Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Japan Airlines Dreamliner catches fire in Boston

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
A Japan Airlines 787 Dreamliner has caught fire in Boston, after passengers had deplaned. A mechanic doing an inspection noticed smoke coming from the aft cargo hold, where the APU is housed. Initial reports are that it may have been an APU battery that exploded.

This is the third major electrical issue for Dreamliners in the last month or so. A United passenger flight was forced to divert after a generator failure, followed shortly by a Qatar plane on a delivery flight. Both are back in service, but were forced to be grounded for several days.


www.bizjournals.com...
www.nbcnews.com...
edit on 1/7/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
oh sh**!
those fires could cause a major catastrophy if they were to get otta control.
i've found out that carbon fiber MELTS REALLY EASY !
even hot water will soften it alot.

there are many different types and formulas for the engineers to choose from, so hopefully they didn't overlook that.
that whole division at boieng was totaly corrupt ... if anyone spoke up about anything they found wrong, they'd get promptly FIRED.

if they end up with a major incident , we'll end up calling it the 'DEATHLINER' !

on a lighter note ... a saw one fly into the airport here over the summer, it's a really beautifull plane!



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


What I find interesting that lithium ion batteries are marked as not safe for air travel if they are over 160wh. If they are over 100wh, but less than 160wh, you can only carry two on the plane. The FAA had to create special rules for Boeing to use them on the 787.

The fire department is now saying that they identified several hot spots, and after the fire was extinguished, the battery exploded.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Great. You really have to be on a burning airplane to get a real feel for that. Weirdly enough, it wasn't as spooky as it might have been until after we were on the ground, but it was real surprising. Luckily we were able to turn around and land before it got too bad, although there was some debate on whether we ought to try going out the back instead.

BAM

"what was that?"
(alarms)
"Hey, look here guys"
"What is it?"
"We...ah...we're on fire"
"Oh, bull----"
"No, no we're definitely burning now, flames, smoke, the engine's spinning down. There goes the fire extinguisher...and we're...we're...ah...yep still on fire, that didn't do it"

I can't imagine what you'd feel like over the ocean and that happening. "Let's review how the seat cushion can be used as a flotation device" Yeah, right.

Zaph, you have a U2U from me in there somewhere. Still looking for the old stuff, they've pulled down their archival index, makes it tough to spot as Google does not index any of those posts, oddly to say.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Ok, I figured they might.

In the 45+ years my father put in as active duty and civilian, he had exactly one plane come back with a fire after a fire warning light. They had a hydraulic pump come apart and spray fluid into the engine.

We had a 747 test bed flying out of the Honolulu side land once, with a 777 engine mounted, and not know it was on fire until the tower told them.

My personal favorite though was a friend of ours. He was flying the PACAF commander out of Hickam one day. They rotated, and on climb out the #3 fire warning light came on. Pulled the throttle back, light went out, dumped fuel and came back.

They did all kinds of engine runs, CND (Could Not Duplicate). Put the general back on, departed again. On climb out, #3 fire warning light comes on. Our friend pulls the throttle back, light goes out. Pushes it forward again, light stays out.

General: "So Captain. What are we gonna do?"
Friend: "About what sir? I didn't see a thing."
General: "Good choice."

Only two times that entire trip it came on were going out of Hickam, and out of Guam to return. Turned out to be a drop of oil on the wiring harness. When they were heavy and at full power, the combination of factors rolled it onto the fire sensor, shorting it. Any other time, nothing.

I can't even imagine what fire on a plane would be like. It would be scary as hell if you were out over water, with nowhere to go. Talk about finding religion fast.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


It was sort of butt-puckery towards the end, and luckily it happened maybe 15 minutes after we hit cruising altitude.

I am not sure you could have physically gotten off that thing faster than we did. Turned out to be some sort of disconnected oil line spewing lube all over the place, the plane was pretty much toast. As they had been doing maintenance on that before our departure, there was some talk about finding the mechanic and altering him in ways his momma would not have approved of but the Army took care of it for us.

edit to add: found the archive index, it's still there, just no link to it anymore. Let's see if I can remember dates/thread titles from eight years back lol
edit on 7-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I'm surprised you didn't say it had just come out of the depot. Those guys cost us more planes either screwed up royally, or lost totally than any enemy we've fought since Korea just about ( I exaggerate, but not much).

We ended up only having to replace the engine and cowling on 589 after the hydraulic fire. They took their time evacuating because everyone knew fire warning lights were routine, and always false alarms. They really sped up in a hurry when someone saw smoke though.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I'm surprised you didn't say it had just come out of the depot.


