retardant properties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/business/boeing-787-catches-fire-at-heathrow.html?ref=global-home&_r=0

 

Burned through the skin? Sounds to me the fire must have been extremely intense. I wonder how much heat needs to be generated before fire burns through a 777's outer skin, and how the two aircraft compare?

 

Another problem with the 787. Also on Friday, the holiday charter operator Thomson Airways reported "a technical issue"aboard a 787 en route from Manchester to Florida which forced the pilots to dump fuel and return to Manchester. Passengers were transferred to another aircraft. Thomson Airways charges a supplement of £10 each way to passengers flying the 787 for their holidays!

 

As has also been reported, Japan's ANA "has had several flights disrupted by technical issues" (The Guardian).

[Guest fountainhall]

Once again, the professional pilots chat room pprune.org has come up with some fascinating and extremely worrying claims about the internal insulation - or rather the lack of it - in the upper half of the 787s.

A poster named ‘amicus’ (who does not post regularly) says he was involved with NASA and seems also to have been involved in arguing for certain changes in the Dreamliner design. Part of the discussion centres on the fire insulation inside the 787. It appears from what amicus says that the 787 has much greater insulation for the lower half of the carbon composite skin than in the upper – hence the ease with which yesterday’s fire punctured the skin. Amicus is forthright in his conclusion re the aircraft: “Ground it.”

Reference is made in the thread to a long Paper titled: “An Examination of Potential FST Hazards Regarding the Usage of CF/Epoxies for Fuselages in the New Generation Commercial Aircraft Such as the Boeing 787 and the Airbus 350.”

In the Executive Summary, the writer notes the internal blanket insulation was developed by Boeing in consultation with the FAA and other authorities. He adds –
 

I have no particular argument with this lower half of fuselage insulation scheme as it is certainly better than nothing, although it is clearly totally inadequate for any flip-over or roll over crashes, such as are well known for MD-11 and L-1011 aircraft in particular. However, there is a major inherent flaw in this approach, as it can only be of any benefit regarding enhancing passenger survivability if the fuselage remains intact, unopened and not compromised in any manner via opened exits or other fuselage damage. This assumption by the FAA and Boeing flies in the face of the history of survivable aircraft crashes, the majority of which experience suffer ruptured, penetrated and opened fuselages . . . a category which the FAA refuses to address . . .

irrefutably, the percentage of significant fuselage disruption (i.e., ruptured and compromised fuselages) opened to ingress of FST [flame, smoke, toxicity] hazards into the critical cabin occupied area is 73%. In contrast, “no significant fuselage disruption” . . . totals a mere and minor 23%. This is a factor of over three to one and shows that the currently advocated FAA and Boeing regulations for insulation of the lower half fuselage and all their joint and separate burnthrough tests are only addressing a small minority of survivable fire crashes whilst ignoring the vast majority of such cases.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2010/06/26/2012218081.pdf

Post #78 from amicus reads –
 

Just remember that both Boeing and the FAA in their (lack of) wisdom did not put any internal insulation on upper half of 787,a dangerous FST failure point that I debated long and hard with the FAA and lost. The self ignition temperature of Toray 3900-2 epoxy on 787 is around only 580 degrees F vs 2000 degree F for a decent aluminum, so it doesn't take much. Plus copious amounts of toxic FST released inside the aircraft.

 

 

Asked what he would have done about it, amicus replies in Post #92
 

I would,as a minimum, require complete 360 degrees internal insulation and FST barriers just as a starter, however I have strong and ongoing doubts whether that would fix all safety and FST issues. I would, of course, immediately ground all 787 A/C and if not adequately fixed ground it permanently. Not using epoxies might be the best and permanent way to go just as off shore oil platforms were after the dreadful Piper Alpha fire that I am familiar with.

 

 

Post #93 questions –
 

How does the internal insulation on upper half of 787 differ from that of the 767 or 777? Are they all the same or is the 787 drastically different?

