787 Dreamliner On Fire Again

Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by Qzukk · 2013-07-12 05:44 · Score: 5, Funny

"Well, I was pretty sure I smelled smoke!"

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.

Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by sabri · 2013-07-12 06:14 · Score: 4, Informative

"Well, I was pretty sure I smelled smoke!"
You may have smelled smoke, but the headline is not necessarily true.

The Li-Ion batteries that have caused the Dreamliner so much trouble are in the lower front part of the plane, below the front doors.

The news pictures show a problem on the upper side near the tail section. If there was a fire, it could have been anything, an isolated incident not connected to the battery issue.

--
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by rwise2112 · 2013-07-12 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Li-Ion batteries that have caused the Dreamliner so much trouble are in the lower front part of the plane, below the front doors.
The news pictures show a problem on the upper side near the tail section.
Oh well! That's all right then!

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by JavaBear · 2013-07-12 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, they are ALSO in the tail.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 06:41 · Score: 5, Informative

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2013/01/17/00/23/XsZ5c.La.91.jpg
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by Synerg1y · 2013-07-12 06:43 · Score: 2

And that's why smoking is disallowed in airplane bathrooms.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by icebike · 2013-07-12 06:50 · Score: 1

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2013/01/17/00/23/XsZ5c.La.91.jpg
Perfect comeback. Owned.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by multi+io · 2013-07-12 06:54 · Score: 2

The Li-Ion batteries that have caused the Dreamliner so much trouble are in the lower front part of the plane, below the front doors.
Apparently there is a Li-Ion battery in the back of the plane too, albeit located more towards the bottom of the fuselage.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by imlepid · 2013-07-12 07:03 · Score: 2

There is also a battery pack in the mid-section of the plane (page 787.0.7), near the trailing edge of the wings.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-07-12 07:15 · Score: 4, Funny

The news pictures show a problem on the upper side near the tail section. If there was a fire, it could have been anything, an isolated incident not connected to the battery issue.
This means that the Boeing people not only didn't fix the bad batteries, but they also didn't read the airplane assembly instructions and installed the batteries in the wrong place.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by rot26 · 2013-07-12 08:23 · Score: 2

there is another that follows along about 100 feet behind. it looks like a chrome toaster or the gas tank from a 1972 hodaka super rat.

--

To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by arfonrg · 2013-07-12 08:32 · Score: 1

"Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment 'Well, I was pretty sure I smelled smoke!' "
THAT was the funniest thing I have read all week! Good Show!

--
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by im_thatoneguy · 2013-07-12 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative

That graphic is incorrect.
http://graphics.chicagotribune.com/dreamliner-problems/
It does appear that there is a gas powered APU. And they definitely could be running the APU while on the tarmac. In which case it would be a traditional petroleum caused fire. If it was an APU fire then it wouldn't be a risk to passengers since it only runs while on the ground.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by danomac · 2013-07-12 09:27 · Score: 1

Presumably there'd be batteries to start the APU, no?
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by Hobadee · 2013-07-12 09:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. By now you should be smelling the smoke from our burning APU - don't worry; Since the APU only runs on the ground, you are at no risk whatsoever from it."

--
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by oobayly · 2013-07-12 09:42 · Score: 2

Not really, that's a lovely media graphic and all, but the proper placement of the batteries is shown here, here and here
Anyhow, the batteries are kept below the passenger compartment, and the damage appears to be along the top of the fuselage (just in front of the vertical stabiliser) - I can see no visible visible damage around the area of the aft batteries.
Footage of starboard side
Footage of port side
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by xombo · 2013-07-12 10:01 · Score: 1

The APU must remain running at all times during the flight. Power from the APU is used to restart the engines during a power failure. In the event that the APU is inoperable, the plane can only travel on courses that do not take it over water and in which the route is over airports spaced no more than one hour of flight time between each, and those airports must be able to handle the landing of a plane of that size.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 11:15 · Score: 1

Oh well! That's all right then!
Yup, pretty much it is.
Or are you claiming you have some other airplane tucked away that would not catch fire if someone took a lighter to it?
By your logic, you personally are a danger to everyone around you, and must be banned from entering all public and private places. If someone took a flame thrower to you, there might be a fire and it would be all your fault!
Of course I think your logic is suspect, and the fact you would blame yourself for all the damaged caused when CLEARLY the fault lies with the person using the flame thrower, well that just shows how well you have thought this through...
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by MiG82au · 2013-07-12 18:20 · Score: 1

You don't usually restart engines in flight. If it died or was shut down, it's for a good reason and it's staying that way til you land (with some rare exceptions like the BA flight into volcanic ash). On non ETOPS flights APUs aren't left running, but thanks to your comment I looked into it and learned that on ETOPS flights it often is. All these APUs also provide electrical power only above mid altitude, adding more evidence that their function is not for in flight restarts (the engine is windmilling anyway).
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by Luckyo · 2013-07-12 22:45 · Score: 1

Two words: emergency procedures.
There are a lot of rules to civil aviation that do not make sense until you start thinking in terms of "what has a very small chance of happening but with potentially fatal consequences".
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by tsa · 2013-07-12 23:11 · Score: 1

The batteries are kept below the passenger compartment, and the damage appears to be along the top of the fuselage (just in front of the vertical stabiliser) - I can see no visible visible damage around the area of the aft batteries.
That is because the fire was on the inside of the plane. Hot air goes up, so you would see damage on the top of the plane first in that case.

