If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Interesting to note that this incident at Heathrow involved the same 787 that made the first commercial flight after the grounding was lifted. Fingers crossed this is just a coincidence!
Struggling to understand the link between this 'coincidence'. Can you provide proof that 'first flight' aircraft are disproportionately represented in fire stats?
This is not a coincidence if it was going to happen again, it could have happened with any of the equipment returned to flying ststus.
I wish people, be it the media, or on forums *cough, cough* A.net *cough, cough* would stop the speculating. The media looks at some aviation sites including TOS, and then proceeds to regurgitate some of the mindless speculation.
I think most people agree that the batteries, at least in relation to the original problem, are likely not the cause, but some are spelling this to be the death of the 787 and Boeing. The Airbus fan boys are the worst.
Right now, it could truly be anything, but from my thoughts, these seem the most likely.
-Bad wiring (either defective from manufacturer, damaged later, or just a single bad part)
-Short circuit of an electric device (either a defective part of perhaps a power surge from somewhere, either ground power or the batteries)
-Different battery issues, but not a battery fire itself
-Someone left a portable electronic device on board which caught fire. (Yes, this can spontaneously happen; I've seen it.)
-Someone was smoking on board (maintenance, cleaning, flight crew, etc.) and disposed of the cigarette incorrectly
-Deliberate act (arson or sabotage)
Struggling to understand the link between this 'coincidence'. Can you provide proof that 'first flight' aircraft are disproportionately represented in fire stats?
This is not a coincidence if it was going to happen again, it could have happened with any of the equipment returned to flying ststus.
Sorry, didn't mean coincidence to do with it being the first plane to return to flight, meant that I hope this fire is a coincidence completely unconnected to any previous electrical or battery problem - should have made it more clear that the two statements weren't related!
Sorry, didn't mean coincidence to do with it being the first plane to return to flight, meant that I hope this fire is a coincidence completely unconnected to any previous electrical or battery problem - should have made it more clear that the two statements weren't related!
If it is a new Electrical Problem this is probably not a good thing for Boeing either.
I've said it before and will say it again, Boeing's Spin Doctors (aka PR Team) better be on their A game. This Aircraft is going to keep them busy for a while yet.
I wish people, be it the media, or on forums *cough, cough* A.net *cough, cough* would stop the speculating. The media looks at some aviation sites including TOS, and then proceeds to regurgitate some of the mindless speculation.
I think most people agree that the batteries, at least in relation to the original problem, are likely not the cause, but some are spelling this to be the death of the 787 and Boeing. The Airbus fan boys are the worst.
Right now, it could truly be anything, but from my thoughts, these seem the most likely.
-Bad wiring (either defective from manufacturer, damaged later, or just a single bad part)
-Short circuit of an electric device (either a defective part of perhaps a power surge from somewhere, either ground power or the batteries)
-Different battery issues, but not a battery fire itself
-Someone left a portable electronic device on board which caught fire. (Yes, this can spontaneously happen; I've seen it.)
-Someone was smoking on board (maintenance, cleaning, flight crew, etc.) and disposed of the cigarette incorrectly
-Deliberate act (arson or sabotage)
-Ozone layer have a hole and burnt the skin of the aircraft.
-Faulty design.
"The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"
Strange........ Boeing must certainly know by now whether the fire is related to the aircraft systems or is due to third party issues or something beyond their control. If it is not related to previous electrical woes, I think they would want to release that info to the press ASAP to stop the share price bleeding. THe longer they withhold information on this incident, the more I suspect it is not going to help them sell Dreamliners.
Even if the batteries had nothing to do, if it was any fault related to the plane's design or construction, it will be an awful impact for the already deteriorated 787 and Boeing's public images.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Even if the batteries had nothing to do, if it was any fault related to the plane's design or construction, it will be an awful impact for the already deteriorated 787 and Boeing's public images.
Well, hard to catch fire due to electricity without a source.
"The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"
Well, at least as of now, it appears the batteries were not the source of ignition. I'm sure the first thing they did was open the battery case and inspect to see if there was any physical damage such as fire or melting.
This could be something as simple as a frayed/damaged/cut wire that got nicked during maintenance or production. Many seem to be so quick to blame the aircraft itself, be it design, manufacture, or whatever. Yesterday nearly everyone was so convinced it was a battery fire, which now it appears to be untrue.
Thankfully the aircraft was not destroyed which means tracing the source of ignition should be fairly straight forward.
the more things get spread out around the world in the production process the greater chance of a a fault in quality control. this plane is simply made in too many parts in too many places by too many people.
what does this have to do with anything? not sure, but let's wait and see what it is THIS time.
the more things get spread out around the world in the production process the greater chance of a a fault in quality control. this plane is simply made in too many parts in too many places by too many people.
what does this have to do with anything? not sure, but let's wait and see what it is THIS time.
According to Boeing spokesman Wi Fuk Dup (I verified his name through the NTSB), Boeing is very quietly bringing more of the 787 production "in-house" on the 787-9 and 787-10.
(Actually, this info came from friends who are very close to Boeing)
The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.
Well, at least as of now, it appears the batteries were not the source of ignition. I'm sure the first thing they did was open the battery case and inspect to see if there was any physical damage such as fire or melting.
This could be something as simple as a frayed/damaged/cut wire that got nicked during maintenance or production. Many seem to be so quick to blame the aircraft itself, be it design, manufacture, or whatever. Yesterday nearly everyone was so convinced it was a battery fire, which now it appears to be untrue.
Thankfully the aircraft was not destroyed which means tracing the source of ignition should be fairly straight forward.
I do not see a frayed wire as
1) not being part of the "aircraft itself"
2) not being a serious enough incident not to worry about when the fuselage skin burnt through. If this had happened in-flight, the outcome would have been completely different, possibly as bad as a black hole in the ground.
I think everybody should be extremely satisfied over the fact that the fire broke out when the a/c was parked, not the least Boeing, who still have the evidence available so they can fix the problem.
Strange........ Boeing must certainly know by now whether the fire is related to the aircraft systems or is due to third party issues or something beyond their control. If it is not related to previous electrical woes, I think they would want to release that info to the press ASAP to stop the share price bleeding. THe longer they withhold information on this incident, the more I suspect it is not going to help them sell Dreamliners.
I assume Boeing is a party to an investigation conducted by AAIB so it may not be in a position to make public statements at this time.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment