March 28, 2024

Boeing 787 Catches Fire in London

It was not immediately clear what caused the fire or how serious the repercussions would be. But investors, mindful that hazards with the jet’s batteries had led to the grounding of the entire fleet from January to April, reacted nervously, sending Boeing’s shares down 4.7 percent.

Smoke came from the plane, named the Queen of Sheba, eight hours after it had been parked in a remote space at Heathrow and about four and a half hours before it was scheduled to depart for Ethiopia. No passengers were on the plane, which was connected to an external ground power source, according to people briefed on the incident.

It was also not clear if any maintenance was under way or how long the fire had been burning, though it was intense enough to burn through its carbon-composite skin on the top of the fuselage near the tail.

That area was not next to either of the plane’s new lithium-ion batteries, which caught fire or emitted smoke in two earlier incidents that led to the grounding of the first 50 787s. Unless they were charging, aviation experts said, the batteries would not have been in use if the plane were connected to ground power.

A team of British safety investigators began examining the plane shortly after the fire was put out. But no one involved — the investigators, Boeing, the airline or the airport — commented on the possible cause of the fire.

Other experts said that some of the plane’s wiring, and the oxygen systems for passengers, would have passed through the damaged area, which was above the rear galley. It was also possible the fire migrated from another part of the plane, they said.

Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation consultant at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., said the possibilities ranged from “something pretty benign,” like a lit cigarette or a coffee machine left on, to a serious flaw in the plane’s new electrical system, which includes other innovative components besides the batteries. Or, he said, it could be something “not as easy or as terrible,” like a component that was installed incorrectly.

The Heathrow incident was not the only problem aboard a 787 on Friday. Thomson Airways, a charter airline, said that one of its Dreamliner planes traveling from Manchester Airport in England to Orlando-Sanford International Airport in Florida had to turn back “as a precautionary measure.”

The fire on the Ethiopian 787 forced Heathrow Airport to temporarily suspend arrivals and departures while fire crews responded to the incident at 4:36 p.m. local time. Once the fire was extinguished around 6 p.m., the runways reopened.

Friday’s incidents took place about two months after the 787 Dreamliners returned to the skies after being grounded over the battery problems. One of the new lithium-ion batteries caught fire on a 787 parked at a Boston airport on Jan. 7, and another began smoking in midflight nine days later, forcing a 787 to make an emergency landing in Japan.

Regulators lifted the grounding orders after Boeing came up with a plan to refit the first 50 to 60 of the new jets with more insulation between the battery cells and a new system for venting smoke or hazardous gases out of the planes. Ethiopian Airlines has four 787s, and the one that had the fire at Heathrow was the first 787 to return to service at any airline after the grounding ended.

Boeing said that while the planes were grounded, it also made changes in electrical components that had failed on occasion since the planes began to fly in late 2011.

At Heathrow, television video and photographs showed fire damage near the base of the vertical stabilizer, with fire-retardant foam having been sprayed on the area. That would be the first time a fire had burned through the 787’s carbon-composite skin, raising questions about its fire-retardant properties.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/business/boeing-787-catches-fire-at-heathrow.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Setback to Boeing’s Hopes for Longer Range for 787

Boeing designed the jet to fly 330 minutes — five-and-a-half hours — from the nearest airport at any point on its routes, a feature that would allow extended flights over water or deserted regions like the North Pole. That held tremendous appeal for airlines, which often must stay within three hours of emergency landing spots, and Boeing estimated that 450 new routes would be created.

But Boeing is struggling to get past the 787’s recent smoke and fire episodes with its lithium-ion batteries that have led to the grounding of all 50 planes delivered so far. And with investigators in the United States and Japan still looking for the cause of those problems, it could be months before federal regulators would feel confident enough in Boeing’s redesign of the batteries to approve extending 787 flights to ultralong distances from the jetliner’s current three-hour limit.

That could dilute its appeal to some airlines and further raise the costs of the program for Boeing, which already was unlikely to make a profit on any 787s for at least two years. The company could lose orders and have to pay penalties to carriers if the 787 failed to meet its performance targets.

“It is crucially important that the powers that be get convinced that Boeing can contain and exhaust a fire, and that the fix really worked,” said Hans J. Weber, the president of Tecop International, an aviation consulting firm.

He said that even after the jets start flying again, Boeing and the airlines would have to monitor the activity inside the batteries for tens of thousands of flight hours before experts would feel sure enough that the fixes would prevent a fire or that the jet’s range could be safely expanded.

Federal Aviation Administration officials said it was premature to speculate about what they might decide about the plane’s range. Boeing said Friday that it had not changed its goal to win approval for the longer flights.

The 787 fleet was grounded in January after the battery in one jet ignited in Boston and another battery began smoldering on a flight in Japan.

Boeing and other companies that rely on the volatile lithium-ion batteries, including hybrid carmakers, worry about public perceptions of the batteries and want to get the planes back up in the air as soon as possible. The F.A.A. is expected to approve a plan next week to start testing the possible fixes.

Mr. Weber said that several studies had suggested that jetliners have an average of 18 to 20 minutes to land if a fire erupts without special containment in a cargo or equipment bay. And it could take 20 minutes more to get all the passengers and crew members off the plane, he said.

As a result, George W. Hamlin, an aviation consultant, said he believed that to justify even its current ability to fly up to three hours from the nearest airport, Boeing would have to demonstrate that its new battery case could contain a fire for at least 180 minutes. Otherwise, he said, the plane’s appeal could diminish.

Having a fire in a plane is a situation all pilots dread. (They are trained to find the nearest landing spot.) But containing a potential fire could be an acceptable answer for the F.A.A., Mr. Weber and Mr. Hamlin said.

The agency already has many requirements to offset other safety concerns on planes. For instance, Mr. Weber said, the F.A.A. accepts the risk of one engine failing in flight by requiring that all twin-engine jets can fly on the remaining one.

And while the current rule that 787s must stay within three hours of airports is sufficient for most North American, trans-Atlantic and even many flights across the Pacific Ocean, several Middle Eastern, Australian and Asian airlines are counting on the extension to gain more flexibility in their routes and maximize the fuel savings from the plane.

“The part of the raison d’être in the design of the 787 is being able to connect virtually anywhere,” Mr. Hamlin said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/business/setback-to-boeings-hopes-for-longer-range-for-787.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Media Decoder Blog: Seeing a Movie Over the Holidays? Best to Find a Comfy Seat

LOS ANGELES — The top three movies at the box office have a combined running time of 8 hours and 11 minutes — but who’s counting?

Length seems not to be much of an issue this season. “Les Misérables,” at more than two and half hours (157 minutes, to be exact), took in $12.2 million in domestic ticket sales on Wednesday, according to boxofficemojo.com, for a total of $30.3 million since it opened Christmas Day.

“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” was ahead of “Les Miz” in running time, at 169 minutes, but slightly behind in Wednesday sales, with $11.4 million. That brought its total since opening two weeks ago to almost $180 million.

“Django Unchained,” about four minutes shorter than “The Hobbit,” had about $10 million in sales on Wednesday, for a total of about $25 million since opening on Christmas.

Maybe there’s a message in the way these films are playing both long and strong: If you’re going to charge premium prices for movie tickets, you’d better give the people their money’s worth.

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/seeing-a-movie-over-the-holidays-best-to-find-a-comfy-seat/?partner=rss&emc=rss