--
-- Cheers!
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by MiG82au · 2013-07-13 02:51 · Score: 1

That's true, but another important word is cost. Apart from extended operations, APUs aren't run. For example, on the 747 it's not ever meant to be started in flight and has something like an 18k ft operating limit. I know of a few other aircraft that have APU altitude limits too, especially for bleed air (rather than just electricity).
The inconsistent battle between safety and cost is really odd to me. There are so many incredibly expensive requirements, but on the other hand you have aircraft that idle for half an hour or more in take off queues rather than be towed around (in wheel electric tow solutions are being investigated). Hell, once at LAX I saw a 757 wait 50 m from a gate for 15 minutes with both engines on. It was waiting for a marshall/ waving baton man (I was listening on my scanner). Some people are defensive about the status quo and justify this as "well imagine you had to jump out of bed and sprint 400 m", disregarding that at low volume airports aircraft do have VERY short warm up times for the engines (in my estimation my Jetstar A320 flight out of Avalon (YMAV) was under 120 seconds from a cold start sitting at the gate all night).
Mildly drunken rambling aside, yeah, there are very conservative rules in aviation, but cost considerations come into it too because everything is so god damn expensive.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by Luckyo · 2013-07-13 04:44 · Score: 1

I can help you with electric towing issue. Problem is in the weight of the electric engine mounted on the landing gear. Until recently, it was simply too heavy to be profitable - what you save on the ground, you burn in the air keeping the extra weight flying with the rest of the plane. Even now, the only profitable flights are going to be short ones and they approximate something around 2-3 hour flight to break even on fuel savings and go into negative. That's why they were running small short haul plane around on the tarmac in Paris, instead of larger planes.
Before the current technological advancements in mining haulers and other heavy equipment that pioneered "electric engine in heavy duty wheels" technology, such electric towing would be simply unfeasible even on short range planes.
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by oobayly · 2013-07-14 07:57 · Score: 1

So the "hot air" rose up to the top of the fuselage, moved aft by 30ft and only then caused visible damage, but the actual fire that caused the hot air didn't cause any visible damage in the immediate vicinity of the batteries?
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by tsa · 2013-07-14 08:09 · Score: 1

Hm, you're right. My hypothesis is dismissed.
I heard on the news that the fire didn't have to do with the batteries this time.

--
-- Cheers!
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by mgcarley · 2013-07-14 09:42 · Score: 1

Smoking has been banned for how many decades now, yet for reasons I completely fail to understand, there are still ashtrays being installed in A380s.
Since these days things are supposed to be all about saving cost, *not* installing ashtrays would surely be more logical, right?

--
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment by mjwx · 2013-07-14 15:33 · Score: 1

The Li-Ion batteries that have caused the Dreamliner so much trouble are in the lower front part of the plane, below the front doors.
The news pictures show a problem on the upper side near the tail section.
Oh well! That's all right then!
The fire is on top of where the 787's cabin crew rest area is.

The airline may have changed this configuration but I doubt it.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

One system to rule them all... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 05:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Sad how one badly designed subsystem can take down an entire product.

Re:One system to rule them all... by X0563511 · 2013-07-12 06:01 · Score: 1

I wonder if it's the battery again... if it is, that's not exactly a small subsystem.

--
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...
Re:One system to rule them all... by h4rr4r · 2013-07-12 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think he means the airport.
If a single fire means they can't do landings and takeoffs that seems like a poor design. It sounds like an easy thing for trouble makers to exploit
Re:One system to rule them all... by xaxa · 2013-07-12 06:20 · Score: 1

I think he means the airport.
If a single fire means they can't do landings and takeoffs that seems like a poor design. It sounds like an easy thing for trouble makers to exploit
LHR didn't have snowploughs available a couple of years ago (it's not that common for it to snow here, but the other London airports all had the necessary equipment).
However, there are only two runways, and they only have one plane landing at a time, so enough firemen to cope with one plane on fire doesn't seem unreasonable. For something bigger (plane crashing into the terminal building?) the normal fire brigade would presumably help.
Re:One system to rule them all... by h4rr4r · 2013-07-12 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

I merely meant that one worker with a smoke bomb now knows he can shut down LHR whenever he thinks it would benefit him or those he allies himself with.
Re:One system to rule them all... by sjames · 2013-07-12 06:26 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually it's a good design. They could have remained open and at full capacity during this incident BUT since the fire crews and equipment were busy, their policy is to shut down to avoid the risk of a second incident and no way to respond to it.
Since fires and other rescue situations aren't terribly common, the fire crew is just standing by most of the time. Having 1 crew standing by most of the time and another nearly all of the time wouldn't be very practical.
Re:One system to rule them all... by h4rr4r · 2013-07-12 06:29 · Score: 1

I did not suggest that as a fix.
It is a design. The first question I have is what was the cost of all this? It might well have been cheaper to have some London firefighters trained and ready to call in if needed for something like this. Paying overtime for a crew of firefighters might have been cheaper than the downtime.
Re:One system to rule them all... by Hognoxious · 2013-07-12 06:42 · Score: 1

It might well have been cheaper to have some London firefighters trained and ready to call in if needed for something like this.
And in a genuine emergency, like when two planes crash simultaneously or the fire speads outside the airport they might do that.
Note that when the crashes are separated in time that's not a genuine emergency, because the second was avoidable by telling it to wait or fuck off somewhere else.

Paying overtime for a crew of firefighters might have been cheaper than the downtime.
Might schmight. You're speculating, not calculating. Armchair CFO.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:One system to rule them all... by Capt.Albatross · 2013-07-12 06:46 · Score: 1

It might well have been cheaper to have some London firefighters trained and ready to call in if needed for something like this.
That's already part of the policy and that is what happened. It may have allowed operations to resume earlier than otherwise.

Paying overtime for a crew of firefighters might have been cheaper than the downtime.
If you want this argument to be plausible, you should go quantitative. My guess is that the people setting the policies spent more time thinking about this than you did,
used quantitative analysis, and are competent.
Re:One system to rule them all... by h4rr4r · 2013-07-12 06:47 · Score: 1

I would love to calculate, but I have no idea about the costs of the outage.
The problem with even guessing at them is that the airport and airlines externalize these costs onto the customer in ways most operations could only dream of. If a restaurant canceled my dinner 3 times and delayed it 4 times I would never go there again. With airlines I can't even try to do that. I have tried to avoid some airlines for years, yet I still get forced onto them due to schedule changes and the like. So I can buy a Lufthansa ticket and end up on a Delta flight, even if I am trying to avoid Deliver Everyone's Luggage To Atlanta.
Re:One system to rule them all... by h4rr4r · 2013-07-12 06:48 · Score: 1

I would not be surprised if that was true. Welcome to slashdot, clearly you are new here.
Re:One system to rule them all... by icebike · 2013-07-12 06:59 · Score: 2

