Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

787 Dreamliner On Fire Again

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the hot-topic dept.

Transportation 246

Antipater writes "It looks like there's more trouble afoot for Boeing's 787 Dreamliner: London's Heathrow Airport was shut down for over an hour as fire crews attended to a 'suspected fire' on a Dreamliner owned by Ethiopia Airlines. 'Aerial pictures of the scene on the U.K.'s Sky News showed the new plane — which was not carrying passengers at the time — had been sprayed by foam, but there were no signs of fire. The aircraft was not blocking either runway, but with all the airport's fire crews tackling the Boeing 787 incident, authorities were forced to suspend departures and arrivals because of safety rules.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (5, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year ago | (#44263085)

"Well, I was pretty sure I smelled smoke!"

Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (4, Informative)

sabri (584428) | about a year ago | (#44263401)

"Well, I was pretty sure I smelled smoke!"

You may have smelled smoke, but the headline is not necessarily true.

The Li-Ion batteries that have caused the Dreamliner so much trouble are in the lower front part of the plane, below the front doors.

The news pictures show a problem on the upper side near the tail section. If there was a fire, it could have been anything, an isolated incident not connected to the battery issue.

Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (3, Insightful)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year ago | (#44263499)

The Li-Ion batteries that have caused the Dreamliner so much trouble are in the lower front part of the plane, below the front doors.

The news pictures show a problem on the upper side near the tail section.

Oh well! That's all right then!

Re: Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263637)

787 has two Li ion batteries, "main" in front (previous fires) and "aux" in middle (mostly for starting APU).

Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (4, Insightful)

JavaBear (9872) | about a year ago | (#44263665)

Actually, they are ALSO in the tail.

Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263693)

wrong

Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263727)

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2013/01/17/00/23/XsZ5c.La.91.jpg

Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44263843)

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2013/01/17/00/23/XsZ5c.La.91.jpg

Perfect comeback. Owned.

Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#44263741)

And that's why smoking is disallowed in airplane bathrooms.

Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (2)

multi io (640409) | about a year ago | (#44263881)

The Li-Ion batteries that have caused the Dreamliner so much trouble are in the lower front part of the plane, below the front doors.

Apparently there is a Li-Ion battery in the back [forbes.com] of the plane too, albeit located more towards the bottom of the fuselage.

Re:Airbus CEO was on hand for a comment (2)

imlepid (214300) | about a year ago | (#44263953)

There is also a battery pack in the mid-section of the plane [boeing.com] (page 787.0.7), near the trailing edge of the wings.

Flameliner (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year ago | (#44263457)

best in-flight BBQ

Re:Flameliner (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#44263757)

I fell into a burning ring of fire
Boeing's stock went down and the flames went higher
and it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
the ring of fire

African Pilots? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263105)

Plane from Africa: "OH NOES, WE'RE ON FIRE, QUICK, LAND".

Plane from Korea: "Fire? No, the boss says there's no fire, so there must not be a problem".

Re:African Pilots? (1)

Kerstyun (832278) | about a year ago | (#44263315)

Plane from Africa: "WE'RE ON FIRE. which passanger looks tastyest? chuck him on!".

-- Fix'd that for yer.

One system to rule them all... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263109)

Sad how one badly designed subsystem can take down an entire product.

Re:One system to rule them all... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#44263273)

I wonder if it's the battery again... if it is, that's not exactly a small subsystem.

Re:One system to rule them all... (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44263397)

I think he means the airport.

If a single fire means they can't do landings and takeoffs that seems like a poor design. It sounds like an easy thing for trouble makers to exploit

Re:One system to rule them all... (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#44263465)

I think he means the airport.

If a single fire means they can't do landings and takeoffs that seems like a poor design. It sounds like an easy thing for trouble makers to exploit

LHR didn't have snowploughs available a couple of years ago (it's not that common for it to snow here, but the other London airports all had the necessary equipment).

