Reputation Dilemma Hits The 787

Back in Highschool when I was growing up. My parents placed high on the list my own reputation, as the thing that must be protected by being consistently a good person. Of course at age 16, I could not and would not understand that principal in life until the process of living settles that talking point; establishing  itself in real life experience. Remember back when a certain girl in your glass went out with an athletic type braggart, and he comes back with a brag explaining on Monday, "what an easy conquest he had made over said person". Twenty years later at the High School reunion, the sneers, sideways glances and whispers still remain about some forgotten date that some Jock made, whether it is true or not is not important. A reputation ruined then; where it remains still ruined, about a mother, wife and solid friend to her husband.

Boeing's own date of the 787's entry into service has suffered such a calamity as news sites sell self importance and give an expert copy/paste opinion without weighing the big picture. It chortled for five years about the 787's delivery failure of being "7-Late-7" about the three years period of being late. Now the press is currently reporting about every event, even though these events are a serious concern for the aircraft, but in a sinister light casting doom for the aircraft. Airbus, many years ago experienced a total hull during a demonstration flight in front of cameras killing all of its crew in fiery crash. The systems that day on board, countermanded the pilots intuitive response for a stall condition. The system thought it was landing, and the system flew it into the trees. After that, overrides where installed for its newly conceived A320's and pilots.

However dogging the 787 is in the news maybe of interest to most and important to report, but what is really missing from these instant reports is a perspective for the aircraft. Comparing it to the historical data base of aircraft flying today. After the A300 came the A319,A320, A330,A340 and A380. A remarkable string of success for Airbus. Even though the A330 suffered a catastrophic hull loss over the Atlantic not so long ago, on flight #442, from Brazil to Paris, they kept moving forward in spite of the Press' admonitions over Transatlantic flight with a faulty pitot tube and systems over rides, inspite of pilot options it plunged a long way into the sea anyways, with all onboard perrishing. A high price for aviation is still being paid for what we take for granted in today's air travel.

Having stated this thought, it is important not just to parrot the news, but do ones own reporting by placing perspective into each news report. Just the press didn't do that when the 787 was late. Each article back then regarding advances, accomplishments and refinements, was followed by an obligatory cut and paste snip " The Late 787 by X months." Each statement  seamed to give insane thought and validity by recitation time, after time no matter what the article was talking about.

An article would detail out what accomplishment was made by the 787 and copy paste in the "The Reputation Statement" by adding for the thousandth time, that a 787 is now 19 months late. Next month the readers would be reminded that is is 20 months late until 3 plus year where one can occasionally find a time quote.  After all when Boeing made that original delivery announcement it was intoxicated with it own success of presenting a plastic body for the world, on July 7, 2007. This company drunk too much from its own innovation and set its feet in the cement of the press time machine by saying it would fly by October 2007. "Woah dudes you've been over served at the paint hanger. The clock starting running at Boeing's own stagger out the door. Now the reputation of Boeing is brought up at every news article. For the next ten years the public will have to read about fire smoke and mishap; as if that article is about fire, smoke and mishap, when the headlines print out the "787 Has Superb Performance". A copy paste paragraph of fire smoke and mishap will run counter of the lead headline by reciting it out like a 787 date night reputation, which it will have to endure for the rest of its life as its spouted out by the goofy press class reunions.

Boeing is working through this quantum leap of technology with a careful review of its workmanship and its suppliers workmanship, as it should in the manufacture of all aircraft. Flying itself is dangerous and our society takes it for granted and press reports flying as a norm while giving sensational impact for every part failure, which has be occurring all along with older models of aircraft makes. Perspective is that piece of reputation gossip missing from the press dialogue. Knowing that the 787 has the same or similar track record that the 777, and the Airbus aircraft is important so the press reports how it compares with order models when airlines are flying the most complex aircraft in aviation's history. This airplane is not that soiled or tarnished than all its predecessors. She will make a great travel companion for years to come.

Boeing's 2nd Quarter March To The Bank

So much detail and so little time to express where Boeing is today. Since Boeing is disclosing its big economic footprint forward in a swamp of fires, mishaps, and crashes during the second quarter. This will be more about orders sales and accomplishments, which promises to bolster Boeing's world position in the financial markets, as it wills its way through with a manufacturing swagger. Boeing builds an immense portfolio of military items far exceeding its European counterpart Airbus. Space and military is the dark horse many people forget to think about when buying Boeing stock.

****

" The company's commercial-plane division sold 169 planes during the quarter, including 16 Dreamliners. The company had quarterly revenue of $13.6 billion with earnings of nearly $1.5 billion or 10.7%, " 

"Asked about criticism from rival Airbus about the Dreamliner, McNerney said the plane has had no more problems than the popular 777 when it was introduced. "The reliability of this airplane is about the same as the reliability that we've had with new models, including the most successful wide-body we've ever introduced, the 777," McNerney said. "There are a lot of things that happen early." 
Bart Jansen, USA TODAY 1:23 p.m. EDT July 24, 2013"

****

2nd Quarter Order Numbers

520	10	40	570
737	777	787	Total

Order Date	Customer	Model Series	Orders
26-Apr-2013	Business Jet / VIP Customer(s)	777-200LR	1
23-Apr-2013	Unidentified Customer(s)	737-MAX	50
April Total			51
07-May-2013	KLM - Royal Dutch Airlines	777-300ER	1
06-May-2013	Qatar Airways	777-300ER	2
13-May-2013	Southwest Airlines	737-800	5
13-May-2013	Southwest Airlines	737-MAX	30
21-May-2013	SWISS	777-300ER	6
08-May-2013	Turkish Airlines	737-800	20
08-May-2013	Turkish Airlines	737-MAX	50
21-May-2013	Unidentified Customer(s)	737-800	40
30-May-2013	Unidentified Customer(s)	737-MAX	5
21-May-2013	Unidentified Customer(s)	737-MAX	61
07-May-2013	United Air Lines	737-900ER	2
13-May-2013	WestJet	737-800	10
May Total			232
19-Jun-2013	CIT Leasing Corporation	737-MAX	30
18-Jun-2013	Ryanair	737-800	175
18-Jun-2013	Singapore Airlines	787-10	30
19-Jun-2013	Unidentified Customer(s)	737-800	20
19-Jun-2013	Unidentified Customer(s)	737-MAX	20
03-Jun-2013	United Air Lines	737-900ER	2
18-Jun-2013	United Air Lines	787-10	10
June Total			287

First Quarter 2013 Orders 

737	747	777	787	Total
156	3	19	42	220

 Second Quarter 2013 Orders Total

737	777	787	Total
520	10	40	570

   YTD 2013 Orders Total

2013 Orders Detail

737	747	777	787	Total
676	3	29	82	790

2013 Aircraft Sold Equals Aircraft Delivered

First Quarter 2013 Deliveries Detail

737	747	767	777	787	Total
102	6	4	24	1	137

Second Quarter 2013 Deliveries Detail

737	747	767	777	787	Total
116	6	8	23	16	169
2013 Deliveries Detail 737 747 767 777 787 Total 218 12 12 47 17 306

Final Score Card: 790 Orders and 306 Sales/deliveries. 790-306= 484 net backlog added! Just In First half of 2013! Order to Sales Ratio is a + 2.58/1. A further slippage ratio of backlog. If Boeing gains parity on the single isle market in the Max vs Neo battle, then Boeing is forced to expand production. However its just not a Max vs Neo battle, Boeing has taken significant orders for its NG stable of aircraft in 2013 (Ryanair) not shrinking the 737NG backlog as much as predicted. In fact if one factors in the NG orders with the Max this year, then the Neo does not have that subtial of a lead since Airbus has taken orders from its preferred customer's during the last three years. Airbus orders for the Neo will slump a bit as the order book turf wars will now began in earnest for who really has the winning aircraft.  A 13% improvement for the Max performance over the NG is a bitter pill to swallow for Airbus since the old NG outperformed the old A320 to start with in the first place. When customers begin to populate airspace with the best airplane and reorders begin on this new line of aircraft a clearer picture will emerge in competitive airline travel markets.

Boeing needs to up productivity in order to take on more orders. Airlines can't order equipment 8 years in advance compensating Boeing for this dilemma. Airbus is rapidly approaching a backlog saturation as is Boeing experiencing. Boeing needs to build more facility infrastructure in the next five years at both Charleston and Puget Sound or expand into Southern California where they have a footprint. The decisions coming in 2014 will tip Boeing's hand on what it will do if they gain another 1,000 units ordered over its deliveries or the sales pace.  Boeing's world outlook on demand is starting to materialize. They are late in the effort to keep up with demand. However since they addressed this concern back in 2011. I would look for plant and facility announcement to occur in 2014 after the 777X is launched. Puget Sound and Charleston will not be able to satisfy customers and the order book, if this trend continues, one more year of having a desperate orders/sales ratio continuously running into the plus, and without correcting the Ratio with adding further production facilities is a great concern. Lead your own research off with Boeing's public record. The devil is in the details. Thank you Randy Tinseth for the information on this link.

In Boeing Own Words:

We forecast a long-term demand for 35,280 new airplanes, valued at $4.8 trillion. We project that 14,350 of these new airplanes (41 percent of the total new deliveries) will replace older, less efficient airplanes, reducing the cost of air travel and decreasing carbon emissions. The remaining 20,930 airplanes will be for fleet growth, stimulating expansion in emerging markets and innovative airline business models. Approximately 24,670 airplanes (70 percent of new deliveries) will be single-aisle airplanes, reflecting growth in emerging markets such as China, and the continued expansion of low-cost carriers throughout the world. Widebody share will also increase, from 23 percent of today's fleet to 24 percent in 2032. The 8,590 new widebody airplanes will allow airlines to continue expansion into more international markets.

The Pie In Sky Projection Assures Plant capacity Will Change

No Rush To Judgment With 787 Fire Cause

Several Days back I report a simple condition in the complex 787 aircraft. It is now confirmed, please note a prior observation from my 7-21-2013 Blog comment with this news report today.

Liftndrag Observation on 7-21-2013:

"The high humidity, is a contributing  factor, a crimped wire another event both of which in tandem would make for an awkward condition for electrical shorting. Could a crimped wire caught in a battery compartment cover, that is supposed to be sealed from water or humidity, cause the unsealed area to have an electrical short in the containment area? I don't know, just speculating over press information. A bad practice of mine and a plausible indulgence when blogging. However, it sounds like a human error on one of 68 flying copies of a much beleaguered aircraft with multiple hiccups.

News article on 7-24-2013: Link is below this reference @mynorthwestnews

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2320159/Pinched-wires-human-error-potential-cause-of-Heathrow-Boeing-787-fire

"Crossed or crushed wires are now the leading cause of that fire in an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 two weeks ago.

It's looking like human error, and not a design flaw, is being considered as the reason why the Emergency Locator Transmitter caught fire and burned the 787 as it sat at the terminal at Heathrow Airport in London.

The Seattle Times reports the investigation has found that the wires connecting the battery to the transmitter were trapped and pinched by the cover by an improper installation, and that likely caused a short-circuit that sparked the fire."

It has now become the likely cause of the fire. If confirmed it will open up a massive litigation problem for both Honeywell and Boeing. Who will end up buying Ethiopian Airways a new aircraft, a two hundred million US dollar invoice is awaiting these two giants. Ethiopian will add on, out of service cost with  lost revenue during its revenue generating and opportunity loss on the books.  Boeing would better cough up an extra 787 copy, sooner rather than later by moving a production copy to the head of the line for Ethiopian in the next six months. I hope this becomes the case.

Moving on to the beautiful "Queen of Sheba" left behind burned and spurned at LHR, Boeing needs to get an annual lease going with LHR to recover its airplane. An audit of the damage and feasibility of returning the aircraft to the air would better fit Boeing's needs as a test mule than trying to pawn it off on some low budget airline wanting some 787 fame. Even though the aircraft is probably recoverable, it could not be sold and offset the cost of doing repairs unless they want this science fair project of proving a point of how "easy" it is to refurbish the CFRP hull, in a catastrophic fire damage to its structure. Personally, I would like them to demonstrate to the world how recoverable or how a system is developed for the barrel design it could be restored. Airbus claims with its panel concept on the A350 this would be an efficient procedure to unlock panel sections and replace per damaged area. That is a strong argument to saving an aircraft. However if Boeing could demonstrate at a remote location such as LHR Airport how they could manage a repair and fly it home and then reassign it as a development aircraft would best serve Boeing on multiple fronts. Using this aircraft for proving Boeing repair procedures.