I would love to calculate, but I have no idea about the costs of the outage.
The problem with even guessing at them is that the airport and airlines externalize these costs onto the customer in ways most operations could only dream of. If a restaurant canceled my dinner 3 times and delayed it 4 times I would never go there again. With airlines I can't even try to do that. I have tried to avoid some airlines for years, yet I still get forced onto them due to schedule changes and the like. So I can buy a Lufthansa ticket and end up on a Delta flight, even if I am trying to avoid Deliver Everyone's Luggage To Atlanta.
The way we attribute the cost of delays is pretty asinine.
Basically they take and average salary times the number of people who might have been inconvenienced times X hours of delay and add it all up
and assign the whole number to this incident. Never mind the fact that the delay never costs most people a dime, because there is no
way to schedule your flights and connections with zero wait time.
If the same accounting method were used to price everything in the world your average glass of water would include the entire cost of water collection and distribution system.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:One system to rule them all... by h4rr4r · 2013-07-12 07:03 · Score: 1

Sure, but the airlines method of saying it cost $0, since the flight took off 12 hours later and they kept rescheduling every 2 hours to avoid even handing out beverages is just as bad.
I have definitely had costs associated with delays, extra days worth of airport parking, food, missed work, toiletries I had to purchase, etc. That toiletries one does not happen anymore since I put the critical stuff in carryon now.
Re:One system to rule them all... by gl4ss · 2013-07-12 07:10 · Score: 2

I merely meant that one worker with a smoke bomb now knows he can shut down LHR whenever he thinks it would benefit him or those he allies himself with.
a mere telephone call would suffice so why bother with a smoke bomb?

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:One system to rule them all... by geniice · 2013-07-12 07:11 · Score: 2

London firefighters are public sector. Airport group won't be.
Re:One system to rule them all... by joe_frisch · 2013-07-12 07:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, it is surprisingly easy to shut down a major airport. They will probably catch you, but it would be an interesting form of non-violent terrorism.
It is really lucky that terrorist organizations aren't very clever.
Dear NSA,
despite the use of the word "terrorism", I have no intention of violating US laws in order to influence US politics. I'm just using what little remains of my first amendment rights to make a political comment on US policies on terrorism.
Re:One system to rule them all... by Kingston · 2013-07-12 07:42 · Score: 1

LFB attend all significant incidents as Heathrow, as they did today. LFB has extra appliances and manpower available at all the stations surrounding Heathrow, including Ruislip, Hayes and Hillingdon and can call on appliances from across London and neighbouring fire authorities. The shutdown today was not due to a lack of resources.
Re:One system to rule them all... by marcosdumay · 2013-07-12 07:51 · Score: 2

The cost is HUGE. But the city firefigters won't be able to attend an emergency on time. Household fires need more time to grow, and houses are easier to escape, but there is an enourmous area that may get on fire - city firefighters have completely different priorities, and also different equipment.
I was in the team in charge of defining wich brazilian airports should have firefighting service once. That cost is a constant preocupation while doing policy. (Another peocupation is whether the airport firefighters are able to save people either.)

--
Rethinking email
Re:One system to rule them all... by xaxa · 2013-07-12 08:50 · Score: 1

EU rules go some way to fixing that, for flights within/from the EU. After two hours, I think they owe you a meal [voucher], at some point they have to provide a hotel room (on a return ticket when you're stuck away from home).
The budget airlines can still cause a problem, but even they generally follow the rules while complaining loudly.
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-rights/air/
Re:One system to rule them all... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 08:53 · Score: 2, Funny

...Dear NSA,
despite the use of the word "terrorism", I have no intention of violating US laws in order to influence US politics. I'm just using what little remains of my first amendment rights...
Noted. But don't think that this means you haven't been put on our lists for 'special' attention....
NSA
Re:One system to rule them all... by xaxa · 2013-07-12 08:57 · Score: 1

Aircraft fires are different than houses and vehicles.
The firetrucks are different and carry different equipment.
I'm not even sure your typical city firetruck can manage to drive the airfield.
British firefighters are funded by general taxation, and have good-quality equipment. They can drive to the airport, probably without bothering to steer if they cared to...
I've read about volunteer firefighters in the US, which seems to be the norm? There are volunteers in the UK (though I'd not heard of them before I checked just now), but they aren't often called upon.
Re:One system to rule them all... by h4rr4r · 2013-07-12 09:25 · Score: 1

Good luck getting any of that stuff. They never offer it either, you have to know about these rules and hope that the person at the counter does too.
Re:One system to rule them all... by mrbester · 2013-07-12 10:21 · Score: 1

LHR is the busiest two runway airport in the world (Schiphol is busier but has more runways). The flights are 45s apart (not 30s) at peak times.
As an aside, LGW is the busiest single runway airport in the world where the flights are 60s apart at peak times.

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Re:One system to rule them all... by digitig · 2013-07-12 11:06 · Score: 1

The roads on the airfield are much easier for a firetruck (fire engine in the UK) to drive on than city streets -- most of them are built for aircraft and are pretty wide, and even those designed solely for ground vehicles are designed for pretty big ground vehicles. If the airport is operating then non-airport vehicles would need a radio-vehicle escort to deal with ATC, but when because the airport was closed they could have driven around no problem. (I've done it, though not in a fire engine).

--
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Re:One system to rule them all... by digitig · 2013-07-12 11:20 · Score: 1

In any properly governed nation, you have an airport fire brigade at any airport where you regularly operate large jets with lots of passengers. If you only get the occasional large jet with lots of passengers -- if you're a likely diversion airport, for instance -- then it might not be worth having a standing fire brigade and just pulling in support from the town when you are expecting a big jet.

--
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Re:One system to rule them all... by marcosdumay · 2013-07-13 03:44 · Score: 1

Besides that "regularly" that digitig already talked about, that is the essence of defining on what airports you need ARFF, do you have any evidence of the odds of firefighters actualy saving 200 humans?
We are collecting statistics for years, and we still couldn't prove that it's not zero with statistical significance.

--
Rethinking email
Re:One system to rule them all... by mjwx · 2013-07-14 15:06 · Score: 1

Dear NSA,
despite the use of the word "terrorism", I have no intention of violating US laws in order to influence US politics. I'm just using what little remains of my first amendment rights to make a political comment on US policies on terrorism.
Dear joe_frisch,

It's not that we dont understand the context of your comment, it's just that we simply dont care.

Please enjoy your stay in our facility.