However, there are only two runways, and they only have one plane landing at a time, so enough firemen to cope with one plane on fire doesn't seem unreasonable. For something bigger (plane crashing into the terminal building?) the normal fire brigade would presumably help.

Re:One system to rule them all... (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44263513)

I merely meant that one worker with a smoke bomb now knows he can shut down LHR whenever he thinks it would benefit him or those he allies himself with.

Re:One system to rule them all... (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44264017)

I merely meant that one worker with a smoke bomb now knows he can shut down LHR whenever he thinks it would benefit him or those he allies himself with.

a mere telephone call would suffice so why bother with a smoke bomb?

Re:One system to rule them all... (5, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44263535)

Actually it's a good design. They could have remained open and at full capacity during this incident BUT since the fire crews and equipment were busy, their policy is to shut down to avoid the risk of a second incident and no way to respond to it.

Since fires and other rescue situations aren't terribly common, the fire crew is just standing by most of the time. Having 1 crew standing by most of the time and another nearly all of the time wouldn't be very practical.

Re:One system to rule them all... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44263581)

I did not suggest that as a fix.

It is a design. The first question I have is what was the cost of all this? It might well have been cheaper to have some London firefighters trained and ready to call in if needed for something like this. Paying overtime for a crew of firefighters might have been cheaper than the downtime.

Re:One system to rule them all... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#44263737)

It might well have been cheaper to have some London firefighters trained and ready to call in if needed for something like this.

And in a genuine emergency, like when two planes crash simultaneously or the fire speads outside the airport they might do that.

Note that when the crashes are separated in time that's not a genuine emergency, because the second was avoidable by telling it to wait or fuck off somewhere else.

Paying overtime for a crew of firefighters might have been cheaper than the downtime.

Might schmight. You're speculating, not calculating. Armchair CFO.

Re:One system to rule them all... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44263783)

I would love to calculate, but I have no idea about the costs of the outage.

The problem with even guessing at them is that the airport and airlines externalize these costs onto the customer in ways most operations could only dream of. If a restaurant canceled my dinner 3 times and delayed it 4 times I would never go there again. With airlines I can't even try to do that. I have tried to avoid some airlines for years, yet I still get forced onto them due to schedule changes and the like. So I can buy a Lufthansa ticket and end up on a Delta flight, even if I am trying to avoid Deliver Everyone's Luggage To Atlanta.

Re:One system to rule them all... (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44263915)

I would love to calculate, but I have no idea about the costs of the outage.

The problem with even guessing at them is that the airport and airlines externalize these costs onto the customer in ways most operations could only dream of. If a restaurant canceled my dinner 3 times and delayed it 4 times I would never go there again. With airlines I can't even try to do that. I have tried to avoid some airlines for years, yet I still get forced onto them due to schedule changes and the like. So I can buy a Lufthansa ticket and end up on a Delta flight, even if I am trying to avoid Deliver Everyone's Luggage To Atlanta.

The way we attribute the cost of delays is pretty asinine.

Basically they take and average salary times the number of people who might have been inconvenienced times X hours of delay and add it all up
and assign the whole number to this incident. Never mind the fact that the delay never costs most people a dime, because there is no
way to schedule your flights and connections with zero wait time.

If the same accounting method were used to price everything in the world your average glass of water would include the entire cost of water collection and distribution system.

Re:One system to rule them all... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44263955)

Sure, but the airlines method of saying it cost $0, since the flight took off 12 hours later and they kept rescheduling every 2 hours to avoid even handing out beverages is just as bad.

I have definitely had costs associated with delays, extra days worth of airport parking, food, missed work, toiletries I had to purchase, etc. That toiletries one does not happen anymore since I put the critical stuff in carryon now.

Re:One system to rule them all... (1)

Capt.Albatross (1301561) | about a year ago | (#44263773)

It might well have been cheaper to have some London firefighters trained and ready to call in if needed for something like this.

That's already part of the policy and that is what happened. It may have allowed operations to resume earlier than otherwise.

Paying overtime for a crew of firefighters might have been cheaper than the downtime.