Once again without being the resident CRFP expert I have to assume a procedure:

Take exacting measurements of the damaged area and form a partial barrel insert, not a full barrel section but a span of the the top half of the barrel to be spliced into the hull. This would include support ribbing interlacing with the remaining barrel as a significant repair. All this would be designed with computer engineering, making a specifically made tendril matching the new barrel insert. Therefore, any major patch is an engineered section to be inserted as on the Ethiopian hull, where the damage has been removed to a strong point.  The new repair piece would be inserted and braced stronger than the original hull. The aircraft would fly slightly heavier, but suitable for testing even to the extent of testing for military applications on the 787. Boeing needs to recover this loss using this aircraft internal to its goals in the development area, rather then just writing it off as a loss.

The Seattle PI, ELT Fire Primer

The Primer Article : Ethiopian 787 Fire Sparks Question: Is Lithium Ion Ready to Fly?

My own introduction:  Good thoughts flow from this piece by Christine Negroni. It lays out a big picture of what Boeing and the investigators are grappling with and constructs those possibilities not included in press releases or news articles. I humbly recommend reading the complete feature as it may add to your own archival links of Boeing's journey to the flight of the 787.

****

Christine Negroni

" Is it a coincidence that right after Boeing announced it had solved its first flammable battery problem it now may have another?  It is worth considering if the Dreamliner's unique features have a role to play. Today Reuters reportedthat humidity and wiring are getting the attention of investigators in the U.K.. But I'm also pretty darn sure that the nature of the carbon fiber fuselage may also be under scrutiny."

"Advanced batteries with very different chemistries seem to have a marked propensity to misbehave when installed in Boeing 787 Dreamliners," Larsen told me when I called to get his take on the latest installment in the ongoing Dreamliner saga. Larsen was one of many people I interviewed while working on previous stories about the two fire events on Japanese-operated planes. I paid close attention. I was pretty sure I understood that the cobalt oxide flavored battery selected by Boeing for back up power on the Dreamliner was the bad-boy, super-scary formulation, picked because it was fast charging and packed a punch. But more volatile than iron phosphate and the ELT's manganese oxide."

To some extent my understanding was correct. But darned if Larsen didn't tell me that the ELT's non-rechargeable batteries can also fail with catastrophic consequences. The only difference is that non rechargeable batteries are less likely to do so than the rechargable carbon oxide lithium ion ones that caused the Dreamliner's problems this past winter.

Stay with me here while I explain that the issue with all of these batteries is that during their lifetime they develop teensy-weensy internal structures called dendrites. That's a bad thing because if they get to close to each other the dendrites will arc. They will release a super hot 4,000 to 6,000 degree electrical spark. By way of comparison, the surface of the sun is about 10,000 degrees.

Okay so the blasted thing is hot, get it? That means the heat is sufficient to breaks down the chemical components in the battery and feed on this as fuel along with and anything else in its way all at a temperature that can melt titanium and - apparently ignite a carbon fiber composite airplane fuselage.

This is a shocking scenario to imagine on an airplane in flight. Lest you jump to the conclusion - as I did at first - that Larsen is some too-far-out-there voice of doom, take another look at the damage on the battery in the Japan Airlines Dreamliner that went bad in Boston."

____________________________________________________________________________

Author Archives: Christine Negroni

 RSS for this author

About Christine Negroni

My life as an aviation writer began with the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. I covered it for CNN and my book about it, Deadly Departure was published in 2000. This piqued my interest in all kinds of flying and the mix of human, mechanical, technological and scientific factors that make it possible. Safety in particular intrigued me so I became an investigator for a New York aviation law firm. I am not a pilot or an engineer. My outsider status prompted the FAA to include me on a committee creating new rules for aging airplane wiring. I brought a non-technical perspective to the task. So some years have passed and I’ve “kicked the tin” on a few airplanes as the expression goes. Now write about aviation for The New York Times and I lecture at colleges and conferences. I often appear on those disaster documentaries that run on Discovery or History or the Learning Channel. I no longer claim to be an outsider. Aviation has its warts. But no other industry has learned and incorporated so much knowledge about human behavior into its operations. My unique vantage point these past 15 years gives me just the right altitude from which to write Flying Lessons.

