Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Dreamliner Catches Fire In Boston
19061969 writes "The BBC reports that a Boeing 787 Dreamliner caught fire in Boston. Carter Leake, an analyst at BB&T Capital Markets in Virginia, said, 'I don't want to be an alarmist, but onboard fires on airplanes are as bad as it gets.' This represents bad news for Boeing especially after the FAA identified errors in the assembly of fuel line couplings in the Dreamliner."
The dreamliner turns into a nightmare. Film at 11.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
It was one of the two large lithium ion battery packs the power the plane when the engines are off. The FCC and pilots were already concerned about the use of lithium ion batteries for this purpose (apparently it's a first), and they issued special regulations just for this plane.
Also the only person on board when this happened was a mechanic (which is probably a good thing at least someone was able to spot the smoke right away).
Better known as 318230.
| "onboard fires on airplanes are as bad as it gets"
Hmm... I'm sure a missing wing, or rapid loss of pressure due to a collision, or massive power failure, or lots of other things could be a lot worse than a battery fire.
Am I correct in assuming TFA doesn't know what on earth (or off it) they're on about?
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
From TFA
"The fire started after a battery in the jet's auxiliary power system overheated."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20942484
Watch those corners
yeah, but this is a BBC story so you should trust it at face value
Yeah I'd say, "The airline said that no passengers or crew members were hurt as they had already disembarked." puts the kibosh on "as bad as it gets [on airplanes]".
Totally unqualified "educated" guess: crew left the APU on even though it's supposed to be off after the engines are up to speed?
From what simulation and speaking with pilots I've gathered, usually you are "supposed" to turn the APU off after engine starts, though usually this is not done as it consumes a tiny fraction of fuel and gives you some wiggle room in the event of an engine failure.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Make it serious square. From what we have been told until here, at least. ..." is mistaken. If a plane can experience its batteries overheating beyond the temperature that incenses wild fire, without shutting the batteries off beforehand (no temperature control??), and when almost not in service (passengers and crew disembarked), it not airworthy at all.
First factor, fire is the last thing you want on a plane. Over.
Second factor, fire without clear-cut reason is what you don't want.
The commentator who seemingly played the matter down "The only person on board
In this sense webmistressrachel's comment is uncalled for. Losing a wing or pressure due to a collision is in a sense 'more normal'. Because the reason is clear-cut. But a fire out of the blue is simply a 'must not, ever'.
Actually, they are as bad as it gets. Wing off, you die. Cabin fire, you suffer while knowing you're going to die. There is a distinct difference. Listened to the tapes; they still haunt me.
If leaving an APU turned on causes a catastrophic loss of the aircraft, then there is a design flaw.
However, I don't see how leaving one on should cause a battery to overheat. The batteries should be on circuits that limit currents appropriately, whether charging or discharging. This is an aircraft - not a plastic toy.
Yeah, wing off, you watch the ground rise to meet you and you die.
Not sure which waiting period is worse. At least with a missing wing, you hope Sully is in the right seat and can figure out how to land on one wing. Fire is very hard to escape from on a plan, if it manages to find any occupied compartments. I suppose you could try climing, popping the oxygen masks, starve the fire, and hope the emergency oxygen system doesn;t catch fire. And other problems.
Given my druthers, I guess snakes may actually be the second-least problematic next to crying babies. Or being between an air marshal and a grandmother^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorist.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Citing a thing like "FAA identified errors in the assembly of fuel line couplings in the Dreamliner." when the actual fire, according to this morning's Boston Globe, was "[a] Small electrical fire..."
This article brought to you by Airbus Industries.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The aircraft wasn't departing, it had just arrived and the passengers and crew had deplaned.
Also, no certified crew on a commercial carrier leaves the APU running after its needed - it takes up substantially more than a "tiny fraction of fuel" and leaving it on for even a short haul flight can cost the operator thousands of dollars in extra fuel costs for just that one flight.
