Boeing Dreamliner Catches Fire In Boston 151
19061969 writes "The BBC reports that a Boeing 787 Dreamliner caught fire in Boston. Carter Leake, an analyst at BB&T Capital Markets in Virginia, said, 'I don't want to be an alarmist, but onboard fires on airplanes are as bad as it gets.' This represents bad news for Boeing especially after the FAA identified errors in the assembly of fuel line couplings in the Dreamliner."
With one fire (Score:5, Funny)
Re:With one fire (Score:4, Insightful)
The dreamliner turns into a nightmare. Film at 11.
The Dreamliner is one of the most sophisticated planes ever created. It's going to have problems. I don't think it's a "nightmare", as the FAA fully qualified it for flight. These are the kinds of problems you can only find when it's in production.
Re:With one fire (Score:5, Interesting)
Every commercial plane is "one of the most sophisticated" when its first created, as no customer will accept last years technology with last years performance.
That said, there have been plenty of issues on the 787 which should not have made it to production - the QA issues that have hit over a dozen aircraft, numerous technical faults and electrical system issues etc etc etc. These are the things that the route proving part of the flight test regime are meant to find, but for some reason they haven't. If this most recent fire is due to a design fault rather than a production fault, then the FAA will be looking at their certification requirements more stringently, as they were updated for the 787s certification requirements.
Re:With one fire (Score:5, Interesting)
... there have been plenty of issues on the 787 which should not have made it to production - the QA issues that have hit over a dozen aircraft, numerous technical faults and electrical system issues etc etc etc.
I fully agree. Yes, all planes have issues when they're first deployed. For example, it was discovered that some parts of the wing structure on the A380 needed to be strengthened in order to meet the fatigue lifetime. However, this is not the kind of thing that would have caused failures in flight - it's a long term fatigue issue that was discovered years before it would have caused a problem. Issues like this are common since strength/fatigue vs. weight is such a difficult compromise on aircraft. 787 issues have been more the kind of thing that should have been fixed during design and testing.
The problem with the 787, and the reason that it was years behind schedule and has so many problems, is that the executive geniuses at Boeing decided to outsource as much of the engineering as they could ("outsource" here referring to both domestic and offshore outsourcing). Many of the companies that engineering was outsourced to simply didn't have the expertise. Large airliners are not exactly the kind of thing that every job shop and subcontractor has the know-how to design. There are only two companies worth mentioning in the world that do.
The only way they got the 787 out the door at all (and stemmed the financial bleeding of Boeing) was by taking emergency steps to find a large cadre of engineers who had decades of deep experience in airliner design. They found them at (surprise, surprise) Boeing! Golly, you mean there was some wisdom to the way the world's most successful airliner manufacturer has designed planes for decades? Whodda thunk it? No doubt the top execs at Boeing will get large bonuses for discovering this brilliant last minute solution, and blame Boeing engineering for the problems that do remain.
Re:With one fire (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes- this ^
I live in Boeing's former home town (Seattle) and it may be sour grapes, but the buzz I hear here is that the other/new assembly site in South Carolina is an amateur hour kind of thing. Boeing set up shop there because of the union workers here, and the quality went away. I hear from labor and management folks both that Boeing is no longer in the aircraft business- they are now in the vendor management business, and there are no effective mechanisms for enforcing quality or delivery timeframes.
Re:With one fire (Score:5, Interesting)
There was an article a couple of years ago where Boeing said that "the process is the product." They truly believed that managing the process of building the plane was a more important product over the plane itself. I've seen so much of this kind of thing that I used it as an example of process management gone wrong where I worked, and it triggered an interesting discussion and some changes in how IT marketed itself to the rest of the enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
There's been far too much focus on the process. The way they seemed to be talking about it at the time, they felt that it was more important to hype the process that integrated manufacturers all over the world, including many who had never worked on an advanced aircraft. They believed that their process could deliver a new aircraft with the first major shift in construction materials in 80 years in a shorter time than any previous plane they'd rolled out since before the 707.
In the meantime, there were ot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if quality "went away" with the new FAL in SC, then I hate to think just what those generating the "buzz" think is acceptable quality in the first place, considering some of the atrocious rubbish that happened on the Seattle FAL during the 787s development - fires, reworking after reworking after reworking, and now all of the QA issues which can be found on Seattle originated airframes (the QR and UA related fuel system issues for example)...
Ouch, is all I can say.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes- this ^
I live in Boeing's former home town (Seattle) and it may be sour grapes, but the buzz I hear here is that the other/new assembly site in South Carolina is an amateur hour kind of thing. Boeing set up shop there because of the union workers here, and the quality went away. I hear from labor and management folks both that Boeing is no longer in the aircraft business- they are now in the vendor management business, and there are no effective mechanisms for enforcing quality or delivery timeframes.