Signed,
NSA.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:One system to rule them all... by Lew-the-nerd · 2013-07-15 03:06 · Score: 1

I don't think that all 'volunteer' firefighter companies are the norm in the US except outside of large communities.
Typically a volunteer firefighting unit is maintained in areas where there is low population density, the fire incidence low and the distances between the population centers so far that a professional company would have difficulty reaching a fire before it had done significant damage.
In Maryland, for example, there are many companies that began as volunteer but as the towns got larger, more professional firefighters were hired to man the firehouses routinely and the volunteers report when the needs for a larger contingent occur. These companies, while staffed usually with professionals, often retain 'Volunteer' in their name.
Re:One system to rule them all... by joe_frisch · 2013-07-15 04:18 · Score: 1

Fortunately for me I'm a white, middle class, middle aged, non-muslim man, so I'm not likely to wind up in prison and I can exercise my 1st amendment rights with little fear of consequences.
I wish the same were true for other people, but sadly it isn't and I don't know how to fix it.

Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal by Freshly+Exhumed · 2013-07-12 05:50 · Score: 1

The problems began when Boeing sent them the new, improved 787C version.

--
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.

Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 06:12 · Score: 2

At this point, they should rename it to the Boeing 451 Dreamliner
Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal by rwise2112 · 2013-07-12 06:25 · Score: 1

Why? Is it made of paper?

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal by bkmoore · 2013-07-12 06:59 · Score: 1, Funny

No, they should rename it to the Boeing 451 Screamliner.
Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal by bkmoore · 2013-07-12 07:00 · Score: 1

Why? Is it made of paper?
Paper covers rock.
Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2013-07-12 07:00 · Score: 3, Funny

At this point, they should rename it to the Boeing 451 Dreamliner
Boeing 787 Hindenburg more like!
Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal by katleman · 2013-07-12 08:23 · Score: 1

Boeing 787 Hindenliner July hasn't been a good month for Boeing
Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal by ebno-10db · 2013-07-12 08:57 · Score: 1

How unpatriotic. Borrow an American term from WWII, when Sherman tanks were called Ronsons: lights first time, every time.
Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal by mjwx · 2013-07-14 15:08 · Score: 1

How unpatriotic. Borrow an American term from WWII, when Sherman tanks were called Ronsons: lights first time, every time.
It was actually the British who coined that term for the Sherman Tank based on an advertisement for Ronson lighters.

The Germans called them "Tommy Cookers" with Tommy being a nickname for the English.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

We didn't start the fire by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 05:55 · Score: 1

it was always burning since the world's been turning

-Boeing

Whistleblower vindicated again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 05:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Whistleblower Michael Leon warned of this in 2006:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100406310

And for that he was terminated and his career ruined. Too bad management never wants to listen.

Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by istartedi · 2013-07-12 06:30 · Score: 5, Funny

I have a fantastic plan to sell little electronic fingers that you put in your ears. They have speakers in them and play, "La-la-la-la-la...". What? Not a sound business model? I can't hear you.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by Hognoxious · 2013-07-12 06:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Not a sound business model?
I see - metaphorically - what you did there.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by bobbied · 2013-07-12 06:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

Right... An operative from Airbus commuted arson while is sat on the tarmac?
This plane is having a pretty bumpy start. Years late, an inflight fire during testing, some serious smoking battery issues that got it grounded for months and now this? This does not bode well for Boeing's dream aircraft. The problem here is that unlike most of Boeing's previous aircraft launches, the 787 is having some shockingly serious problems crop up. I think the evidence is mounting that they cut a few to many corners in their bid to cut weight and cost. Hopefully they can pull this together but as the number and seriousness of the issues stack up it starts looking less and less likely.
Seems the dream is turning into a nightmare.... A really hot and smokey nightmare. If the flying public looses confidence in the aircraft or it gets grounded again for months, this is going to be really bad for the company.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by M1FCJ · 2013-07-12 07:16 · Score: 1

True, planes catch fire on Heathrow every other week and rarely it's a 878, it's always an Airbus or Ilyushin... Or not...
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by interkin3tic · 2013-07-12 07:45 · Score: 1

Terminated eh? "Sky News?" More like "SKYNET!!!!"

(This would have been a better formulated joke, but my boss is coming)
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by chispito · 2013-07-12 07:56 · Score: 1

Not a sound business model?
I see - metaphorically - what you did there.
I hear ya, buddy.

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by ebno-10db · 2013-07-12 09:00 · Score: 1

Thanks Boeing, for helping to kill yet another once great American company and put another stake in the heart of American industry. Don't forget to give yourselves a big executive bonus.
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by Dogtanian · 2013-07-12 10:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

The problem here is that unlike most of Boeing's previous aircraft launches, the 787 is having some shockingly serious problems crop up. I think the evidence is mounting that they cut a few to many corners in their bid to cut weight and cost.
It's been commented previously on Slashdot (following the previous problems) that...

The problem with the 787, and the reason that it was years behind schedule and has so many problems, is that the executive geniuses at Boeing decided to outsource as much of the engineering as they could ("outsource" here referring to both domestic and offshore outsourcing). Many of the companies that engineering was outsourced to simply didn't have the expertise. Large airliners are not exactly the kind of thing that every job shop and subcontractor has the know-how to design. There are only two companies worth mentioning in the world that do.

The only way they got the 787 out the door at all (and stemmed the financial bleeding of Boeing) was by taking emergency steps to find a large cadre of engineers who had decades of deep experience in airliner design. They found them at (surprise, surprise) Boeing! Golly, you mean there was some wisdom to the way the world's most successful airliner manufacturer has designed planes for decades? Whodda thunk it? No doubt the top execs at Boeing will get large bonuses for discovering this brilliant last minute solution, and blame Boeing engineering for the problems that do remain.
So, it sounds like they tried to "cut corners" in more than one sense, and also paid for that. (I'd credit the poster of the above personally for his/her insightful comment, but it was posted anonymously).