 

 

After some technical details about the difference between epoxy for the insulation and the ‘phenolic (non epoxy) interiors’ on the 777, amicus replies again in post #101 –
 

The 787 inadequate - only lower half internal insulation is intended to allow 5 minutes prior to burn-through. However, Boeing fought FAA myself and unfortunately won regarding putting such insulation on upper half of A/C. And the Ethiopian 787 fire today proves their folly. Ground it.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518971-ethiopean-787-fire-heathrow.html

[Guest fountainhall]

Another pprune post (#136) - admittedly second hand information, but interesting nevertheless in view of the puncturing of the aircraft outer skin –
 

Unconfirmed from somebody at LHR - Fire is strongly believed to be as a result of galley overheat - failure of coffee heater trip switch which was left on.Burnt out much of the galley and area above causing deep damage to aft bh [bulkhead] and rudder/elevator system

 

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518971-ethiopean-787-fire-heathrow-7.html

[Guest fountainhall]

Much more discussion on pprune.org, including this (Post #177) -
 

On[e] shudders to think of the internal fire/heat/smoke damage from this incident. If it had been in flight then the a/c would have depressurised for sure. I recall the NTSB lead spokesman (Deborah ??) saying a battery should never ever catch fire, so what do we have here.? Something probably much worse. This fire was extinguished by an expert fire team with all the equipment, something certainly not available for an a/c in flight.

 

Many writers are certain the exact cause of the fire would have been known within 24 hours. With regard to this particular aircraft, some suggest it will be a total write-off given the extent of the damage, a conclusion with which a poster on Aviation Herald (who titles himself ‘ba ground eng’) agrees –
 

Fire . . . burnt out much of the galley and area above causing deep damage to aft bh [bukhead] and rudder/elevator system. Aircraft sadly a write off - unless pride of hull loss/p.r dictates repair even if economically un-viable.

http://avherald.com/h?article=45c377c5&opt=0

One poster even recommends a new uniform for Dreamliner cabin staff –

 

 

[Editor - there seems to be a problem when trying to delete a photo. Every time I use "Full Editor" and press "Delete", I get the response "Action failed". Anyone know why this is? This post has identical images because one has an error in the caption but it cannot be deleted!]

[Guest fountainhall]

The UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch believes it has identified the source of the fire on the Ethiopian Dreamliner. It seems to have originated in the transmitter which emits signals in the event of a crash. This is the Emergency Locator Transponder located at the back of the 787. The AAIB has recommended that all Boeing 787s switch off this component until further notice.
 

The AAIB statement said: "Detailed examination of the ELT has shown some indications of disruption to the battery cells. It is not clear however whether the combustion in the area of the ELT was initiated by a release of energy within the batteries or by an external mechanism such as an electrical short."

 

As the ceiling space where the ELT is located "do not typically carry the means of fire detection... had this event occurred in flight it could pose a significant safety concern and raise challenges for the cabin crew in tackling the resulting fire".

 

According to the AAIB, the problem might not be specific to the 787 as it has also been fitted to other types of aircraft in recent years. But aerospace analyst George Ferguson told the BBC
 

"I don't think Boeing is necessarily out of the woods yet because it is connected into the airplane system."

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

[Guest fountainhall]

Not a fire problem this time, but yesterday yet another Dreamliner 2 1/2 hours into a flight to Tokyo was forced to return to Boston because of a possible fuel pump problem.

 

This follows the return of the 787 operated by Thomson Airways en route to Florida to Manchester airport last week. Yet another JAL flight  en route to Singapore had to return to Tokyo after a problem was detected with the de-icing system in the left engine on July 11. Passengers on the Singapore flight were switched to another Dreamliner which left 5 hours later. Two passengers refused to fly on the replacement aircraft (although no reasons were given).

 

Of the other reported incidents, we know that there were four incidents in a 10 day period in June. A 787 taking ANA passengers to Frankfurt could not take-off due to mechanical problems. A replacement aircraft finally took-off 8 hours later. United had a 787 return to Denver, and another 2 of its 787s made unscheduled landings when oil filter problems. One was en route from Denver to Tokyo when it had to make an unscheduled stop in Seattle.

 

Has any new aircraft resulted in so many 'teething' problems? With at least so many flights having to return to base or make unscheduled stops, how many passengers will put off flying it out of concern that they may experience major delays?

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/07/18/japan-airlines-dreamliner-safely-returns-boston/YfoA2lZgM1q78MNLhNRs3N/story.html

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-bound-jal/705000.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/27/travel/boeing-787-dreamliner-air-con-fault

[Guest anonone]

I was not paying enough attention to airliners to know if other major models had similar issues.  I was just getting into flying in a big way when the A380 launched, and I don't recall such persistent troubles. 

 

I am glad I took the opportunity to fly the 787 when it was doing domestic turns in the USA.  I felt pretty comfortable with many alternate airports around in case of difficulty. 

 

I stand by my convictions to avoid the 787 on ETOPS routes until it has really proven itself to be a reliable long-haul aircraft. 

 

And after experiencing it, the airplane is really not all that different that I would go out of my way to fly anyway. 

[Guest fountainhall]

The pprune-org thread on the Ethiopian fire continues with lots of professional flyers' opinions and other analysis - informed or otherwise. One yesterday in Post #576 considers the ELT which has been blamed as the reason for the fire.
 

