Has the AAIB said when a prelim report will be ready?

Here's the full WSJ story, referring to a possible issue with the emergency locator transmitter, made by Honeywell:

Investigators Probe Boeing 787 Emergency Locator Transmitter

Honeywell is invited into the investigation...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96E0QH20130715

*****************
I was again overwriting David. Now, David, would you be willing to bring the article - or most of it - forward here? One has to be a WSJ paid subscriber to get at it. I know that it's not FlyerTalk Hoyle to reprint whole articles, but I've managed to come close in other situations by replacing some extraneous material with [...]. Thank you.

One wonders if the AAIB can find independent expertise.

I'm not comfortable copying stories here from copyrighted sources, sorry. If this is behind the WSJ pay firewall, you can often bypass that in various ways, e.g., by searching for the story on Google and then clicking through to it from their results.

Here's the NYT story, probably more widely available: 787 Fire Inquiry Focuses on Transmitter

The transmitter, which would send out the plane’s location after a crash, is powered by a small lithium-manganese battery. The officials, who would speak only under the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the inquiry publicly, said investigators were focused on whether the transmitter could have caused the fire or helped it spread.

simple solution
 

I am sure there are smoke detectors on these planes. The problem is that when parked at a remote stand idle there is no one to hear the beeping thing. Perhaps they need another transmitter to alert the airport authority.

Conversely, perhaps a smoke alarm enabled Ethiopian personnel or first responders to stop the fire before it progressed further. An extinguishing system, like the ones that protect the flight deck and the nacelles, might have accomplished your objective.

How ironic it would be if it turns out that the origin of the fire was a piece of equipment installed to mitigate the consequences of an accident, not cause them.

Johan

I suggest that this Seattle Times reprise of the Bloomberg article has some interesting, possibly useful responses...

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...iopianxml.html

http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...rce_name=mbase

Not that I could find.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/uk-in...or-beacon-787s

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96H0XC20130718

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

The emergency locator transmitter (beacon).

Or the ELT's lithium manganese battery:

http://news.sky.com/story/1117523/he...ked-to-battery

...Though they are all reading the same report.

Now, at this point, the AAIB is just recommending that all ELTs on 787s be disconnected. But by not saying that all of these Honeywell ELTs in all aircraft should be disconnected, are they indicating a continuing uncertainty about the 787 in particular, or are they anxious about the effects of a far wider directive? Perhaps testing will be required for more precision as to the cause.

FWIW, in the other thread, mduell said that the ELT is not required by the FAA, though he has apparently withdrawn the post.

One has to be suspicious about whether it could have something to do with the wiring in the 787. Why would the same device fail in a 787 with so few of them out there when it's never been an issue in thousands of other planes? And issues relating to wiring could be a common factor between this fire and the the APU battery fires. I am certainly not breathing a sigh of relief at this news.

Does anyone watching this thread know what commercial aviation authorities require an Emergency Locator Transmitter?