Printable View
NYCAviation:
Quote:
Japan Airlines 787 Dreamliner Catches Fire In Boston
The fire broke out in an electrical compartment of the empty aircraft, which had recently arrived from Japan.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/nycav...~4/OQYhJJJ_5a0
[Click to Read Full Article]
This one worries me. Curiously though, every 787 operator has reported problems (ANA, JAL, UA, LAN, obviously AI wasn't terribly thrilled to even take them)...except for ET, which we haven't heard a peep out of.
How many has Ethiopian taken delivery of, just the 1?
IIRC they're up to at least 3 now - maybe 4 or 5.
Apparently they had to replace an engine on the dreamliner in early October...and did so rather quietly.
I saw this planes arrival earlier this morning while scrolling around on Planefinder. I followed it from Albany all the way east to just past Leominster, MA. I was going to listen to it's approach on LiveATC, but was distracted by a phone call.
I hope JAL remembered to mail in their warranty card when they took delivery of this 787. :wink:
I don't know any new airplane that DIDN'T have a lot of problems in beginning, so this stuff doesn't worry me. The A380 had it, as did every aircraft before it. The only time you don't see them as much are on new aircraft mods like the 747-8 and such, because much is the same.
Also keep in mind that it sounds like today's issue was not a 787 issue, but a cargo issue. Lithium batteries are a HUGE threat to aviation, and a very ignored one. Batteries are what caused the fire on UPS Flight 6. One would think taking down a 747 would put the issue on the forefront, but as thy say "No one's gonna miss a couple of freight dawgs".
There's been a time in the evolution of everything that works when it didn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
The AP story I read said it was the APU battery pack, which seems to make it a 787 issue. But given that I'm about as far from being 'in the know' one can get, I could certainly be wrong. Either way Phil you are right and Moose's way of putting it is probably the most eloquentQuote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
No, it was definitely the 787. The airplane uses lithium batteries to run the APU IIRC. It took a mountain of paperwork with the FAA to get them to clear it.Quote:
Also keep in mind that it sounds like today's issue was not a 787 issue, but a cargo issue.
Sad to see this ... I am sure Boeing did NOT want that sort of publicity. I love how one reported said "I looked it up on Google Search and seems to be a Boeing Dreamliner ... guess is a fairly new plane..." lol.