The 787 Non Systemic Causal Fire

Is an important milestone for the aircraft moving forward. Fire is a result of a nonconforming installation of a very proven part on the 787. The FAA responds by ordering inspections on all 787's for this area as a validation that all 787 will be safe to fly. It is important to understand, that even though there have been several fires for various electrical reasons, such as Lithium-Ion battery, electrical panels and various parts failures as shown by system indicators, this last fire with the ELT, is not in the relevant range of those items listed but indicates an abnormal condition from its installation. The battery case of the ELT can withstand submersion and is designed to withstand a humidity in a saturated environment. Humidity occurring on a shutdown system, causing a short and then fire requires a multiple of conditions. The FAA and European investigators understand this well and honed in on the ELT area as the source of the fire. The high humidity, is a contributing  factor, a crimped wire another event both of which in tandem would make for an awkward condition for electrical shorting. Could a crimped wire caught in a battery compartment cover, that is supposed to be sealed from water or humidity, cause the unsealed area to have an electrical short in the containment area? I don't know, just speculating over press information. A bad practice of mine and a plausible indulgence when blogging. However, it sounds like a human error on one of 68 flying copies of a much beleaguered aircraft with multiple hiccups.

Boeing has been truly fortunate with the lessons learned and no catastrophic loss. They are rounding the bend for the home stretch of a fully inducted and working 787 without chinks in the armour. The customers have been truly extraordinary with its loyalty and patience. This is a testament where the 787 potential recognized outweighs this shaking out of its technology. Another indicator light on, another return to base, is another day. It also becomes another to-do list item back at the factory. The book of to do's from concept stage to operational reality, is getting thicker by the week, every time something lights up in its system. The great thing if you can call it "great", is that system indicators are keeping this aircraft safely flying. Without them, a problem could advance to a irrecoverable situation. The miracle of the 787 is its vast systems, enabling the 787 a safe landing 500-1000 miles later, or taking it back to its origin. The fuel pumps indicates failure and systems manage the return flight back to the maintenance center of its origin. The airplane specifies what part is needed before it lands or what system check is required. This becomes a negative headline when in fact the airplane is doing what its designed to do, keep it flying. The press reports another Boeing calamity.  Soon there will be a hundred of these airplanes out the Boeing door. Each manufacturing segment of numbered aircraft is better than the previous group as it arrives at the big Boeing doors. Every flying copy of the 787 is in a continuous improvement mode and stays ahead of the next aircraft loaded in the factory. By the time that factory aircraft reaches the flight line, it is equal to the ones flying, but better than it was first designed from the plans laid out at the other end of the factory.




Is it comforting to know that Boeing is doing just in time upgrades on its flying fleet and transposing those lessons learned immediately to the factory floor or the Paine Field flight line? Yes! Does this mean Boeing is testing its aircraft at the expense of its customer? The answer is no, because the systems installed makes it a safe airplane. It flies like it is designed. A million or more parts work together until one of the million or more parts indicates a fault.  Fires are a big concern by everybody, since fires can be sourced from a variety of conditions or systems, as it is now experiencing. Are these problems predictable and part of the risk of a new airplane? Once again it is No! Boeing does not even come close to wanting this publicity, expecting its customers to shake out new airplane bugs. They spent ten of thousands of hours testing everything to a satisfactory reliance and confidence with the 787. Its goal was to deliver a turnkey aircraft that customers would love for its ease of having it in its fleets.  The customer sees the possibilities and its mind boggling on what it can do with its business model. So what is the problem?

The problem is the quantum leap Boeing has taken on this endeavor. No matter how diligent it conceived this aircraft, the real time operations with its own manufacturing partners (both in the supplier phase and customer phase), are reaching a point on the home stretch, where more than 68 million parts on its 68 flying copies are shaking out the weak links, that Boeing did not or could not be aware of during the test phase. They deduced they had a solid aircraft during first delivery. Now the manufacturing and suppliers are being tested by the customer in the field. The safety envelopes designed into the aircraft are protecting its customers, until lessons learned catches up with the 787. The confidence level "is shaken but not stirred". The only way to get to this point is through redundancy, preparation and execution. HoneyWell  immediately fell on its sward by offering to remove every affected 787 ELT part.  Every manufacturer supplying the 787 should have a 787 parts contingency plan even though that is probably the case. The aircraft will gracefully settle into its niche. A truly remarkable aircraft.