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by ebno-10db · 2013-07-12 11:02 · Score: 1

I'd prefer a battery fire than exploding engines a la A380.
Only the Rolls-Royce engines do that. The Engine Alliance (GE/Pratt-Whitney consortium) engines work just fine. Nice to know we still make something that works.
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by Y-Crate · 2013-07-12 13:42 · Score: 1

I'd prefer a battery fire than exploding engines a la A380.
Only the Rolls-Royce engines do that. The Engine Alliance (GE/Pratt-Whitney consortium) engines work just fine. Nice to know we still make something that works.
I know people who worked on the A380 program and they're more than happy to fly on one and have their families fly on one. It's a fundamentally sound aircraft.
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by serviscope_minor · 2013-07-12 21:23 · Score: 1

The problem with the 787, and the reason that it was years behind schedule and has so many problems, is that the executive geniuses at Boeing decided to outsource as much of the engineering as they could
I'm not a fan of oursourcing. In fact I'm generally against if it's possible to avoid.
However, in this one case I'm not sure that was the entire problem, though I'm certain it was a cause of a good deal of them for the 787 in general.
The batteries in this case probably wasn't an outsourcing related problem: Batteries and controllers have got really really really complicated. Even avoiding outsourcing as a general rule, I don't see that Boeing had much choice but to get the batteries and controllers from an external supplier.
It's the same with engines. Manufacturing has consolidated to two companies (Rolls Royce and General Electric (i.e. Engine Alliance)). They're just gettng too big and complicated for smaller players.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Whistleblower vindicated again by Hognoxious · 2013-07-13 11:35 · Score: 1

I read your reply and thought I'd accidentally posted in the Bose thread.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

there were no signs of fire ... wrong by BemoanAndMoan · 2013-07-12 06:00 · Score: 5, Informative

Sky News showed the new plane — which was not carrying passengers at the time — had been sprayed by foam, but there were no signs of fire.

But there is! Scorch marks on the roof in front of the tail section.

Check it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23295115 [bbc video feed]

Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-07-12 06:15 · Score: 1

confirming for the bandwidth challenged. Also firefighting foam on the pavement.
There are interesting longitudinal lines across the scorched area - is the composite body laid down in strips?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by xaxa · 2013-07-12 06:24 · Score: 2

Sky News showed the new plane — which was not carrying passengers at the time — had been sprayed by foam, but there were no signs of fire.
But there is! Scorch marks on the roof in front of the tail section.
Check it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23295115 [bbc video feed]
I assume some people can't access the video, or would prefer not to: http://imgur.com/DSuowjU
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by Amouth · 2013-07-12 06:28 · Score: 2

There are interesting longitudinal lines across the scorched area - is the composite body laid down in strips?
I can say the answer to that is yes, the shell is made up in a crosshatch

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by Dunbal · 2013-07-12 06:30 · Score: 1

Or maybe the air-skin pulled over some "ribs"? I'm not an aerospace engineer, dunno what they're called. Still, I wonder what is kept exactly there that would have caught fire. I guess we'll find out eventually. Or not.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by khallow · 2013-07-12 06:33 · Score: 1

There are interesting longitudinal lines across the scorched area - is the composite body laid down in strips?
I understand that the body itself is formed in rings and glued together in a row. The photo I'm looking at seems to show the scorch marks near the beginning of the tail fin. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing laid down a bunch of strips to improve the structural integrity of that area and perhaps to streamline the aircraft a bit.
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by icebike · 2013-07-12 07:11 · Score: 1

Sky News showed the new plane — which was not carrying passengers at the time — had been sprayed by foam, but there were no signs of fire.
But there is! Scorch marks on the roof in front of the tail section.
Check it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23295115 [bbc video feed]
That location is above the in-flight food service area.
The batteries are located in the tail below the floor, and you notice that the door way to that area was opened, but there is no sign of smoke or fire damage there.
There is no route for flame from the battery compartment to the roof of the plane.
So I'm guessing the food service equipment caught fire, and it had nothing to do with the batteries.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by bobbied · 2013-07-12 07:26 · Score: 1

Ahhh... Where is the APU in this thing? I'm thinking that they usually are in the tail in large aircraft, but I'm just a software engineer not a pilot or avionics engineer.
APU in tail puts a lot of electrical cables, hot air ducts and fuel lines along side control cables, hydraulic lines and such. APU's provide ground power and air conditioning, compressed air for engine starting along with electrical power. There is a large power distribution infrastructure just under where the fire seems to have caused a problem.
This looks very similar to the avionics bay fire that grounded the test aircraft in Texas. http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2013387936_787emergency10.html

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by saider · 2013-07-12 07:54 · Score: 1

rear galley?

--

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by Richard_at_work · 2013-07-12 08:09 · Score: 2

Yes the composite skin is laid down in strips, but that's not what that is - that's the ribs and stringers that go together to form the internal fuselage structure, which is bonded to the skin to give it rigidity.
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by PPH · 2013-07-12 09:58 · Score: 1

The repair of such a large area is going to be ..... interesting given the type of construction.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by Ptur · 2013-07-12 10:17 · Score: 1

No it isn't... RTFA you link to: that fire started in an area below cabin, not above.
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by ballpoint · 2013-07-12 10:30 · Score: 1

...to screamline the aircraft a bit.
FTFY.

--
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by jbengt · 2013-07-12 11:41 · Score: 1

Stringers? (Haven't seen the pictures)
Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong by MiG82au · 2013-07-12 18:34 · Score: 1

Stringers run fore aft and frames circumferentially. It's not just an air skin, the skin takes the majority of the fuselage loads, and the stringers and frames are there to stop the thin skin from buckling as it does that. The frames also act as a hard point for localised forces.
Unfortunately you will probably have forgotten about this incident by the time it's reported.

Too many American-made parts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 06:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Should have stuck with the Japanese manufacturers. Caucasians are too tall and gangly. Asians are shorter and closer to the electronic parts, and therefore can see them better.

Re:Too many American-made parts by saider · 2013-07-12 07:58 · Score: 1

Unionized morons?

--

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.

Ethiopia Airlines by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 06:02 · Score: 1

Odds that they didn't install the battery fix?

Re:Ethiopia Airlines by Andy+Dodd · 2013-07-12 06:10 · Score: 1

That's a good question.
Was this a Dreamliner that had fixes for the previous problems applied burning, or was this a case of an airline cheaping out and not installing a strongly recommended/required fix?

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by h4rr4r · 2013-07-12 06:18 · Score: 1

The battery is in the front, this fire was in the back.
What are the odds they are related?
Also boeing paid for those fixes, so cheap airline or not they would be done.
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by YrWrstNtmr · 2013-07-12 06:24 · Score: 1

Who paid for it often has little relevance on if it was actually done.

