Heathrow Closed after Dreamliner Fire

[bb21]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760

Heathrow shut after 'Boeing Dreamliner 787' fire

Breaking news
Runways at London's Heathrow airport have closed after an incident reportedly involving an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet.

Arrivals and departures have been suspended, a spokesman for the airport said. The airport said in a tweet that there were no passengers aboard.

More problems for the much anticipated new jetliner?

 

[ryan125hst]

There are also reports that a Thomson Dreamliner has suffered from a mechanical fault. It's not good, considering that Thomson only started flying them on longhaul routes on Monday. I wonder which one it was? I saw G-TUIC fly over my house on a test flight to Doncaster Sheffield a couple of weeks ago.

It's a shame as the Dreamliners are a good aircraft when it comes to the fuel efficiency and the passenger cabin. It looks like the technical side of things is a bit too advanced.

 

[WatcherZero]

I was going to wonder if the heat wave was contributory, but then its Ethiopian Airlines anyway

If it is the replacement batteries this could kill the 787.

 

[ryan125hst]

If it is the replacement batteries this could kill the 787.

It certainly wouldn't be good for Boeing. If I was in charge of an airline and had a number of them on order, I would be looking at alternatives. With the problems on the news almost every week, it is getting to a stage that the thought of flying on a Dreamliner will put passengers off, not attract them.

 

[westcoaster]

Read elsewhere its tuic from Thomson, not good a plane parked up combusting at least it was parked next to the fire station, from looking at the pics of the burn marks ( just in front of the tail in the roof) maybe it could be another battery problem, with a contained fire which has risen from the cargo bay up through the cabin/ galley and out through the crown( fire seems to be in the crew rest area). Maybe the first write of who knows.

 

[transmanche]

With the problems on the news almost every week, it is getting to a stage that the thought of flying on a Dreamliner will put passengers off, not attract them.

Cue tabloid headlines of 'Nightmareliner'...

 

[Ivo]

This is the last thing Boeing need after all the early troubles with the 787. They will be coming under increasing pressure if it is a fault with the aircraft - batteries or not - and from others in the industry who will increasingly look to Airbus and the monstrous A380. And so soon after the 777 pronblem at San Francisco...

Looks like nothing major in terms of human risk though.

 

[bb21]

and from others in the industry who will increasingly look to Airbus and the monstrous A380.

I sense that you are not a fan of the A380?

I agree it is not good publicity for the 787, tabloid or not.

 

[Ivo]

I sense that you are not a fan of the A380?

Nothing against it at all - I quite like it. (Example: On OpenTTD I use them wherever possible.) The term "monstrous" is supposed to be representative of its size and how difficult to handle it is for airport operators.

 

[transmanche]

others in the industry who will increasingly look to Airbus and the monstrous A380.

I would have thought they'll be looking hard at the A350 as an alternative to the 787, not the A380.

 

[Ivo]

Probably yes. First one I thought of Thinking about speed and distance more than capacity.

Not that it really matters - Boeing have got major problems and they need to be sorted soon.

 

[jon91]

Its starting to look like the aviation equivalent of the Class 70 in terms of combustibility...

Boeing must feel like they've living in a nightmare at the moment. First the grounding because of the overheating Lithium batteries, now this.

 

[Howardh]

It will be alright. Passengers will be allowed two pieces of luggage - a case and a fire extinguisher.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Boeing must feel like they've living in a nightmare at the moment. First the grounding because of the overheating Lithium batteries, now this.

Indeed so. Boeing have installed some extra layers of protection since the last fleet grounding, such as the metal box to contain fire and smoke, to quote one reported example.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Lots of unnecessary flapping here!

There are also reports that a Thomson Dreamliner has suffered from a mechanical fault. It's not good, considering that Thomson only started flying them on longhaul routes on Monday. I wonder which one it was? I saw G-TUIC fly over my house on a test flight to Doncaster Sheffield a couple of weeks ago.