Temperature Rising With The Humidity

Boeing has long preached that higher humidity with plastic construction will make for a pleasant journey with 6,000 feet of air pressure in the cabin. Could this very same higher humidity with condensation in the Honeywell locator beacon contribute to a causal shorting in the beacon device with its electronics? An interesting concept because this opens up multiple questions relating to condensation issues in a higher humidity environment on pressurized cabins. I cannot speculate on the scenario for the recent fire on the Ethiopian  787.  It is though a question needing answering to all its customers. Are all electronics and electrical systems protected with higher humidity found in cities like London or Seattle? I am sure Boeing has addressed this many times, but what if a supplier like Honeywell overlooked what could happen if droplets of water form inside the Locator casement and leads to an electrical shorting and subsequent fire. A possibility that should be answered in the lab test for this device. The greater question is how many systems are vulnerable, whether its a third party components or pieces in an electronic environment stitched together with multiple or various manufactured parts from third parties?  I am sure Boeing has an answer for that with its due diligence in its engineering of the 787. However, it would be important for Boeing to do a piece by piece evaluation of each of its electrically driven systems and find if condensation or higher humidity can find its way in to short out that functionality.

You know condensation in London, is a multi billion dollar industry for garment makers. Eight hours at Heathrow is like two hours in my swimming pool playing with my non battery driven rubber ducks. Heat and humidity makes for strange bedfellows. Apply heat followed by an eight hour rest in humid London makes one sing, "Rain drops keep falling on my head", A very conceivable condition that will not occur down in the Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia..



Notations on relative Humidity.


Hot air holds more water than cool air. 100% relative humidity at 90 degrees drips off your face just sitting or sleeping. If that same saturated air cools down in a high humidity environment like London, Poof,  it turns into a rain shower drowning the electronics as it releases water, because air cannot hold as much water at a lower temperature, hence shorting out stuff and causing a fire. Engineers have known this for years and have balanced this occurrence for the lower humidity aircraft when making devices. Did Honeywell build its device to accommodate Boeing's higher 787 humidity threshold aircraft?

Early Reports, Professor Plum Transponded The 787 Fire

The early report is in; Take all the thousands of Honeywell Transponders out of aircraft using this particular Honeywell part. This pronouncement suggest a broader swath of a transponder problem not tied exclusively to the 787. Any aircraft , whether it be metal or plastic needs to remove that transponder.  Boeing has a Pyrrhic victory, finally. This fire is not a testament against Boeing, but directly inferring Honeywell was the problem, even though this part is flying on thousands of aircraft.

UK investigators: Disable locator beacon on 787s

This is the Hot Link on the desert from Las Vegas, where all book makes gather to make money off the many, who see and know more than the average working Joe or Jane.

The news is developing here is a list of former suspects from an earlier post:

LHR Board Game "Clueless" Relieves Colonel Mustard...

• Professor Plum* A transponder offianado is questioned! No report concluded. BUSTED!!!
• Miss Scarlet* No Longer under Consideration Since Miss Scarlett Is Lithium -Ion Free
• Colonel Mustard*  No Longer under consideration since the Coffee Pot In The galley came Clean
• Mr. Green*  The aircraft is so green with a low flash point; everyone nods its so Green and moves on.
• Mrs. White*  Boeing stays clean at LHR since Scarlett has been exonerated.
• Mrs. Peacock*  NBC news reports, enough said.
• Lady Lavender* Once again, the ceiling lighting of lavender has not been the root cause.
• Mrs. Meadow-Brook*  I didn't see Mrs. Meadow-Brook coming down the jet way, and she is a strong candidate.
• Prince Azure*  If staying in the desert keeps the aircraft flying, so be it.
• Rusty*  The maintenance geek cannot be found at this time. 
• The Butler* The flight crew keeps insisting "It Wasn't Me", The Butler after all is English from LHR.

LHR Board Game "Clueless" Gives Colonel Mustard Relief Of The Galley Coffee Pot

Reuters-

WRAPUP 2-Battery in Honeywell locator eyed in 787 fire probe -source

Here are the "Clueless" cards dealt out today.