"Here's $500,000 to refit your fleet"
"Ok, thanks. We'll get right on that."
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by xaxa · 2013-07-12 06:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Odds that they didn't install the battery fix?
Nil? Would they be allowed to fly within the EU if they hadn't?
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by h4rr4r · 2013-07-12 06:26 · Score: 1

You honestly think boeing gave them the money?
This is how you think that works?
You don't think boeing might not notice the return of the old units when they ship the new ones to the airline? You think inspectors would not notice?
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-07-12 06:33 · Score: 1

Hardly a "cheap airline" if they are flying brand new planes.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by 0123456 · 2013-07-12 06:35 · Score: 1

The battery is in the front, this fire was in the back.
What are the odds they are related?
As far as I'm aware, there are two batteries, but the rear one isn't that far back.
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by Shimbo · 2013-07-12 06:52 · Score: 2

As far as I'm aware, there are two batteries, but the rear one isn't that far back.
That appears to be the case: http://graphics.chicagotribune.com/dreamliner-problems/
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by afidel · 2013-07-12 07:06 · Score: 1

The APU battery is in the back and is the one that went fully engulfed in the incident that grounded the entire 787 fleet.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by icebike · 2013-07-12 07:15 · Score: 2

The battery is in the front, this fire was in the back.
What are the odds they are related?
Also boeing paid for those fixes, so cheap airline or not they would be done.
See this image, and stop posting nonsense: http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2013/01/17/00/23/XsZ5c.La.91.jpg
The batteries are not likely at fault here, because the fire is at the top of the plane, not down in the lower rear compartment.
This area is above the in-flight meal preparation area.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by h4rr4r · 2013-07-12 07:18 · Score: 1

1. yes you are correct
2. Look at how many other people also corrected me, why bother joining in?
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by joe_frisch · 2013-07-12 07:29 · Score: 1

Boeing did whatever they thought was best for their bottom line. In this case is is quite likely that they DID pay for the repairs, though of course they may have had different arrangements with different airlines. They are very early in production after a very expensive development program. This is not the time to skimp on customer service and Boeing knows it.
Re:Ethiopia Airlines by isorox · 2013-07-12 08:47 · Score: 1

That's a good question.
Was this a Dreamliner that had fixes for the previous problems applied burning, or was this a case of an airline cheaping out and not installing a strongly recommended/required fix?
No, it's a racist ignorant twat
In fact this was the first plane that returned to the skies after the grounding, if this is battery related, then Boeing may as well shut up shop.

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude by tnk1 · 2013-07-12 06:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Ethiopians are predominantly Christians and have been since around the 4th Century AD.

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude by ShanghaiBill · 2013-07-12 06:05 · Score: 5, Informative

towards fire. Don't put that out! It contains the soul of the fire god. Our tribal elders forbid it.

Ethiopia has been a Christian nation since the 1st century A.D. That was several centuries before Europeans stopped worshiping their "fire gods", like Vulcan, Surtr, and Thor.

Fire everything! by voice_of_all_reason · 2013-07-12 06:06 · Score: 1

>> all the airport's fire crews tacking the Boeing 787 incident Send ALL the crews? :\

Re:Fire everything! by lxs · 2013-07-12 06:30 · Score: 2

Yes both of them. Kevin and his pet spider Colin.
Colin says hi.

Dumb downvoters... by ulatekh · 2013-07-12 06:15 · Score: 2

They've never seen the movie Crazy People, I guess.

--
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude by PRMan · 2013-07-12 06:19 · Score: 5, Informative

They trace their Christian heritage to the Ethopian that rode in his chariot while Philip in the Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:26-40

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...

Flameliner by swschrad · 2013-07-12 06:19 · Score: 1

best in-flight BBQ

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Re:Flameliner by Sponge+Bath · 2013-07-12 06:45 · Score: 1

I fell into a burning ring of fire
Boeing's stock went down and the flames went higher
and it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
the ring of fire
Re:Flameliner by digitalchinky · 2013-07-12 13:15 · Score: 1

Speaking of BBQ, many aviation forums are speculating the fire might have been caused by equipment in the galley area.
Re:Flameliner by intermodal · 2013-07-24 06:31 · Score: 1

That was actually my initial thought. Lavs and galleys are usually what one finds at the very back of a commercial aircraft.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Cost? by mrspoonsi · 2013-07-12 06:25 · Score: 1

You do not often see a whole airport closed for a period of time because of a plane fire, and a very busy airport like London Heathrow, I wonder do other airlines affected bill the plane insurance company? could be very costly closing a major airport.

Re:Cost? by marcosdumay · 2013-07-12 08:08 · Score: 1

You do not often see big planes on fire. When they catch fire, they often close the entire airport.
Also, it's rare for the fire to last long enough for most people to notice the delay. Even when there is a fuel leackage on fire, the firefighters are usualy able to get there in less than 3 minutes, control it in less then 9 minutes (from the start), and get on position again 7 minutes after somebody else assumes the firefighting (16 minutes total if you have some team there).

--
Rethinking email

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-07-12 06:30 · Score: 1

It's sad when someone wooshes a their own failed attempt at humor. Its like he wooshed to cover up the fact he didn't realize Ethiopia wasn't actually a country of uncivilized heathens but that it was part of the joke all along.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.

Fire somebody! by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-07-12 06:38 · Score: 1

More importantly: That's all your crews? For Heathrow? Third busiest airport in the world?

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

No signs of fire? "Suspected"? by wonkey_monkey · 2013-07-12 06:40 · Score: 1

but there were no signs of fire.

To clarify, I think the submitter means no sign of fire still burning now. The BBC pointed out fire damage on the roof just forward of the tail.

Also:

as fire crews attended to a 'suspected fire'

No, it definitely was an actual fire! I don't know where this quote comes from (it's not in either of the articles now).

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? by k6mfw · 2013-07-12 06:45 · Score: 1

Interesting question about they can afford such a plane. I could not help but noticed the aircraft, "Queen of Sheba" that reminded me of this movie, Solomon and Sheba, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053290/?ref_=sr_1

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 06:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

1. "We Are the World" was recorded 28 years ago.
2. Does American Airlines belong to the Unites States of America?

