Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Other Middle Eastern and African Airlines
Reload this Page >

ET / Ethiopian 787 "Dreamliner" catches fire at LHR [12 Jul 2013]

ET / Ethiopian 787 "Dreamliner" catches fire at LHR [12 Jul 2013]

Old Jul 30, 13, 11:41 am
  #76  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BOS and ...
Programs: UA 2MM, DL 500k, WoH 1M, HH Gold, Rad. Gold, CP Gold, Miracle Fruit-su Club
Posts: 9,931
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ View Post
Why is pressurization important for a flight with no passengers, and possibly at a low altitude?
Hey, I'm the one asking the questions and you're the expert. But seriously, I don't know. I would think that the crew, and maybe some systems, would need the same conditions as passengers, or to need to operate to a design objective. If the fuselage is not sealed, would they fly with masks and more? And would a unitary (meaning the parts relying on the whole) fuselage be subject to (partially) imploding? I've read that the composite is just as strong as aluminum, but I probably can't conceive of what all the issues would be with a crippled plane.
Firewind is offline  
Old Jul 30, 13, 4:12 pm
  #77  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,961
There's nothing on the plane that needs pressurization to operate. The plane needs to be able to survive depressurization at altitude and land safely, after all. The crew could either just fly at a low enough altitude to not require pressurization, or they could use masks. That doesn't seem like a big deal to me, for a single shuttle flight.

I wonder what the range of the 787 is if it has to stay at a relatively low altitude for the whole flight. Should still be plenty to cross the Atlantic.
DaviddesJ is offline  
Old Jul 30, 13, 4:38 pm
  #78  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC*E50 (*A Gold), Accor Platinum, Bonvoy Gold Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,427
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ View Post
I wonder what the range of the 787 is if it has to stay at a relatively low altitude for the whole flight. Should still be plenty to cross the Atlantic.
Considering AC uses a 319 on its YYT-LHR route, I think that's a safe assumption
ffsim is offline  
Old Jul 30, 13, 11:27 pm
  #79  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,961
Originally Posted by ffsim View Post
Considering AC uses a 319 on its YYT-LHR route, I think that's a safe assumption
How does this relate to the question? I don't know what the fuel economy of a 787 is at 8000 or 10000 ft, compared to normal cruising altitude. Probably a lot worse. Do you know? The 319 certainly flies a lot higher than 10000 ft.
DaviddesJ is offline  
Old Jul 31, 13, 3:29 am
  #80  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Programs: Miles & More, Amex
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ View Post
There's nothing on the plane that needs pressurization to operate. The plane needs to be able to survive depressurization at altitude and land safely, after all. The crew could either just fly at a low enough altitude to not require pressurization, or they could use masks. That doesn't seem like a big deal to me, for a single shuttle flight.
True, but that is not the point. The question is if the damage effects the structural integrity of the frame or if the flight might/will cause more (hidden) damage to the structure or hull of the plane. If that is/might be the case, then flying the plane to a repair station ends up rather dangerous. Just have a look at China Airlines flight 611 or Japan Airlines flight 123. Both crashes were caused by bad repair jobs.

I personally would feel much safer if the repair job is done at LHR.
Scrooge McDuck is offline  
Old Jul 31, 13, 7:20 am
  #81  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC*E50 (*A Gold), Accor Platinum, Bonvoy Gold Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,427
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ View Post
How does this relate to the question? I don't know what the fuel economy of a 787 is at 8000 or 10000 ft, compared to normal cruising altitude. Probably a lot worse. Do you know? The 319 certainly flies a lot higher than 10000 ft.
How does it relate? You were wondering about the range of the 787 should it need to fly across the Atlantic at a low altitude. As you admit, you don't know how much less efficient the 787 is at lower altitude as opposed to cruising altitude. I'll admit that I don't know, either.

However, an A319 carries about 24 000 litres of fuel whereas a 787 carries about 127 000 litres. So, unless you're suggesting the 787 is 80% less efficient at low altitude than the 20 year old A319 is at cruising altitude, it should easily be able to cross the Atlantic.