If you want this argument to be plausible, you should go quantitative. My guess is that the people setting the policies spent more time thinking about this than you did,
used quantitative analysis, and are competent.

Re:One system to rule them all... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44263807)

I would not be surprised if that was true. Welcome to slashdot, clearly you are new here.

Re:One system to rule them all... (2)

geniice (1336589) | about a year ago | (#44264021)

London firefighters are public sector. Airport group won't be.

Re:One system to rule them all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263993)

And cause an industry-wide panic for battery assemblers afeard of more restrictive shipping and testing... IATA/UN testing requirements is tough enough these days.

Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal (1)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about a year ago | (#44263151)

The problems began when Boeing sent them the new, improved 787C version.

Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263387)

At this point, they should rename it to the Boeing 451 Dreamliner

Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year ago | (#44263517)

Why? Is it made of paper?

Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal (1)

bkmoore (1910118) | about a year ago | (#44263923)

Why? Is it made of paper?

Paper covers rock.

Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal (1, Funny)

bkmoore (1910118) | about a year ago | (#44263907)

No, they should rename it to the Boeing 451 Screamliner.

Re:Airline Feeling Burnt On Boeing Deal (3, Funny)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | about a year ago | (#44263925)

At this point, they should rename it to the Boeing 451 Dreamliner

Boeing 787 Hindenburg more like!

Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitudes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263189)

towards fire. Don't put that out! It contains the soul of the fire god. Our tribal elders forbid it.

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude (2, Informative)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year ago | (#44263303)

Ethiopians are predominantly Christians and have been since around the 4th Century AD.

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#44263319)

towards fire. Don't put that out! It contains the soul of the fire god. Our tribal elders forbid it.

Ethiopia has been a Christian nation [wikipedia.org] since the 1st century A.D. That was several centuries before Europeans stopped worshiping their "fire gods", like Vulcan, Surtr, and Thor.

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263437)

You're implying that change would be a sign of progress and improvement?

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude (5, Informative)

PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#44263449)

They trace their Christian heritage to the Ethopian that rode in his chariot while Philip in the Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:26-40 [biblegateway.com]

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263565)

And so that even while a sentence

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263869)

And their fire gods are punishing them for it. ;)

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263407)

Woooosh!

Re:Obviously caused by Ethiopian cultural attitude (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#44263585)

It's sad when someone wooshes a their own failed attempt at humor. Its like he wooshed to cover up the fact he didn't realize Ethiopia wasn't actually a country of uncivilized heathens but that it was part of the joke all along.

We didn't start the fire (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263209)

it was always burning since the world's been turning

-Boeing

Re:We didn't start the fire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263229)

We didn't light it,

But we're trying to fight it.

The Dreamliner 787 is so advanced ... (0)

BemoanAndMoan (1008829) | about a year ago | (#44263217)

... it crashes without even needing to leave the jetway.

Re:The Dreamliner 787 is so advanced ... (2)

multi io (640409) | about a year ago | (#44264059)

The Dreamliner 787 is so advanced ... it crashes without even needing to leave the jetway.

Makes evacuations a whole lot easier!

Whistleblower vindicated again (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263249)

Whistleblower Michael Leon warned of this in 2006:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100406310

And for that he was terminated and his career ruined. Too bad management never wants to listen.

Re:Whistleblower vindicated again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263575)

It's entirely possible this fire has nothing to do with that or with anything about the plane itself.

Re:Whistleblower vindicated again (3, Interesting)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#44263841)

Right... An operative from Airbus commuted arson while is sat on the tarmac?

This plane is having a pretty bumpy start. Years late, an inflight fire during testing, some serious smoking battery issues that got it grounded for months and now this? This does not bode well for Boeing's dream aircraft. The problem here is that unlike most of Boeing's previous aircraft launches, the 787 is having some shockingly serious problems crop up. I think the evidence is mounting that they cut a few to many corners in their bid to cut weight and cost. Hopefully they can pull this together but as the number and seriousness of the issues stack up it starts looking less and less likely.