Rear Battery Again? by slashkitty · 2013-07-12 06:47 · Score: 1

It looks like the fire damage on the roof of the plane is right above where they keep the rear battery.. The battery is kept below, so, I'm not sure if the fire could spread to the top of the plane. This would be very embarrassing if it's the battery again. They were suppose to be replaced with safer, fire proof cases and other improvements. After dealing with RC lipo batteries, I can say they are real difficult to charge and keep. I always assume they could catch fire at any time. Really not the thing you want in a plane.

--
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.

Embraer is smaller by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-07-12 06:48 · Score: 4, Informative

The smallest 787 configuration carries 210 passengers. The largest stretched Embraer carries just 120. Different league entirely. Embraer is competing with the 717/A318 and similar small commuter jets, not the 787/A380 and similar wide bodied jumbos.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:Embraer is smaller by jbengt · 2013-07-12 11:46 · Score: 1

The 717 is still In service, though.
Re:Embraer is smaller by mjwx · 2013-07-14 15:27 · Score: 1

The smallest 787 configuration carries 210 passengers. The largest stretched Embraer carries just 120. Different league entirely. Embraer is competing with the 717/A318 and similar small commuter jets, not the 787/A380 and similar wide bodied jumbos.
The E1xx jets aren't even competing with the A318 and B737's. They're small regional jets that are competing with the B717 and Bombardier C series. Older competitors include the Avro RJ/BAe146 and Fokker F28 which will still be flying about. These commercial passenger jets are as small as you get before you start getting into turboprops (ATR 72). B737 and A320 series are up in the 120-200 odd pax group.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Common airliner teething problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 06:54 · Score: 1

To be fair, the entire fleet of 777's were grounded 2 years after the first delivery due to gearbox wearing issues, which is a major problem, and yet the 777, now 22 years in service, has one of the highest dispatch reliability rates of any airline, at 99.96%. These things are just too darned complicated to get everything right, and due to safety regulations they always take the nuclear option and ground entire fleets when something like this happens just to be sure. Plus with faster media and the ever increasing competition between Airbus and Boeing,not to mention that Boeing is the US's largest exporter by a significant margin, then you basically hear all about these problems very quickly and very dramatically.

Re:Common airliner teething problems by 0123456 · 2013-07-12 07:46 · Score: 2

While I agree that no airliner is perfect when released, gearbox wear is probably something you can predict and at least monitor for with regular inspections if you do leave the planes in operation while waiting for a fix. Randomly catching on fire isn't.
Re:Common airliner teething problems by bobbied · 2013-07-12 07:47 · Score: 1

Oh I'm not seriously concerned about some kind of issue popping up in the system from time to time. Stuff happens and it's hard to foresee how everything is going to work out over time. Sometimes you just cannot see how things will wear or that the margin for error wasn't quite as good as we thought.
But this airplane has MULTIPLE issues cropping up and we just don't have many flight hours and time in service to justify this many. The evidence is mounting that Boeing may have cut too many corners on this one trying to deliver on a too aggressive schedule at too low of a cost.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Common airliner teething problems by Richard_at_work · 2013-07-12 08:14 · Score: 1

Gearbox wear is constantly monitored anyway by vibration levels and oil consumption - GE, P&W and RR all get the data in near time, and know when an engine change is required before the airline.
Re:Common airliner teething problems by danomac · 2013-07-12 09:37 · Score: 1

Well, I guess they need to train the pilots to not be so hard on the clutch!
Re:Common airliner teething problems by oobayly · 2013-07-12 10:19 · Score: 1

How do you get 22 years in service?

Not an expert by stabiesoft · 2013-07-12 07:00 · Score: 1

I am wondering if the batteries fail from constant pressure changes. Its not like laptops or phones get pressure cycled like an airplane would. The LiIon batteries passengers carry are usually in the pressurized cabin. Are there any Li-Ion applications that do pressure cycle like a plane?

Re:Not an expert by bobbied · 2013-07-12 07:52 · Score: 1

I don't think this is an issue. Most batteries are not made of compressible materials or materials that have low boiling points so I seriously doubt that the pressure changes experienced during normal commercial flights are a problem. Now if you have a battery with air pockets or fluids that boil easily, you might have a concern. I don't think any of this is true for LiIon batteries. If there was a concern, I'm sure Boeing was required to demonstrate that their batteries where capable of taking the pressure changes.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Not an expert by xombo · 2013-07-12 10:11 · Score: 1

"I don't think..."
You say this about 3 times in your post.
You obviously did no research.
The shipment of lithium ion batteries was banned by USPS for this very reason due to concerns from the shipping industry after 2 cargo planes caught fire and crashed which contained them.
It's either the heat or temperature cycling that causes it. However, it's interesting to note that the issue only seems to affect batteries that are charged.

Too many advanced features? by sshir · 2013-07-12 07:10 · Score: 1

Just a reminder - Boeing 787 is a very advanced aircraft not only because of that carbon fiber thingy, but also because they've swapped almost all actuators from hydraulic to electrical ones - that's new (first?) for civilian aircraft. Electric generators are sitting right on engines shafts (so no bleeding == more fuel efficient design).

As a result Boeing is still chasing all the electrical (and tightly tied to them computer) bugs. Not very surprising that is.

Re:Too many advanced features? by jbeaupre · 2013-07-12 07:45 · Score: 1

I've had it with these mutherfuckin bugs on this mutherfuckin plane.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Re:Too many advanced features? by El_Oscuro · 2013-07-12 14:43 · Score: 1

Where are my mod points when I need them?

--
"Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
Re:Too many advanced features? by MiG82au · 2013-07-12 18:41 · Score: 1

Nah, 787 still uses hydraulic actuators. The system that they've done away with is the pneumatic system (engine bleed air) that is normally used for engine starting, cabin air conditioning and pressurising, and leading edge deicing.

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? by gl4ss · 2013-07-12 07:13 · Score: 1

Wait a minute? Ethopia Airlines? As in the country in Africa that's so poor and destitute that it pulled heart strings with "We Are the World"? That Ethopia? They can afford a friggin 787 Airliner? Damn...