I agree something here doesn't pass the smell test and is being kept quiet. Any fire investigator worth their salt can look over the aft galley and tell you if the fire started in the trash can, coffee pot or other suspected working area the crew may have utilized. This 406ELT has been used on several other aircraft for years with no history of overheating. Also the ELT battery is not of sufficient size to burn hot for more than a couple minutes if it shorted or puffed like lipo's will do when overheated. Can this ELT be activated from the cockpit like other aircraft? if so then it has a wire harness attached. I think the public and crews working this aircraft have reason to want an answer.

[Guest anonone]

I saw a report somewhere today that the FAA will order the ELT to be examined, but they will not be calling for the removal. 

 

Seems also that the ELT is considered necessary equipment in Japan, and they are in a bit of a quandary as other agencies (Europe?) are saying they should be removed.  I have no idea of jurisdiction requirements.  If a Japanese registered airline flies to Europe, which regulations take primacy? 

 

Interesting...and nothing but bad news continues for Boeing...

 

Exclusive: Boeing 787 probe looks at condensation, wiring

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/20/us-boeing-dreamliner-investigation-idUSBRE96I18020130720

 

 

Officials investigating the fire on an Ethiopian Airlines 787 in London last week are focused on how condensation in the plane and a possible pinched wire in an emergency beacon may have sparked the blaze, according to people familiar with the probe.

 

But one source close to the inquiry told Reuters that investigators had found a pinched wire in the casing of the emergency locator transmitter (ELT) aboard the aircraft.

 

The Honeywell ELT is delivered fully assembled and is installed by Boeing. The unit that was involved in the fire had not been opened, suggesting the pinched wire originated at the Honeywell plant, according to one person familiar with the investigation.

 

Condensation is normal on all big airliners, but the 787 has a higher level of humidity for longer periods to make passengers more comfortable, about 15 percent for the 787 compared with 4-5 percent for conventional metal aircraft, Boeing said. The humidity can be much higher when any plane is on the ground with doors open, perhaps 95 percent, because it matches the ambient air. At cruising altitude, however the air is dry and moisture comes mostly from passengers.

Water conducts electricity, and high moisture levels could raise the likelihood of short circuits. Long-term exposure to moisture can cause corrosion on electrical wires and batteries.

 

 

The higher humidity (more comfortable environment) for passengers was touted as a great advantage for this plane.  Interesting if this higher humidity was not adequately considered for the impact on airplane electrical components.

[Guest fountainhall]

Boeing has made no secret of the fact that the 787 uses more electricity that other aircraft. I noticed this on the Boeing's web page for the 787 -
 

Boeing designs to preclude failure — that is, so that systems won’t fail. Then Boeing goes further, assuming failure will occur and designing for the proper protections. Boeing also designs so that no single failure will cause an accident; for example, by including redundant systems, separating systems in space and functions — so that the loss of one doesn’t cause the loss of another — and providing standby and protective systems.

 

http://787updates.newairplane.com/787-Electrical-Systems/787-Electrical-System

 

I'd have thought they might have amended some of that by now!

[Guest anonone]

Continuing issues for the 787...

 

ANA and United both found issues with the beacons while inspecting...

 

 

Boeing Urges More Jet Beacon Checks After 787 Faults Found

Boeing Co. (BA) has asked airlines to inspect emergency beacons on a range of planes after ANA Holdings Inc. (9202) and United Airlines found faults in devices on 787s linked to a fire in a parked Dreamliner.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-29/boeing-urges-beacon-inspections-on-some-planes-other-than-787s.html

 

 

Various other issues being reported by multiple airline operators...

 

 

An aviation source said that a 787 operated by Qatar Airways had been grounded in Doha since Monday last week due to a problem with an electrical panel.  A Qatar Airways spokesman in London said the company "is aware of a very minor incident which has been resolved" and refused to comment further or provide details.

 

Other media accounts described a fire aboard an Air India 787. Air India rated the episode a "minor incident," according to one report.

 http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/dreamliners-growing-pains-continue-after-another-grounding-20130729-2qtmg.html

 

In other news....maybe related?....

 

 

Boeing changes chief 787 engineer in management shuffle

(Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) said on Friday it was rotating five executives in its commercial airplanes division, including Mike Sinnett, the chief engineer on the company's 787 Dreamliner, which was banned from flight earlier this year after its battery system showed a risk of catching fire.

Sinnett will become vice president of product development, while Bob Whittington, now the chief engineer on Boeing's 777 airliner, will take over as chief project engineer for the 787, the company said in a note to employees.