Hell, it DID. We were held up while they were working on that engine at the last minute, rolled it out, we loaded up, they held us again, got back in that engine, diddled around a while, pronounced it good to go, and away we went.

Then about 20 minutes in, BAM, fire.

We had taken off over the water, and we looped around fast, headed back in at wavetop level. There was some debate as to whether it would better to get some altitude and jump, as we had chutes for later, but they thought we could return safer than doing a jump into the water right at nightfall and it was true, but it was still sort of puckery to be on fire and have to just sit.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I can't say I'm surprised then. We ALWAYS had problems with birds right out of the depot. We had one EC-135 that flew incredibly. You never had to trim it, no matter what you did to it. Came back from the depot, they put the wings back on crooked, plane never flew straight again. Took it back, took the wings off, put them back on straight, it still flew crooked.

It'll be interesting to see what's going to happen with the Dreamliners, with the li batteries though. I'm still amazed that they allowed them to be used as power sources, when they won't even allow them in carry on or check in luggage sometimes.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

It'll be interesting to see what's going to happen with the Dreamliners, with the li batteries though. I'm still amazed that they allowed them to be used as power sources, when they won't even allow them in carry on or check in luggage sometimes.


You hear what they called the GE engineer that picked up the big LiPoly battery with a wedding ring on?

"Lefty"



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Just remains to be seen if it was a sabotage or deliberate on someone's part? Some of the points presented by everyone on here so far are pretty much industry standards and basic principles in the aeronautical industry. Not that the lead engineer could have been wrong but never know.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


From what they've said so far, and I know it's early, it seems like a simple overheating battery that caught fire, and when the fire was put out, it exploded.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
More problems for Boeing and the Dreamliner. JAL flew another aircraft in today, and when they pushed back to depart, it developed a fuel leak in #1 engine. The FAA had ordered inspections of fuel lines, after leaks had developed in other aircraft.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
The NTSB has sent two more investigators, and is describing the damage to the battery as "severe". They are also launching investigative groups to look into the electrical system, and the fire response.

The flight today dumped 40 gallons of fuel on the ramp after pushing back from the gate. It was rescheduled for later in the day.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Hopefully it isn't systematic on either. Lithium batteries are always tempting and dangerous both.

BTW, found one of the less explicit old threads, but we were discussing boundary control at one point and Darryl and I both start dropping info prior to jumping over to the impromptu contractor forum, it's got a bit of the info you were looking for. U2U'd.

edit to add: even in this thread, and it wasn't very explicit (I do a lot of bobbing and weaving), there are about six major projects blown if you knew what to look for. Ones still ongoing in new versions.
edit on 8-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


The FAA has ordered inspections on all Dreamliners about the fuel leaks. They didn't assemble part of the fuel line properly, and it's led to several leaks. The li battery we'll have to see what the NTSB says after the investigation.

As for the other......dear god my head hurts. The references would be cool to read, but even without, that was some crap man.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Go read the link I sent in the 3Jan U2U, it's got a blue beam RFQ abstract in the linked thread. Life is amusing.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Ignore the last U2U. I found the one you were talking about. I thought it was erased, but it wasn't. I hit send too fast on that one though.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
ANA had a problem with the rear brakes on a Dreamliner. Nothing major, but they had to be replaced. What's interesting is there's a pic of the JAL aircraft where the fire was in this article.

news.sky.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   

US regulators have ordered a review of the 787 Dreamliner plane after a series of incidents put a question mark over the safety of Boeing's flagship plane. The review by the Federal Aviation Administration will look at the design and manufacture of the planes.


On Friday, All Nippon Airways reported a crack in the window on the pilot's side of the cockpit. It caused no problems for the 237 passengers and nine crew on a flight from Tokyo's Haneda airport to Matsuyama, but the return flight was cancelled
The same airline said another Dreamliner flight, shuttling between Haneda and the southern Miyazaki prefecture, experienced a delay due to an oil leak from a generator inside an engine
On Wednesday, ANA cancelled a 787 flight from Yamaguchi to Tokyo because of a brake problem
On Tuesday, Japan Airlines cancelled a Boston to Tokyo flight after about 40 gallons (151 litres) of fuel spilled
An electrical fire broke out on board a Japan Airlines Dreamliner on Monday shortly after it landed in Boston, following a flight from Tokyo
Last year, a United Airlines flight was forced to make an emergency landing because of an electrical problem
In December, Qatar Airways grounded one of its 787 Dreamliners after several manufacturing faults caused electrical problems similar to those that affected the United plane.


www.bbc.co.uk...


Has there been a review into the design and manufacture of an aircraft similar to this in recent times? Will be interesting to see if they allow it to continue to fly whilst this is ongoing as well?









 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join