Another 787 fire closes Heathrow temporarily

[Melburnian1]

This runways closure at Heathrow did not delay QF2, the 2130 hours departure for DXB and LHR - it got away at 2128, 2' early - but our old friend QF10 is for the second night in a row delayed at LHR with its 2230 timetabled pushback on Friday 12 July delayed until 0015 on Saturday 13 July (it has just departed the gate, but is not yet airborne).

Since QF10's Thursday 11 July's departure occurred an hour 48 minutes late at 0018 on Friday 12 July from LHR with a lengthy stop above the timetabled allowance in DXB meaning an arrival in MEL this morning at 0802 instead of the scheduled 0515 and in turn delaying QF93 on Saturday to an estimated 1000 departure instead of 0915, Sunday 14 July's QF93 (MEL - LAX) may well be similarly late. Time for another coffee or hot chocolate in the Qantas Club if you're travelling.

Quite a lot of European arrivals at LHR have been delayed three to five hours: presumably they did not receive ATC clearance to depart until there was a flight path available to one of the reopened runways.

 

[pythonisman]

Ouch! You can't just fix these composite material aircraft with a double row of rivets.

She'll be right, a bit of windex and that'll buff right out yeah?

 

[Hvr]

She'll be right, a bit of windex and that'll buff right out yeah?

At least two rolls of duct tape though. That'll bump up the repair costs.

 

[samh004]

I was just thinking the other day I hadn't heard any incidents with the 787, things were finally in track for Boeing.

 

[cove]

We parked next to Nancy Bird A380 and I think Queen of Sheba was out nearby but not connected to an air bridge. Clearly she got hot and gaffer tape and screwing on some aluminium coke cans may not fix it seeing it is plastic.

 

[Melburnian1]

As a result of the LHR B787 fire, QF is now forecasting that its delayed QF10 will arrive in MEL on Sunday morning (14 July) 70 minutes late at 0625. This may be a bit optimistic.

Today's delayed QF93 did not leave MEL for LAX until 1052 (97 minutes late) - later than QF had forecast. The turnaround from the QF10 arrival at 0802 to a predicted QF93 departure of 1000 proved unachievable.

 

[jb747]

As a result of the LHR B787 fire, QF is now forecasting that its delayed QF10 will arrive in MEL on Sunday morning (14 July) 70 minutes late at 0625. This may be a bit optimistic.

Today's delayed QF93 did not leave MEL for LAX until 1052 (97 minutes late) - later than QF had forecast. The turnaround from the QF10 arrival at 0802 to a predicted QF93 departure of 1000 proved unachievable.

I don't know that you can reliably relate turn arounds on a few individual days. Two hours should be quite achievable, but if the a/c arrives with some required maintenance actions, then timing becomes unpredictable. Winds across Oz are very strong at the moment, so the 10 will make up some time there.

 

[Melburnian1]

I don't know that you can reliably relate turn arounds on a few individual days. Two hours should be quite achievable, but if the a/c arrives with some required maintenance actions, then timing becomes unpredictable. Winds across Oz are very strong at the moment, so the 10 will make up some time there.

jb747,on PR209 (B773) from MEL to MNL recently, my flight was losing time against either 240kmh or 120kmh winds if I recall. We lost 20 minutes to MNL.

QF10 that arrived MEL this morning did not make up time: it departed DXB 2 hours 39 minutes late, arriving at the gate at MEL 2 hours 47 minutes late.

I realise that it depends on variables on the day, but most airlines build in recovery time to their schedules. Quite often, it is half an hour or so on a MEL, SYD or BNE to or from southeast Asia flight. As a result, many flights arrive early.

It would be preferable from a passenger viewpoint if flights were more accurately timetabled. Building slackness in costs businessmen and women time, in the sense that they must be at the international airport of departure the stipulated number of minutes prior, but anyone meeting them at the other end does not often know to turn up early.

 

[jb747]

jb747,on PR209 (B773) from MEL to MNL recently, my flight was losing time against either 240kmh or 120kmh winds if I recall. We lost 20 minutes to MNL.

To lose that time you only need around an average of a 40kph wind. Losing time because of wind is easy, and it never balances out coming the other way.