While I do believe that the union's strikes were taken into account (and legally so), I find it hard to believe that it is an amatuer shop; there might be some learning curves for the folks, but they will get it and do just the same quality as those union folks - only, they'll probably turn out more than the union folks too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes- this ^
I live in Boeing's former home town (Seattle) and it may be sour grapes, but the buzz I hear here is that the other/new assembly site in South Carolina is an amateur hour kind of thing. Boeing set up shop there because of the union workers here, and the quality went away. I hear from labor and management folks both that Boeing is no longer in the aircraft business- they are now in the vendor management business, and there are no effective mechanisms for enforcing quality or delivery timeframes.
Keep in mind also that only one plane (to Air India) has been delivered from SC. I doubt the one in Boston is from SC. Just saying, you can't blame the SC facility.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:With one fire (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is, there are categories of problems which are acceptable to find after certification, and there are categories of problems which are not acceptable to find after certification - fatigue life issues that manifest after the initial certified inspection window (the window between certification and the first deep inspection of the first inservice airframes) are acceptable, because they do not pose an undue risk to the aircraft before they can be discovered. This is because the fatigue testing of a new airframe design continues well beyond that of the certification testing, which only tests for such things as ultimate strength etc while fatigue life, inspection periods etc are done off the basis of longer term testing.
Components causing fires are in the category of things that should have been discovered during the certification period - there should be no risk from components like that for inservice aircraft, thats the point of certifying the compoments...
Out of all the problems the Boeing 787 has suffered over its so far short life, the bulk of them have not been engineering issues - only two major issues have been linked to engineering quality, and that is the side of body join problem and the initial arcing problem which caused the first airborne 787 fire during testing.
The 787s wing, designed and built by the Japanese, has proven to be better than expected spec wise.
The 787 fuselage sections built by Spirit have proven to be bang on spec.
There have been a few QA issues with the empennage and other parts, but nothing major.
The major problems stem from the decision to roll out the 787 as an essentially mocked up CFRP model on the 7/8/07 - rather than wait for the build process to proceed in the planned stages, management pushed for the aircraft to be ready for the public reveal. This lead to non-aviation-grade materials to be used to mock it up, and the aircraft had to be essentially rebuilt in the most difficult way possible afterward. This management decision made a 3 month delay into a 18 month delay.
Re: (Score:3)
Every commercial plane is "one of the most sophisticated" when its first created
And which automobiles have the most obscure, complicated, frequent problems? It's the super advanced once with 500 sensors and 1000 stupid, needless features.
Re:With one fire (Score:4, Insightful)
It would seem you have a selective memory about the reliability, economy and safety of older vehicles :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the end of anyone ever flying on it. One little tiny fire or malfunction and customers write it off as a death trap for decades and the tickets are unsellable. They might as well paint Hindenburg on it at this point.
Re: (Score:3)
The flights sell out regularly, quickly, and well ahead of the flight times. Despite this, I'm still planning on flying on one on a trip in either April or May.
Re: (Score:1)
Why am I reminded of the novel "Airframe"?
MSM Strikes Again (Score:1, Interesting)
No idea how the fire started. No clue if it's a design issue or maintenance error. Scare quote from someone who's not in the airline industry. Check, check, and check.
Re:MSM Strikes Again (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA
"The fire started after a battery in the jet's auxiliary power system overheated."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20942484 [bbc.co.uk]
Re:MSM Strikes Again (Score:4, Informative)
Totally unqualified "educated" guess: crew left the APU on even though it's supposed to be off after the engines are up to speed?
From what simulation and speaking with pilots I've gathered, usually you are "supposed" to turn the APU off after engine starts, though usually this is not done as it consumes a tiny fraction of fuel and gives you some wiggle room in the event of an engine failure.
Re:MSM Strikes Again (Score:5, Insightful)
If leaving an APU turned on causes a catastrophic loss of the aircraft, then there is a design flaw.
However, I don't see how leaving one on should cause a battery to overheat. The batteries should be on circuits that limit currents appropriately, whether charging or discharging. This is an aircraft - not a plastic toy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that fire appears to have started in the battery of the APU, it could be a possibility. Battery fires are notorious for being somewhat unpredictable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No, but lithium batteries tend to have highly flammable lithium as base.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the details that have emerged, the accident occurred after the crew had left the plane. I can't imagine they'd leave an APU on with the plan unmanned - the plane should either be powered off completely, or running off of external power/air (which means nothing that draws fuel would be turned on within the plane - external power/air just keeps the lights on and the air temp regulated - purely electrical/pneumatic systems).