* Different type of battery than in earlier groundings

* Honeywell says no previous experience of problems

* Boeing shares recover much of what they lost Friday

* But analysts wary of any new 787 technology issue

• Professor Plum* A transponder offianado is questioned! No report concluded.
• Miss Scarlet* No Longer under Consideration Since Miss Scarlett Is Lithium -Ion Free
• Colonel Mustard*  No Longer under consideration since the Coffee Pot In The galley came Clean
• Mr. Green*  The aircraft is so green with a low flash point; everyone nods its so Green and moves on.
• Mrs. White*  Boeing stays clean at LHR since Scarlett has been exonerated.
• Mrs. Peacock*  NBC news reports, enough said.
• Lady Lavender* Once again, the lighting of lavender has not been the root cause.
• Mrs. Meadow-Brook*  I didn't see Mrs. Meadow-Brook coming down the jet way, and she is a strong candidate.
• Prince Azure*  If staying in the desert keeps the aircraft flying, so be it.
• Rusty*  The maintenance geek cannot be found at this time. 
• The Butler* The flight crew keeps insisting "It Wasn't Me", The Butler after all is English from LHR.

WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - Investigators are looking into whether the fire on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in London last week was caused by the battery of an emergency locator transmitter built by Honeywell International Inc, according to a source familiar with the probe. 

Professor Plum is on the hot seat, (no pun intended).

The Butler* Since the Butler always does it in airplane mysteries, I would consider looking at the hall tree near the rear exit more closely, right below the transponder area. If no clues can be found, then he did it out of a mystery novel tradition.

A Question About My Old Car and The 787

The "old car syndrome" is that if its 110 degrees outside you will discover your Anti Freeze is not strong, your air conditioner fails and tires blow out in parking lots before you come home from the store. If its -20 below 0 F then the old car doesn't start, the water pump seizes or is frozen shut and the battery is dead.  The common theme here is extremes, and how does a machine function under those extremes. It breaks at its weakest point and that is an old automobile at its weakest point, hot or cold. Vulnerable systems!

Now for the 787 Dreamliner and all its testing of its million parts, systems, and operational persons. What problems will emerge under the daily stresses of running an airline. You will find the weakest points under an extreme electrical system, dependent on a very robust electric architecture. These hundreds of thousands of parts are interdependent on successfully operating with each others, at points of functionality. When one acts up the other may overheat. Its not winter cold, or summer heat, but it finds the weakest link under extreme electrical use conditions, just as in an old car syndrome. It is the strong electric systems and new technology making the 787 an old airplane fast?

Honeywell has been called to London to advise and examine its transponder, located in the central burned-out area at the 787 top rear of the hull, where the fire's core burned and the transponder are both located. It is important to note this technology exist on all aircraft types, but are not necessarily run by a strong electrical systems such as Boeing has for its 787. That is an important clue in the LHR 787 fire. A robust electrical system on a Honeywell transponder is under examination. What happened if the transponder caught fire from electrical inputs; that may have shorted the device with its own Lithium Magnesium electrical storage system? Is this area encased like the main batteries? Does it have voltage regulation for spikes or anomaly current flows from the battery when the aircraft is at rest?

These are types of questions that will be looked into and answered with Honeywell shadowing the investigation. The kind of question levered out of the first events with its electrical issues, clear from the control panels to Lithium-Ion central batteries, and now further to the tail in an concentrated area with its subsystems; A Lithium-Magnesium battery supporting the transponder. Even though this battery type is already used in most aircrafts currently flying, are the safeguards in place protecting this smaller ancillary battery from 787's own electrical systems?  Even if this is a wrong assumption, then its worth a check off point to consider anyways, then move on if it isn't the problem.

Otherwise, Colonel Mustard did it with the coffee pot in the kitchen.

Morning Cup Of Coffee With The 787

Watch A Fighter Pilot Have His Way With A Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Movie Monday with a cup of coffee, Shows How a Fighter Pilot Flies the 787 when that Pilot is given the stick in front of people at the Paris Air Show.

Rock and Roll 787

Sure, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner catches fire. A lot. But what would happen if an ex-F18 Super Hornet pilot took the controls? Only the most awesome display of giant aerial manoeuvring ever is what.

F-18 Super Hornet display pilot, Mike Bryan, got behind the controls of the troubled Boeing 787 Dreamliner at the Farnborough Air show recently and put the plastic plane through its paces.

It’s a massive plane, but you wouldn’t know it weighs anything at all watching the incredible Bryan work his aerial magic.

Credit Link: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/07/watch-a-fighter-pilot-have-his-way-with-a-boeing-787-dreamliner/