Seems the dream is turning into a nightmare.... A really hot and smokey nightmare. If the flying public looses confidence in the aircraft or it gets grounded again for months, this is going to be really bad for the company.

Re:Whistleblower vindicated again (5, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#44263587)

I have a fantastic plan to sell little electronic fingers that you put in your ears. They have speakers in them and play, "La-la-la-la-la...". What? Not a sound business model? I can't hear you.

Re:Whistleblower vindicated again (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#44263759)

Not a sound business model?

I see - metaphorically - what you did there.

there were no signs of fire ... wrong (5, Informative)

BemoanAndMoan (1008829) | about a year ago | (#44263261)

Sky News showed the new plane — which was not carrying passengers at the time — had been sprayed by foam, but there were no signs of fire.

But there is! Scorch marks on the roof in front of the tail section.

Check it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23295115 [bbc.co.uk] [bbc video feed]

Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263405)

And another Dreamline made an emergency landing at Manchester, aborting its trans-Atlantic flight, according to the same video.

Popcorn at the ready*.

*Pun not intended, but it's really funny when you think of it - fire, popcorn? :P

Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44263413)

confirming for the bandwidth challenged. Also firefighting foam on the pavement.

There are interesting longitudinal lines across the scorched area - is the composite body laid down in strips?

Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263553)

No that's just how airplane fuselage is constructed [freepatentsonline.com] .

Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong (2)

Amouth (879122) | about a year ago | (#44263571)

There are interesting longitudinal lines across the scorched area - is the composite body laid down in strips?

I can say the answer to that is yes, the shell is made up in a crosshatch

Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44263593)

Or maybe the air-skin pulled over some "ribs"? I'm not an aerospace engineer, dunno what they're called. Still, I wonder what is kept exactly there that would have caught fire. I guess we'll find out eventually. Or not.

Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44263633)

There are interesting longitudinal lines across the scorched area - is the composite body laid down in strips?

I understand that the body itself is formed in rings and glued together in a row. The photo I'm looking at seems to show the scorch marks near the beginning of the tail fin. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing laid down a bunch of strips to improve the structural integrity of that area and perhaps to streamline the aircraft a bit.

Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong (2)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#44263511)

Sky News showed the new plane — which was not carrying passengers at the time — had been sprayed by foam, but there were no signs of fire.

But there is! Scorch marks on the roof in front of the tail section.

Check it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23295115 [bbc.co.uk] [bbc video feed]

I assume some people can't access the video, or would prefer not to: http://imgur.com/DSuowjU [imgur.com]

Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263975)

Don't know if all of them looks like this, but my guess would be a smoking crew member forgot something in the "overhead crew rest cabin" or the "rest lavatories"...

http://yunoinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/b787_schem_021.gif

Re:there were no signs of fire ... wrong (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44264023)

Sky News showed the new plane — which was not carrying passengers at the time — had been sprayed by foam, but there were no signs of fire.

But there is! Scorch marks on the roof in front of the tail section.

Check it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23295115 [bbc.co.uk] [bbc video feed]

That location is above the in-flight food service area.

The batteries are located in the tail below the floor, and you notice that the door way to that area was opened, but there is no sign of smoke or fire damage there.

There is no route for flame from the battery compartment to the roof of the plane.
So I'm guessing the food service equipment caught fire, and it had nothing to do with the batteries.

Funny people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263269)

... u guys are very funny today... NOT.

Too many American-made parts (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263277)

Should have stuck with the Japanese manufacturers. Caucasians are too tall and gangly. Asians are shorter and closer to the electronic parts, and therefore can see them better.

Dumb downvoters... (2)

ulatekh (775985) | about a year ago | (#44263411)

They've never seen the movie Crazy People [imdb.com] , I guess.

Ethiopia Airlines (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263281)

Odds that they didn't install the battery fix?

Re:Ethiopia Airlines (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | about a year ago | (#44263365)

That's a good question.