 

...Spokesman Marc Birtel said the shift in responsibilities was "in no way punitive."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/26/us-boeing-changes-idUSBRE96P14M20130726

 

As I mentioned before, no way am I getting on these birds for a long-haul flight anytime in the near future.  Even if you have faith in the safety aspect, just the greater possibility of delays and cancellations would be enough to avoid for now.

[Guest fountainhall]

"Minor incidents?" Well, what else would anyone expect airline bosses to say after they have committed to investing billions in fleet replacement?

 

Virtually all the problems seem to boil down to the electrical systems on the 787s. Worrying! And the fact that airlines are now being asked to inspect other aircraft types with similar beacons which, as far as we know, have have given absolutely no problems up till now does sound rather like a form a camouflage exercise to me!

[Guest fountainhall]

pprune.org continues to have some interesting - and tongue in cheeck - comments. One poster has nicknamed the 787 the 'Fryliner'. Picking up on this, another replied  in Post #30 -
 

Interesting name "Fryliner". In testing the 787 was known as the "Rainliner" by the testing staff. This was due to the amount of condensation inside the fuselage. Boeing has "fixed" this but aluminium wiring and water do not go well together... I wonder.....

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/519676-qatar-787-smoke-2.html
 
Another Post #42 states the obvious -
 

Any electrician knows you spilled water on wire, if the wire is wet, you ignore it, and there eventually will be fire. If 787 do have condensation issues it is a flying fire hazard, pure and simple. If 787 is prone to condensation like many of you have said, then it all makes sense . . .

 

 
Much more worrying, though, is what seems to have happened to that Qatar 787 which has been out of service for a remarkably long time - far too long, in fact, without details being made public. Once again, pprune.org has come up with some info (Post #81) from a blogger who seems to know more -
 

After days of stonewalling it has been confirmed that a Qatar Airways 787 caught fire, according to some reports, in a rear underfloor part of the fuselage, last Sunday as it was moving into position to take off from Doha airport.

 

The fire has been described as ‘serious’ in some quarters, ‘not serious’ by the airline, and also by one contact as having extensively damaged an important panel in the electrical bay that also caught fire in a test flight Dreamliner in November 2010, causing an emergency diversion to Laredo where that jet was evacuated.

 

It may be another reason for Qatar Airways to be reluctant to restore its original ambition to fly 787s between Doha and Perth from 1 February, a long oceanic route route with comparatively few emergency diversionary airport options along the way that would have become Australia’s first scheduled Dreamliner service, but has since been overlooked by the airline as it rebuilds and expands its services with the plastic electric jet.

 

 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/07/27/attempt-to-hush-up-new-qatar-787-fire-fails/

[Guest anonone]

Interesting comments.  I have not read the PPRUNE site before. I will have to devote some time to poking around there later.

And I like the term "Fryliner"....clever.

[Guest fountainhall]

Now UAL pilots have their own name for the Fryliner - "Sparky!"
 
And true to form, there was another fire after mid-July on an Air India 787, this time in an oven in the galley.
 

A fire broke out in the oven of an Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet in mid-flight Wednesday, scaring passengers but not causing any serious damage.

Mint, an Indian newspaper associated with the Wall Street Journal, reported the fire started on Flight AI-020, from Delhi to Kolkata, and that it did not affect areas outside the oven. The crew put it out with fire extinguishers.

The oven in question was removed after landing and the plane has returned to service, according to the Post and Courier.

"We are aware of the event and are working with the customer," a Boeing spokesperson said, declining to comment further.

Mint, an Indian newspaper associated with the Wall Street Journal, reported the fire started on Flight AI-020, from Delhi to Kolkata, and that it did not affect areas outside the oven. The crew put it out with fire extinguishers.

The oven in question was removed after landing and the plane has returned to service, according to the Post and Courier.

"We are aware of the event and are working with the customer," a Boeing spokesperson said, declining to comment further.

http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-787-dreamliner-oven-on-fire-2013-7

 

Had this happened on any other plane than a Fryliner, it would not have hit any newspaper other than perhaps the Kolkota Daily Organ! But, once a pane gets a reputation . . . 

[Guest fountainhall]

Now a new problem for the Fryliner! ANA, the operator with the largest number of 787s in its fleet, has discovered an electrical wiring problem in the fire extinguishers in the engines on three of its aircraft. After the fault was discovered and reported, JAL turned a 787 en route to Helsinki back to Tokyo.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1128395/dreamliner-airline-detects-wiring-faults

 

This article has a close-up of the outer skin damage to the Ethiopian Dreamliner at Heathrow last month. Not pretty!