"it pays for itself"

it's business.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Re:The Dreamliner 787 is so advanced ... by multi+io · 2013-07-12 07:14 · Score: 2

The Dreamliner 787 is so advanced ... it crashes without even needing to leave the jetway.

Makes evacuations a whole lot easier!

Boeing down 7% on NYSE by photonic · 2013-07-12 07:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Looks like Boeing went down about 7% when the news broke ...

--
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]

Re:Boeing down 7% on NYSE by Ptur · 2013-07-12 10:28 · Score: 1

OK, you win my joke of the day award (even if it's nearly 30 minutes into the next day already here). Thanks!

Alicia Keys sings... by Gumug · 2013-07-12 07:32 · Score: 1

This plane is on fire!

Same fault again? by bobbied · 2013-07-12 07:33 · Score: 1

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2013387936_787emergency10.html

Seems that Boeing has a serious problem with recurring issues on the 787 dreamliner. First the three battery fires, now with the rear electronics bay catching fire twice now.

I sure hope the two incidents are NOT related or the FAA is going to have to pull these aircraft out of service again. That would be very bad given we've spent about the same time grounded as actually in service.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

It's a different problem by sirwired · 2013-07-12 07:54 · Score: 2

Whatever this issue is, it's a different problem. This fire occurred near the tail of the aircraft near the crew rest area. The batteries in question were in the avionics bay near the front.

Re:It's a different problem by jklovanc · 2013-07-12 10:41 · Score: 1

There is an APU battery near the back too.

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? by rhodium_mir · 2013-07-12 07:56 · Score: 3, Informative

2. Does American Airlines belong to the Unites States of America?

No, but...

Ethiopian Airlines[...], formerly Ethiopian Air Lines and often referred to as simply Ethiopian, is Ethiopia's flag carrier and is wholly owned by the country's government.

--Wikipedia

--
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".

Re:African Pilots? by viperidaenz · 2013-07-12 08:07 · Score: 1

That's the pacific island plain.

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? by Supp0rtLinux · 2013-07-12 08:11 · Score: 1

"2. Does American Airlines belong to the Unites States of America?" Um, obviously the answer is no. But it *was* founded in America by Americans. And yes, We Are The World was recorded 28 years ago. But last I checked, Ethopia is still listed as a 3rd world country. In fact, its #10 on the list. I'm just surprised that a third world country has a friggin' Dreamliner (well had one that is apparently its burning right now). Then again, I guess I should be even more surprised that my comment wasn't even modded up for being humorous, but your's was for being "insightful" yet lacking any insight.

Another 787 had to turn back by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 08:31 · Score: 1

Another 787 had to turn back shortly after takeoff. From this Business Week article, "TUI Travel Plc (TT/)’s U.K. charter arm Thomson Airways Ltd. said that one of its two 787s turned back to Manchester in northern England today following the detection of an unspecified fault after it had departed for Orlando Sanford airport in Florida."

I wouldn't want to to fly on a 787.

Re:Another 787 had to turn back by xaxa · 2013-07-12 09:16 · Score: 1

They've only had that plane for 6 weeks...
http://holidaysjustgotbetter.thomson.co.uk/flights/dream-haul-has-arrived/

Re:Embraer is better by evilviper · 2013-07-12 08:36 · Score: 1

Embraer, they cost less, are more fuel efficient and don't burn at will

You might want to work on getting the fuel to burn. That might be important.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

fortunately, this airplane was parked roadside by swschrad · 2013-07-12 08:36 · Score: 1

when in operation, that is hardly possible. that's why everybody gets so twitchy over these things, regulators most of all.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? by im_thatoneguy · 2013-07-12 08:44 · Score: 1

2. Does American Airlines belong to the Unites States of America?

From Wikipedia:

Ethiopian Airlines formerly Ethiopian Air Lines and often referred to as simply Ethiopian, is Ethiopia's flag carrier and is wholly owned by the country's government.

Re:Li-ion by tibman · 2013-07-12 09:00 · Score: 1

or your cellphone, tablet, and laptop

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman

Boeing Lucky? by mrspoonsi · 2013-07-12 09:23 · Score: 1

I cannot help think that Boeing are very lucky that these issues are happening so far either on the ground or near to airports, imagine a plane fire whilst over the Pacific or Atlantic, the crew potentially would not be able to put such out, I think it would be wise to avoid this plane until it is shown to not catch fire.

Re:Boeing Lucky? by mrbester · 2013-07-12 10:36 · Score: 1

On the plus side, there's plenty of water available to put out a fire in the Atlantic...

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"

New name by PPH · 2013-07-12 10:03 · Score: 1

No longer the Dreamliner. Now the Boeing Firebird.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? by oobayly · 2013-07-12 10:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

You'll also probably find that on the proviso that Ethiopia received aid from the US, a certain amount had to be spent on upgrading the transport, and guess what, our friends at Boeing will sell you an aircraft. International Aid often appears to be an elaborate method for funnelling money back into one's own country. Think of it as laundering for governments.

This happens fairly regularly. An example was China offering aid to [I think] Somalia to upgrade the infrastructure, but Chinese companies and workers had to be used. I'm trying to find references.

Cynicism bordering on paranoaia? Possibly, but don't tell me that you can't see that kind of thing happening.

Re:What's going on with Boeing? by PPH · 2013-07-12 10:22 · Score: 1

Its been all downhill since they were bought by McDonnell-Douglas.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

New name? by Lost+Penguin · 2013-07-12 11:19 · Score: 1

787 Nightmare liner....

--
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? by jamesh · 2013-07-12 12:15 · Score: 1

It's all good business though. My country can afford to give your country 1 million dollars outright, or 100 million dollars if you use it to buy product/workers from my country to improve both our situations.

What the hell is that about? by sdinfoserv · 2013-07-12 14:59 · Score: 1

One plane from one company has a fire and the US stock market freaks out then tanks. Jesus people, stay calm an think.

Report that fire caused by coffee heater by hazeii · 2013-07-12 23:40 · Score: 1

There's a suggestion on AvHerald and PPRUNE that the problem was caused by a coffee heater in the galley; probably boiled dry, and the safety circuit failed.

--
All your ghosts are just false positives.

Starve it by Occams · 2013-07-13 15:44 · Score: 1

They should have starved the fire of oxygen, Ethiopians are good at starving.

--
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.

171 of 246 comments (clear)