Here's a more educated guess: faulty battery underwent thermal runaway and caught fire, causing a minor explosion and a heck of a lot of smoke.
you could open a window
| "onboard fires on airplanes are as bad as it gets"
Hmm... I'm sure a missing wing, or rapid loss of pressure due to a collision, or massive power failure, or lots of other things could be a lot worse than a battery fire.
Am I correct in assuming TFA doesn't know what on earth (or off it) they're on about?
No, you are not correct, you are either over-estimating your expertise or over-estimating the importance of being pedantic.
En-route cabin or hold fires fall into the category of events that will almost certainly be fatal to everyone on board. With a slight application of analytical thinking, it is possible to see that a fire on the ground immediately raises the question of whether this could occur in flight.
Dear passengers: I have bad and good news for you. The bad news: we lost a wing. The good news: it was on fire anyway.
Totally unqualified "educated" guess: crew left the APU on even though it's supposed to be off after the engines are up to speed?
From what simulation and speaking with pilots I've gathered, usually you are "supposed" to turn the APU off after engine starts, though usually this is not done as it consumes a tiny fraction of fuel and gives you some wiggle room in the event of an engine failure.
Seeing as how the plane was at the gate and the passengers from the ariving flight had deplaned, the engines better not have been up to speed or they would have had bigger problems. Usually if the APU is on while in the gate, it is because ground power is not available. This can happen, but running the APU is much more expensive than electrical ground power. As an educated guess (since I actually work on a ramp) I would assume the APU was not on. If the APU wasn't on, then a fire in the APU battery is definitely not good.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The problem with "small electrical fires" is that they tend to become "large electrical fires" and eventually "catastrophic electrical fires" as fire propagates along electric cables quite fast.
1st off, it's Madame, not sir.
2nd off, every plane with two wings that lost a wing crashed. Not every plane that ever had a fire on it crashed. Go figure.
What's with the attacks too, who's an idiot now?
Simple logic puts your links to shame.
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
No, but lithium batteries tend to have highly flammable lithium as base.
Stop, you're both wrong.
1. This is not, by definition, an aviation accident: even the crew had deplaned.
2. Many parked aircraft have lost wings without crashing: all it takes is wind passing over the tarmac on the wrong vector.
3. A fire, even in flight, doesn't have to be the end of the world if the systems design detects the fire and limits its ability to spread. This was the principal lesson-learned from SR111, which has since changed material approvals for aircraft. SA295 was never adequately explained, so teaches us little, but evidently the firefighting routines were not followed. VJ592 was caused by illegally carried hazmat (oxygen generators) in the cabin. AC797 had many similarities to SR111 (insulation burning spread the fire), but the lessons learned were not applied to designs in time to prevent SR111. I'd blame the FAA's inaction on NTSB recommendations.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Indeed, as a former aircraft mechanic, I know that all of the planes that I've worked on have taken fire safety very seriously. The Dash-8's that I've worked on have their batteries placed outside of the pressure vessel. Although I have not personally worked on a plane that uses Li-Ion batteries like the 787 does, my understanding is that aircraft that do use these batteries have numerous warning and safety features to prevent thermal runaway, which sounds like what happened here. Based on the very limited information in TFA, I hypothesize that if the flight crew had been on board, they would have noticed a battery overheat condition and could have taken appropriate action well before a fire broke out.
Orphan Girl Scouts. Gotta have the orphans in there.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
An Israeli Air Force F-15 lost almost all of one wing in a midair and was able to land. You can find video, it's insane.
Not exactly on point, many warplanes have lost big parts of wings and landed. Flying buses aren't in the same league.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not the whole plane - you make the passenger compartment detachable and capable of parachute descent. It's been designed, shown to be workable, and calculated to be too expensive.
If there were lower barriers to entry, an airline might be started that had these kinds of planes and people who wanted to pay a premium for that kind of technology could choose to do so. There are many cheap bastards in the world, but many people will pay more to cover their fears, so it might work out.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Another Dreamliner just got a fuel leak and dumped a good mess all over a taxiway at Logan until the engine was shut down. Not a good week for 787s in Boston.
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?