Re: (Score:2)
We were coming from Norfolk, VA to Dulles. Driving to the airport I noted it was a stormy, rainy day and I commented that there was no way in hell we'd get back up north before the next day. How right I was!
We arrived at Dulles after our connecting flight for PVD had already left. Lovely. So I tried to get us on a Boston based flight. Sure enough, a 6PM flight to Logan was available a
Re:MSM Strikes Again (Score:5, Insightful)
The aircraft wasn't departing, it had just arrived and the passengers and crew had deplaned.
Also, no certified crew on a commercial carrier leaves the APU running after its needed - it takes up substantially more than a "tiny fraction of fuel" and leaving it on for even a short haul flight can cost the operator thousands of dollars in extra fuel costs for just that one flight.
Here's a more educated guess: faulty battery underwent thermal runaway and caught fire, causing a minor explosion and a heck of a lot of smoke.
Re:MSM Strikes Again (Score:5, Interesting)
Totally unqualified "educated" guess: crew left the APU on even though it's supposed to be off after the engines are up to speed?
From what simulation and speaking with pilots I've gathered, usually you are "supposed" to turn the APU off after engine starts, though usually this is not done as it consumes a tiny fraction of fuel and gives you some wiggle room in the event of an engine failure.
Seeing as how the plane was at the gate and the passengers from the ariving flight had deplaned, the engines better not have been up to speed or they would have had bigger problems. Usually if the APU is on while in the gate, it is because ground power is not available. This can happen, but running the APU is much more expensive than electrical ground power. As an educated guess (since I actually work on a ramp) I would assume the APU was not on. If the APU wasn't on, then a fire in the APU battery is definitely not good.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the biggest question is still, could it happen in flight? (for example, if the issue was due to a charging circuit on that battery connected to the ground power, then in flight issues seem highly unlikely, however if it was a spontaneous short circuit or something then it could happen in flight and that is "really bad" (TM))
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
yeah, but this is a BBC story so you should trust it at face value
Lithium ion battery (Score:5, Informative)
It was one of the two large lithium ion battery packs the power the plane when the engines are off. The FCC and pilots were already concerned about the use of lithium ion batteries for this purpose (apparently it's a first), and they issued special regulations just for this plane.
Also the only person on board when this happened was a mechanic (which is probably a good thing at least someone was able to spot the smoke right away).
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lithium ion battery (Score:4, Informative)
But if it was the ground power battery pack that powers the plane when the engines are off, how likely would it have started while flying?
The battery in question doesn't power the aircraft. It's used to power the control circuitry and starter of the auxilary power unit (APU). The APU is a small turbine engine used to generate electrical power and high pressure bleed air for engine starting, or if additional electrical power is needed in flight ( follwing a generator failure, for example.)
I can't speak specifically to the 787, but APU batteries are typically always connected and kept charged in case you need to start the APU without any other source of power. I would assume it can be remotely disconnected as it can be on other aircraft, but once the battery is on fire electrically isolating it is not going to solve your woes.
An inflight fire, especially in an aircraft that could be three hours from shore, is a scary, scary thing.
Re:Lithium ion battery (Score:4, Informative)
What you stated is generally true, but the 787 is somewhat of a special case. It uses a no-bleed [boeing.com] APU system which replaces most of the traditionally bleed-driven systems (e.g. engine start, cabin air and wing anti-icing) with electrical equivalents and probably needs a larger set of batteries and higher current (and/or voltage) wiring.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to ejecting the warp core like on Star Trek? Just drop the flaming battery pack out the bottom of the aircraft, separate the saucer section and all is well.
Re: (Score:2)
Which I have always said: you have this huge ship, how about a second warp core?
Re: (Score:2)
It is something you would only have to worry about until you got to the crash site~
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Lithium ion battery (Score:5, Funny)
Besides, bathtubs can't fly. That's just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Touché, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK it's probably the most advanced passenger plane ever built, with a host of new techs and new ways of doing things.
That suggests it's going to have some teething issues.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably mean the FAA. I don't think the FCC has anything to do with regulating airplanes or batteries.
Re:Lithium ion battery (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh huh. Sure you did.
Re:Lithium ion battery (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
how exactly do you open a door inwards on a pressurized hull? or, how do you manage to breath for more than 30 sec at 35k ft on an unpressurized one?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect he is referring to being able to open the door without the wind tearing it off the plane, for pressure they probably dropped oxygen masks for the passengers and used the pressure bleed valves to equalize with outside pressure before opening the door.