Was this a Dreamliner that had fixes for the previous problems applied burning, or was this a case of an airline cheaping out and not installing a strongly recommended/required fix?

Re:Ethiopia Airlines (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44263445)

The battery is in the front, this fire was in the back.
What are the odds they are related?

Also boeing paid for those fixes, so cheap airline or not they would be done.

Re:Ethiopia Airlines (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a year ago | (#44263507)

Who paid for it often has little relevance on if it was actually done.

"Here's $500,000 to refit your fleet"
"Ok, thanks. We'll get right on that."

Re:Ethiopia Airlines (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44263541)

You honestly think boeing gave them the money?

This is how you think that works?
You don't think boeing might not notice the return of the old units when they ship the new ones to the airline? You think inspectors would not notice?

Re:Ethiopia Airlines (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#44263651)

The battery is in the front, this fire was in the back.
What are the odds they are related?

As far as I'm aware, there are two batteries, but the rear one isn't that far back.

Re:Ethiopia Airlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263911)

There's a bigger battery in the front and a smaller one in the back, pretty much exactly where the damaged areas area are on the plane (except it's mounted lower in the plane). Apparently this plane was the first one that Boeing repaired (and it was done by Boeing or technicians approved and paid by Boeing so it's unlikely they skimped on it).

And... The first fire was January 7 in Boston and affected the... REAR battery. A week+ later a second actual fire broke out, this time on a different plane and in the forward battery. Combined with a number of smaller incidents this lead to the grounding.

Re:Ethiopia Airlines (1)

afidel (530433) | about a year ago | (#44263973)

The APU battery is in the back and is the one that went fully engulfed in the incident that grounded the entire 787 fleet.

Re:Ethiopia Airlines (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#44263629)

Hardly a "cheap airline" if they are flying brand new planes.

Re:Ethiopia Airlines (5, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#44263537)

Odds that they didn't install the battery fix?

Nil? Would they be allowed to fly within the EU if they hadn't?

Fire everything! (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | about a year ago | (#44263321)

>> all the airport's fire crews tacking the Boeing 787 incident Send ALL the crews? :\

Re:Fire everything! (2)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44263595)

Yes both of them. Kevin and his pet spider Colin.
Colin says hi.

Fire somebody! (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#44263677)

More importantly: That's all your crews? For Heathrow? Third busiest airport in the world?

Embraer is better (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263337)

Here in brazil we make really good planes at Embraer, they cost less, are more fuel efficient and don't burn at will... also, Embraer doesn't earn any bucks from NSA.

Re:Embraer is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263367)

there is also the famous air accident where an small Embraer's legacy crashed into one Boing and did not compromised it capabality of flying, on the otherhand shutting down the Boing one

Embraer is smaller (4, Informative)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#44263813)

The smallest 787 configuration carries 210 passengers. The largest stretched Embraer carries just 120. Different league entirely. Embraer is competing with the 717/A318 and similar small commuter jets, not the 787/A380 and similar wide bodied jumbos.

Re:Embraer is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263861)

as much as I'd like to support national products, even the largest Embraer plane is little more than 1/3 the size and carrying capacity of a 787, autonomy is another factor. sorry, but Embraer is not yet a major player in the transcontinental market.

Worst dream (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263361)

Liner #787.

Li-ion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263377)

I want a car made of these batteries. o_O

too early to know cause but some comments are... (0)

k6mfw (1182893) | about a year ago | (#44263409)

funny like this one, "If Boeing is made by fat uneducated Americans, Airbus is built by chain-smoking French surrender monkeys, royal-loving British soccer hooligans with bad haircuts, and Germans who are so boring I can't even think of anything to say to denigrate their culture with."

Cost? (1)

mrspoonsi (2955715) | about a year ago | (#44263521)

You do not often see a whole airport closed for a period of time because of a plane fire, and a very busy airport like London Heathrow, I wonder do other airlines affected bill the plane insurance company? could be very costly closing a major airport.

Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? (-1, Troll)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | about a year ago | (#44263631)

Wait a minute? Ethopia Airlines? As in the country in Africa that's so poor and destitute that it pulled heart strings with "We Are the World"? That Ethopia? They can afford a friggin 787 Airliner? Damn...

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about a year ago | (#44263765)

Interesting question about they can afford such a plane. I could not help but noticed the aircraft, "Queen of Sheba" that reminded me of this movie, Solomon and Sheba, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053290/?ref_=sr_1 [imdb.com]

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263767)

1. "We Are the World" was recorded 28 years ago.
2. Does American Airlines belong to the Unites States of America?

Re:Ethopia Airlines has a 787 Dreamliner? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44264049)

Wait a minute? Ethopia Airlines? As in the country in Africa that's so poor and destitute that it pulled heart strings with "We Are the World"? That Ethopia? They can afford a friggin 787 Airliner? Damn...

"it pays for itself"

it's business.

No signs of fire? "Suspected"? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44263719)

but there were no signs of fire.

To clarify, I think the submitter means no sign of fire still burning now. The BBC pointed out fire damage on the roof just forward of the tail.

Also:

as fire crews attended to a 'suspected fire'

No, it definitely was an actual fire! I don't know where this quote comes from (it's not in either of the articles now).

Rear Battery Again? (1)

slashkitty (21637) | about a year ago | (#44263781)

It looks like the fire damage on the roof of the plane is right above where they keep the rear battery.. The battery is kept below, so, I'm not sure if the fire could spread to the top of the plane. This would be very embarrassing if it's the battery again. They were suppose to be replaced with safer, fire proof cases and other improvements. After dealing with RC lipo batteries, I can say they are real difficult to charge and keep. I always assume they could catch fire at any time. Really not the thing you want in a plane.

787 theme song (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263865)

Baby's on fire
Better throw her in the water
Look at her laughing
Like a heifer to the slaughter

Baby's on fire
And all the laughing boys are bitching
Waiting for photos
Oh the plot is so bewitching

Rescuers row row
Do your best to change the subject
Blow the wind blow blow
Lend some assistance to the object

Photographers snip snap
Take your time she's only burning
This kind of experience
Is necessary for her learning

If you'll be my flotsam
I could be half the man I used to
They said you were hot stuff
And that's what baby's been reduced to

Juanita and Juan
Very clever with maracas
Making their fortunes
Selling secondhand tobaccoes

Juan dances at Chico's
And when the clients are evicted
He empties the ashtrays
And pockets all that he's collected

But baby's on fire
And all the instruments agree that
Her temperature's rising
But any idiot would know that

Common airliner teething problems (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44263873)

To be fair, the entire fleet of 777's were grounded 2 years after the first delivery due to gearbox wearing issues, which is a major problem, and yet the 777, now 22 years in service, has one of the highest dispatch reliability rates of any airline, at 99.96%. These things are just too darned complicated to get everything right, and due to safety regulations they always take the nuclear option and ground entire fleets when something like this happens just to be sure. Plus with faster media and the ever increasing competition between Airbus and Boeing,not to mention that Boeing is the US's largest exporter by a significant margin, then you basically hear all about these problems very quickly and very dramatically.

Not an expert (1)

stabiesoft (733417) | about a year ago | (#44263927)

I am wondering if the batteries fail from constant pressure changes. Its not like laptops or phones get pressure cycled like an airplane would. The LiIon batteries passengers carry are usually in the pressurized cabin. Are there any Li-Ion applications that do pressure cycle like a plane?

Too many advanced features? (1)

sshir (623215) | about a year ago | (#44264013)

Just a reminder - Boeing 787 is a very advanced aircraft not only because of that carbon fiber thingy, but also because they've swapped almost all actuators from hydraulic to electrical ones - that's new (first?) for civilian aircraft. Electric generators are sitting right on engines shafts (so no bleeding == more fuel efficient design).

As a result Boeing is still chasing all the electrical (and tightly tied to them computer) bugs. Not very surprising that is.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?