QF10 that arrived MEL this morning did not make up time: it departed DXB 2 hours 39 minutes late, arriving at the gate at MEL 2 hours 47 minutes late.

I'd be pretty much prepared to bet that it lost the time between push back and take off. Very busy time of day and the departure queues can be long. It may still have gained time in flight.

I realise that it depends on variables on the day, but most airlines build in recovery time to their schedules. Quite often, it is half an hour or so on a MEL, SYD or BNE to or from southeast Asia flight. As a result, many flights arrive early.

Do they? I think you'll find that schedules are based on the 65% achieved times. ATC and slot issues will become very real if you arbitrarily build in non existent flight time, and then habitually arrive early.

It would be preferable from a passenger viewpoint if flights were more accurately timetabled. Building slackness in costs businessmen and women time, in the sense that they must be at the international airport of departure the stipulated number of minutes prior, but anyone meeting them at the other end does not often know to turn up early.

Again, I don't think they do. It's just that 65% achieved equals 35% that wasn't. Unless you retrospectively put out your schedules, they'll never be totally accurate. Quite honestly, I'm amazed that they are as close as they are, given the vast number of variables.

This reminds me of what used to happen in the days of Ansett and TAA. All of their departures were basically identical, but the machinery wasn't necessarily. So, flight times actually varied quite a bit. But, because passengers would supposedly just pick the fastest planned flight, both airlines concocted schedules that were utter b/s, basically based on a perfect day in the fastest aircraft, plus huge tailwind. If one adjusted their timing, then so did the other. I recall seeing a schedule that had a 737 flying the monorail faster than it could be done in a 747 (.78 vs .87). Compounding that, they'd then base the turn around times on these b/s flight times, with the result that the aircraft perpetually got later as the day went by.

 

[whatmeworry]

Boeing stocks took a bit of hit after the fire.

Boeing's shares closed 4.7 per cent lower at $US101.87 in New York trading, clawing back from a dive of more than seven per cent.

Read more: Fire on 787 Dreamliner in UK
​

 

[Berlin]

Re: Another Dreamliner catches fire

How can that be- I thought the Dreamliner is now safe? :shock:

 

[Must...Fly!]

Re: Another Dreamliner catches fire

Reading all the "expert" opinions on twitter has been humorous to say the least! Goes to show how many don't know the specifics of where the avionics are in an aircraft...most probably don't even know they exist.

Thank you JB for your comments - the actual cause will be interesting to read when it is released.

 

[The Rok]

Reports on sky news this morning that investigators have said the fire was NOT related to the batteries.

 

[Ansett]

Reports are out that somebody left a coffee heater or something else in the galley on, and the switch overheated and caught fire. They’re also reporting that there is a ton of damage to the elevator system and other controls, and the plane may be a total hull loss.

 

[mannej]

Reports are out that somebody left a coffee heater or something else in the galley on, and the switch overheated and caught fire. They’re also reporting that there is a ton of damage to the elevator system and other controls, and the plane may be a total hull loss.

So hardly a design fault - more human error.

Still not a good week for Boeing

 

[samh004]

Doesn't sound good for Ethiopian Airlines either!

That said, I'd hope that a coffee heater left on in flight wouldn't eventually cause a fire, that seems like a flaw to me.

 

[oz_mark]

So hardly a design fault - more human error.

If something like an overheating switch in the galley in a plane parked out the back, is going to result in hull losses, I expect the 787 is going to figure highly in the hull loss stats.....

 

[mannej]

Doesn't sound good for Ethiopian Airlines either!

That said, I'd hope that a coffee heater left on in flight wouldn't eventually cause a fire, that seems like a flaw to me.

A coffee heater left on for too long will cause a fire in most cases I would imagine, appliances do that

 

[Pleb Status]

I would think Boeing will spend whatever amount it takes to get the thing flying again. Even if this means putting a whole new tail onto it. Having a write off at this stage would be a PR nightmare, particularly if the write off has something to do with the repair of the Carbon fibre fuselage.

I do like the names being used on the net for the 787 however. My faves are Binliner, Screamliner and Firebird.

 

[whatmeworry]

If something like an overheating switch in the galley in a plane parked out the back, is going to result in hull losses, I expect the 787 is going to figure highly in the hull loss stats.....

Sounds like an insurance job?