A bit alarmist and FUD (Score:1, Insightful)
Citing a thing like "FAA identified errors in the assembly of fuel line couplings in the Dreamliner." when the actual fire, according to this morning's Boston Globe, was "[a] Small electrical fire..."
The article continues with "...no indication of smoke...", "...cleaners ...smelled smoke, notifying a mechanic...", and "...mechanic ... traced the smoke to a unit that powers the plain when it is on the ground with the engines off, but was unable to extinguish it."
Re:A bit alarmist and FUD (Score:5, Funny)
This article brought to you by Airbus Industries.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with "small electrical fires" is that they tend to become "large electrical fires" and eventually "catastrophic electrical fires" as fire propagates along electric cables quite fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Citing a thing like "FAA identified errors in the assembly of fuel line couplings in the Dreamliner." when the actual fire, according to this morning's Boston Globe, was "[a] Small electrical fire..." This article brought to you by Airbus Industries.
Well, for the Airbus they probably would have had to enter in a dozen codes, several two user keys, and more just to release the fire surpressent.
Serious. It is. (Score:3)
Make it serious square. From what we have been told until here, at least. ..." is mistaken. If a plane can experience its batteries overheating beyond the temperature that incenses wild fire, without shutting the batteries off beforehand (no temperature control??), and when almost not in service (passengers and crew disembarked), it not airworthy at all.
First factor, fire is the last thing you want on a plane. Over.
Second factor, fire without clear-cut reason is what you don't want.
The commentator who seemingly played the matter down "The only person on board
In this sense webmistressrachel's comment is uncalled for. Losing a wing or pressure due to a collision is in a sense 'more normal'. Because the reason is clear-cut. But a fire out of the blue is simply a 'must not, ever'.
Re: (Score:2)
First factor, fire is the last thing you want on a plane. Over.
hmm, small fire in the lavatory or wings falling off, which would I rather have... decisions, decisions.
Yes this was on the ground, but I hate absolutes... without exception~
"Because the reason is clear-cut"
actually, planes fails do to a succession of unlikely events.
And they are no more or less 'normal'.
The ONLY comparison that is valid is "It would have been worse in the air."
They question is Can this happen in the air?
and no., just becasue ti
Clarification, please. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About the only way for that plane to "crash into the ground" would be if the landing gear somehow broke. The plane was sitting on the ground when fire started.
Makes you wish (Score:5, Funny)
you could open a window
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's quite enough, Mitt.
'I don't want to be an alarmist' (Score:1)
Dreamliner 1.1? (Score:2)
Cetlics and Sox? (Score:2)
Were they on it like fans, players, etc.? :P
Another One Today (Score:5, Informative)
As a programmer, I can say (Score:2)
that in order to fix this problem, don't go to Boston~
Re:Titanic (Score:5, Insightful)
| "onboard fires on airplanes are as bad as it gets"
Hmm... I'm sure a missing wing, or rapid loss of pressure due to a collision, or massive power failure, or lots of other things could be a lot worse than a battery fire.
Am I correct in assuming TFA doesn't know what on earth (or off it) they're on about?
Re:Titanic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And if the fire had started 20 minutes earlier?
I'd say it looks like luck that people had disembarked prior to the fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that would be worse, so this can not possibly be 'as bad as it gets' since you've already pointed out a situation thats worse.
Dead is worse than not dead.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, they are as bad as it gets. Wing off, you die. Cabin fire, you suffer while knowing you're going to die. There is a distinct difference. Listened to the tapes; they still haunt me.
Re: (Score:2)
Wing off..... you plummet towards the ground and die.
Fire?
Uhoh we are on fire, where can we land?
Re:Titanic (Score:5, Funny)
Dear passengers: I have bad and good news for you. The bad news: we lost a wing. The good news: it was on fire anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, wing off, you watch the ground rise to meet you and you die.
Not sure which waiting period is worse. At least with a missing wing, you hope Sully is in the right seat and can figure out how to land on one wing. Fire is very hard to escape from on a plan, if it manages to find any occupied compartments. I suppose you could try climing, popping the oxygen masks, starve the fire, and hope the emergency oxygen system doesn;t catch fire. And other problems.
Given my druthers, I guess snakes may actually
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not the whole plane - you make the passenger compartment detachable and capable of parachute descent. It's been designed, shown to be workable, and calculated to be too expensive.
If there were lower barriers to entry, an airline might be started that had these kinds of planes and people who wanted to pay a premium for that kind of technology could choose to do so. There are many cheap bastards in the world, but many people will pay more to cover their fears, so it might work out.
Re: (Score:2)
i seem to recall it actually being the case of 99.99% of passengers having no idea what to do with parachutes. they would probably be more likely to plop on the ground, just with a backpack attached
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take the 0.01% when the alternative is certain death in a metallic fireball.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, with the way they are designed currently, but I'm pretty sure that they could design a parachute that would get 50% of the people to the ground with only minor injuries (some broken bones and scrapes). which may not sound that great, but it's better than dying.
Hindenburg survival rate was 64% - maybe we should be going back to Zeppelins filled with Hydrogen again.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry sir, you ARE an idiot.
An on-board fire in a location that is hard to reach or a fire that is hard to extinguish is one of the WORST things that can happen to an airplane. Yes, it is even worse than a massive power failure or rapid loss of pressure.
There have been several grave incidents due to fire, maybe you Google a bit: Flight 111, Flight 295, Flight 592 and Flight 797 come to mind.
Bottom line: Once a fire gets out of control or causes too much smoke, you're essentially doomed once you're in the ai
Re: (Score:3)
1st off, it's Madame, not sir.
2nd off, every plane with two wings that lost a wing crashed. Not every plane that ever had a fire on it crashed. Go figure.
What's with the attacks too, who's an idiot now?
Simple logic puts your links to shame.
Re:Titanic (Score:5, Insightful)
1. This is not, by definition, an aviation accident: even the crew had deplaned.
2. Many parked aircraft have lost wings without crashing: all it takes is wind passing over the tarmac on the wrong vector.
3. A fire, even in flight, doesn't have to be the end of the world if the systems design detects the fire and limits its ability to spread. This was the principal lesson-learned from SR111, which has since changed material approvals for aircraft. SA295 was never adequately explained, so teaches us little, but evidently the firefighting routines were not followed. VJ592 was caused by illegally carried hazmat (oxygen generators) in the cabin. AC797 had many similarities to SR111 (insulation burning spread the fire), but the lessons learned were not applied to designs in time to prevent SR111. I'd blame the FAA's inaction on NTSB recommendations.
Re: (Score:3)
An Israeli Air Force F-15 lost almost all of one wing in a midair and was able to land. You can find video, it's insane.
Not exactly on point, many warplanes have lost big parts of wings and landed. Flying buses aren't in the same league.
Re: (Score:2)
I included a second line/HTML para in my post. Perhaps you could have read it before stampeding to the 'Reply to This' link?
Re: (Score:2)
That's already been pointed out by others as a very bad counter-example. The body provides about a third of the lift on the types of aircraft. We were talking about flying buses, not rocket jets.
Re: (Score:3)
| "onboard fires on airplanes are as bad as it gets"
Hmm... I'm sure a missing wing, or rapid loss of pressure due to a collision, or massive power failure, or lots of other things could be a lot worse than a battery fire.
Am I correct in assuming TFA doesn't know what on earth (or off it) they're on about?
No, you are not correct, you are either over-estimating your expertise or over-estimating the importance of being pedantic.
En-route cabin or hold fires fall into the category of events that will almost certainly be fatal to everyone on board. With a slight application of analytical thinking, it is possible to see that a fire on the ground immediately raises the question of whether this could occur in flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, an onboard fire while airborn is very bad ....
I'm sure you mean "airbourne", but I had a friend who was actually airborn. Her mother went into labour above Shannon airport, and she was named after the airport. I guess she's thankful that the plane wasn't circling Gatwick, or Heathrow.
OK it's offtopic - but you have to admit it's interesting...
Re:Titanic (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Orphan Girl Scouts. Gotta have the orphans in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, it was a little tongue-in-cheek but having read the following dicussion it's surprisingly on-target.
To summarise
a) Every plane (except those which have significant body lift - not the "flying buses" as one low UID put it) which loses a wing crashes, there and then, with little choice of where.
b) Fires can be put out. Planes can land with a fire on board.
c) The regulations dictate that the batteries should fail-safe, that is, should they overheat they would be placed outside the pressure capsule.
I
Re: (Score:2)
This happened on the ground when plane was empty of people.
DC-10 (Score:2)
I remember when an engine fell off a DC-10 departing from O'Hare and the aircraft crashed killing everyone aboard.. Does that count as worse?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is to say: Its all been subcontracted out.
Thales [thalesgroup.com] is responsible for the electrical system. GS Yuasa [gsyuasa-lp.com] makes the batteries. There's probably no one left at Boeing Commercial Aircraft that has a handle on what's going on beyond contract management.