787 Dreamliner On Fire Again

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Friday July 12, 2013 @05:43AM from the hot-topic dept.

Antipater writes "It looks like there's more trouble afoot for Boeing's 787 Dreamliner: London's Heathrow Airport was shut down for over an hour as fire crews attended to a 'suspected fire' on a Dreamliner owned by Ethiopia Airlines. 'Aerial pictures of the scene on the U.K.'s 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. The aircraft was not blocking either runway, but with all the airport's fire crews tackling the Boeing 787 incident, authorities were forced to suspend departures and arrivals because of safety rules.'"

51 of 246 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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.
1. 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.
2. 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"
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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
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.
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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
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.
1. 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"?
2. 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."
3. 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
4. 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).
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]
1. 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
2. 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.'
3. 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.
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: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.
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
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...
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:Fire everything! by lxs · 2013-07-12 06:30 · Score: 2

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