As I suggested in my post, I think it's a safe assumption.
ffsim is offline  
Old Oct 22, 13, 7:14 am
  #82  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BOS and ...
Programs: UA 2MM, DL 500k, WoH 1M, HH Gold, Rad. Gold, CP Gold, Miracle Fruit-su Club
Posts: 9,931
Pushing the Limits?

"...pushing the limits"?

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...repairxml.html
Firewind is offline  
Old Nov 24, 13, 1:44 am
  #83  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BOS and ...
Programs: UA 2MM, DL 500k, WoH 1M, HH Gold, Rad. Gold, CP Gold, Miracle Fruit-su Club
Posts: 9,931
Now, with all the news about the Dreamlifter that landed at the wrong airport, we see that Boeing actually had the wherewithal to fly in a fuselage section, instead of just a patch.
Firewind is offline  
Old Jan 9, 14, 3:46 am
  #84  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BOS and ...
Programs: UA 2MM, DL 500k, WoH 1M, HH Gold, Rad. Gold, CP Gold, Miracle Fruit-su Club
Posts: 9,931
All Done

All done. And back on the line since 23 December...

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...87firexml.html

Flightaware, which tracks airplane flights, shows the jet on a Dec. 23 scheduled flight from Frankfurt, Germany, to Ethiopian’s base in Addis Ababa.
Firewind is offline  
Old Jan 22, 14, 12:49 pm
  #85  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Programs: Aeroplan, Shebamiles, WorldPerks
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Firewind View Post
All done. And back on the line since 23 December...

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...87firexml.html
Flew her ex YYZ on her first trans atlantic after the fire. She was awesome!
ETStar is offline  
Old Aug 19, 15, 8:26 am
  #86  
Moderator: American AAdvantage, TAP, Mexico, Technical Support and Feedback, and The Suggestion Box
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,789
It seems the investigation is over; the fire was caused by a wiring fault. No indication if the problem can be assigned to Boeing, Honeywell or the equipment installer. Clear case of poor workmanship and quality control, it would seem (from the perspective of someone who did similar work wiring, installing and maintaining precision electronic equipment) and the battery thermal problems.

The boffins say if the short circuit had occurred in the air, the very cold ambient temperatures would have prevented similar damage in flight - perhaps the same people who though a short would only drain the battery?

BBC: 19 Aug 2015 - A fire on a parked Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet at Heathrow Airport two years ago was probably caused by a short circuit, air accident investigators have said.

The fire was likely to have been started by two bare wires touching in a piece of location equipment, the UK Air Accidents Investigations Branch said.

...

The piece of equipment that caught fire - the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) - was located near the back of the plane, and was made by Honeywell, investigators said.

...

The device in the 787 had positive and negative cables that were too long to fit into the box housing the device, and so ended up touching one another.

Testing had predicted that the worst reaction from a short circuit would be the batteries running down.

Unfortunately, what actually happened was what investigators called "a thermal runaway" - a fire that spread from one battery cell to the next.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33985615
JDiver is offline  
Old Aug 19, 15, 2:32 pm
  #87  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BOS and ...
Programs: UA 2MM, DL 500k, WoH 1M, HH Gold, Rad. Gold, CP Gold, Miracle Fruit-su Club
Posts: 9,931
Thank you, JDiver.
Firewind is offline  
Old Aug 20, 15, 12:39 pm
  #88  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BOS and ...
Programs: UA 2MM, DL 500k, WoH 1M, HH Gold, Rad. Gold, CP Gold, Miracle Fruit-su Club
Posts: 9,931
However...

http://www.seattletimes.com/business...ut-mid-flight/
Firewind is offline  
Old Aug 21, 15, 2:08 am
  #89  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 529
The safety of all 787 aircraft has been questioned in serious reporting about their manufacture and assembly, including interviews with the employees and contractors involved in both. This does not promote confidence in ET's decision to purchase the early manufactured aircraft that had been stored for years.
Sabasi is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: