crazyjaydawg
Well-Known Member
How come the NTSB is so quiet on this one? It must be a conspiracy! Where's my tin foil?!?!
787 on fire
- Thread starter g550driver
- Start date
scooter2525
Very well Member
Lord, Jesus it's (another) fire!
g550driver
Well-Known Member
I don't know where this diagram comes from but it is incorrect, APU batteries are below the aft cargo bay, directly below the burn through.
If the picture you posted was correct that would mean that the FAA approved the batteries to be mounted below the center fuel tank, which of course is never allowed.
It was produced by Boeing for ARFF crews responding to the aircraft. I'd say it's probably pretty accurate.
Screaming_Emu
Joe Conventional
But a dude on the internets said its wrong!
g550driver
Well-Known Member
OK smart asses, the picture he posted is the vent, not the location. Here is the location, and also a picture of the JAL APU battery fire, notice where the smoke is and where they are fighting it.
I'm not typed on the airplane so I don't have any accurate diagrams.
The ones you posted were produced by a newspaper sourced from info from Boeing. They show a broad generalization of where the batteries are located. The document posted above was a technical diagram given to first responders.
The smoke is billowing out of the open aft cargo baggage door and doesn't necessarily depict where the location of the source of the smoke.
There are numerous reports out this morning that yesterday's incident is not caused by a battery issue since the fire occurred away from (aft) where the batteries are located.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/arff/arff787.pdf The true/accurate location of the batteries is located on page 7 of this link that was posted a page back.
The current incident is near the galley and the FA rest area, and I believe that the hull damage appears to indeed be over the galley area.
The current incident is near the galley and the FA rest area, and I believe that the hull damage appears to indeed be over the galley area.
g550driver
Well-Known Member
A Life, thanks for the pics, but unless I am missing something I don't see anything with battery locations, just battery vents, two very different things.
I hope that you guys are correct and that this is not a battery fire.
I hope that you guys are correct and that this is not a battery fire.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
You cannot see the photo above and did not look at PAGE 7 of the link posted?? There is a diagram of both batteries, their specific locations/bays and their frames/housing and where they are located inside each equipment frame. Good grief.
g550driver
Well-Known Member
Just talke to my friend who is typed on the aircraft.
The APU battery is in the aft of the electrical equipment bay, and located directly beneath the third set of cabin doors.
The diagram that shows the battery vents is a bit misleading but technically accurate, however the only way to access the APU batteries is through the cargo doors.
He said an APU battery fire would in his opinion not cause the damage that was shown on the Ethiopian flight, however tht is just his opinion.
Hopefully he is right, and this turns out to be something different. (Like a cargo fire) and not boeings fault.
The APU battery is in the aft of the electrical equipment bay, and located directly beneath the third set of cabin doors.
The diagram that shows the battery vents is a bit misleading but technically accurate, however the only way to access the APU batteries is through the cargo doors.
He said an APU battery fire would in his opinion not cause the damage that was shown on the Ethiopian flight, however tht is just his opinion.
Hopefully he is right, and this turns out to be something different. (Like a cargo fire) and not boeings fault.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Please, one more time. Forget the battery vents diagram that Minuteman posted. For the third (and hopefully last) time....look at PAGE SEVEN of this link. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/arff/arff787.pdf
The damage is again, I believe, right above the galley area and has nothing to do with cargo.
pullup
Homewrecker
Page 7 does show the general battery vent locations but the exploded view from that general area shows the battery locations.
Minuteman
“Dongola”
No updates today on what happened. They towed the plane to a hangar at Heathrow.
The New York Times reports the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch said in a statement that the fire resulted in smoke throughout the plane and extensive heat damage in the upper part of the rear fuselage. But it said that the damage was not near either of the plane’s lithium-ion batteries. And “at this stage, there is no evidence of a direct causal relationship” between the batteries and the fire, the statement said.
Also from the NYT, the Financial Times quoted an Ethiopian manager in Britain as saying that maintenance workers had discovered a problem with the plane’s air-conditioning system during a routine inspection and had seen sparks but no flames.
The New York Times reports the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch said in a statement that the fire resulted in smoke throughout the plane and extensive heat damage in the upper part of the rear fuselage. But it said that the damage was not near either of the plane’s lithium-ion batteries. And “at this stage, there is no evidence of a direct causal relationship” between the batteries and the fire, the statement said.
Also from the NYT, the Financial Times quoted an Ethiopian manager in Britain as saying that maintenance workers had discovered a problem with the plane’s air-conditioning system during a routine inspection and had seen sparks but no flames.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Personally I would think a battery fire would actually be better. Mostly because it's a known issue and is easy to diagnose and simply say "ok no more li-ion batteries". If other systems are catching fire, that is a bigger issue. Just me though.
Personally I'd do everything I could to not set foot on this plane at least for the next few years IMO.
Personally I'd do everything I could to not set foot on this plane at least for the next few years IMO.
I think that's a bit extreme.
http://avherald.com/
Crap happens to airplanes everyday but it doesn't make headlines. The mainstream media is hyper sensitive about the 787 because they have a chance to strike fear into the general public with a subject a majority are already uncomfortable with.
Screaming_Emu
Joe Conventional
Avherald is a great place to get some unbiased accounts of accidents/incidents. The comments tend to be a little youtubeesque though.
Similar threads