It's a shame as the Dreamliners are a good aircraft when it comes to the fuel efficiency and the passenger cabin. It looks like the technical side of things is a bit too advanced.

All planes experience mechanical faults, particularly when a new model is teething. What sort of mechanical fault?

I was going to wonder if the heat wave was contributory, but then its Ethiopian Airlines anyway

If it is the replacement batteries this could kill the 787.

Quite. Remember that what the UK is experiencing is very mild compared to many of the places the plane is designed to serve. The difference between 20C and 30C is nothing in the operating window of a passenger jet. It will operate at -50C and +50C quite happily.

No chance it'll kill the type, none at all. They'll find a way. The overall investment has been enormous and it's only a small component which can be replaced with something more conventional with little problem, if the modification didn't work. Damaging yes, but no more than that.

It certainly wouldn't be good for Boeing. If I was in charge of an airline and had a number of them on order, I would be looking at alternatives. With the problems on the news almost every week, it is getting to a stage that the thought of flying on a Dreamliner will put passengers off, not attract them.

I don't think airlines panic like that, nor have the flexibility to just cancel a long-negotiated contract just because of a few teething problems.

BA start the Dreamliner on routes to the USA this autumn and I can't wait to try them. The Sky interior on new 739s is fantastic.

This is the last thing Boeing need after all the early troubles with the 787. They will be coming under increasing pressure if it is a fault with the aircraft - batteries or not - and from others in the industry who will increasingly look to Airbus and the monstrous A380. And so soon after the 777 pronblem at San Francisco...

Looks like nothing major in terms of human risk though.

There is no clear indication yet that the SFO crash was anything to do with the plane, and I'm not just talking about the Boeing/US state propaganda. The outwardly similar BA38 crash at Heathrow was caused by iced-up heat exchangers which have been replaced. OZ214 seems to have much more human elements. Perhaps an Airbus would have intervened sooner and more decisively.

For every BA38 there's a AF447. No aircraft is infallible.

This is an interesting comparison of the two manufacturers. Too close to call? The 777 number may well just have fallen, mind you.

http://www.fearofflying.com/resources/safest-airliners-and-airline-safety.shtml

 

[Ferret]

787s on the way to being grounded again? FFS....

 

[bb21]

This is an interesting comparison of the two manufacturers. Too close to call? The 777 number may well just have fallen, mind you.

http://www.fearofflying.com/resources/safest-airliners-and-airline-safety.shtml

The problem with league tables like that is that one accident could drop a model down quite a few places.

What really matters is that air travel is still the safest mode by a long way. Yes, if you are caught in the middle of it, then your chance of survival can almost be written off, but it is virtually impossible for the majority of the population to ever be involved in such an accident (in the developed world at least).

 

[trentside]

This is an interesting comparison of the two manufacturers. Too close to call? The 777 number may well just have fallen, mind you.

http://www.fearofflying.com/resources/safest-airliners-and-airline-safety.shtml

The Airbus A340 may never have had a fatal accident, but it is by no means accident free - having had 5 hull loss accidents (one during testing), and AF358 which caused many injuries. Though on the fatalities front, it does edge out the 777 - the two really are too close to call as far as I'm concerned.

 

[starrymarkb]

The Airbus A340 may never have had a fatal accident, but it is by no means accident free - having had 5 hull loss accidents (one during testing), and AF358 which caused many injuries. Though on the fatalities front, it does edge out the 777 - the two really are too close to call as far as I'm concerned.

Yep, I was thinking that, I knew a couple of A340s had been written off in botched landings (Air France, Iberia), then there was also the chock jumping A346 at Toulouse. Emirates also came very close to writing off a A345 at Melbourne (IIRC)

I understand there have been 3 777 Hull losses, BA38, Asiana and a Egypt Air craft that had an electrical fire on the ground and was written off.

 

[ryan125hst]

It will be alright. Passengers will be allowed two pieces of luggage - two fire extinguishers only.

I've corrected that for you