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/

787 Ethiopian Fire Is Narrowing Focus

Investigators call Ethiopian Boeing 787 fire “serious incident” but no evidence of battery link

After consulting a plethora of reliable new sources concerning the the Ethiopian 787 Fire at London Heathrow Airport, I will try to sense the direction of this event:

• Harmful Blow To Boeing's Long Standing Effort, of ascending past a new aircraft problem period.
• Spot Fire intense, did not spread, and hull is saved.
• Fire started after aircraft was parked at a stationary location.
• Confidence from traveling public undermined.
• Cause of fire will be determined sooner rather than later.
• System analysis and system indicators may pinpoint causal spot location.
• No more problems from 787, a requirement for its success of an aircraft on the ropes.
• 787 downgraded from "will" to "may" succeed status.
• Two Boeing catastrophic events in one week, The Asiana 777-200 and Ethiopian 787-8

Below is a Plus Read from the WSJ: 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And after today's fire in London:

EUROPE BUSINESS NEWS Updated July 12, 2013, 5:00 p.m. ET

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Catches Fire in London

No Passengers on Jet at Heathrow Airport; Cause of Fire Not Yet Known

By CASSELL BRYAN-LOW, JON OSTROWER and DANIEL MICHAELS

Emergency vehicles outside an Ethiopian Airlines 787 that caught fire at Heathrow Airport on Friday. Far side of the plane was damaged.

An unoccupied Ethiopian Airlines 787 Dreamliner caught fire while parked at London's Heathrow Airport, reprising worries over the Boeing Co. flagship jet three months after it resolved battery problems that had grounded it worldwide.

Emergency crews were called about 4:30 p.m. local time on Friday and soon extinguished the blaze. No one was injured in the incident, which prompted airport authorities to halt flights for more than an hour at Heathrow, the world's busiest international airport. Broadcast images showed that the fire, which authorities said started inside the plane, burned through a portion of the carbon-fiber skin on the top of the jet near the tail.

Officials had yet to determine the cause of the fire Friday evening. There was no indication that it was directly related to the Dreamliner's lithium-ion batteries, which are housed farther toward the front of the plane. Overheating of those batteries triggered burning on two 787s in mid-January that caused regulators to ground the jetliner.

Boeing developed a system to contain fire risk at the batteries, which the Federal Aviation Administration approved, enabling flights to resume in late April. Boeing's business has since been soaring, with deliveries in the latest quarter hitting their highest number in 15 years, including 17 new 787s. Boeing has delivered a total of 68 Dreamliners to 13 airlines around the world.

The incident hit Boeing shares, which had risen by more than 40% this year through Thursday despite the battery problems, knocking them as much as 7.4% lower before ending the day down 4.7% at $101.87 in Friday trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Other airlines continued to fly their Dreamliners in the hours after the fire. A spokeswoman for United Continental Holdings Inc., which operates six 787s and is the only U.S. carrier to fly the plane, said it wouldn't speculated on the cause of Friday's fire "but will monitor the findings."

All Nippon Airways, a unit of ANA Holdings Inc. and the jet's largest operator, said its 20 787s are operating normally. A spokeswoman said the carrier was "still trying to figure out what happened" in the Heathrow incident.

The Dreamliner had been parked at Heathrow for roughly eight hours before the fire was detected, Ethiopian Airlines said. While attention is focused on the plane's systems, it is possible something else caused the blaze. Fires occur on parked planes about once every five years, said Paul Hayes, director of air safety at Ascend, a British aviation consulting firm. Causes have included short-circuits in lavatory electrical sockets, a rag left in a galley oven, and cigarettes. Mr. Hayes said several incidents were suspected to have started after a cleaner or ground worker furtively smoked on a parked plane and then failed to fully extinguish the cigarette.

In a statement released shortly after the incident, Boeing said it had "personnel on the ground at Heathrow and [we] are working to fully understand and address this." Ethiopian Airlines said "the cause of the incident is under investigation by all concerned."

The U.K. Air Accident Investigation Branch sent a team to investigate. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said it was sending an expert to the scene, and the Federal Aviation Administration said it would also send an official "in support of the NTSB."

As early reports and images of the fire streamed in, several industry and government safety experts said they were struck by its apparent intensity. The incident is likely to generate additional questions and discussion about the flame-resistant qualities of the composite materials that form most of the jet.

Television footage of the 787 at Heathrow showed damage to the top of the jet's body near the passenger doors at the rear of the 787. That area of the aircraft typically houses the crew rest compartment, but two people familiar with the jet's layout say that Ethiopian's 787's likely do not have this overhead bunk. The 787's twin lithium-ion batteries are installed below the floor in electrical bays near the nose and between the wings of the aircraft underneath the cabin, far from the damaged area visible in the footage.

The safety experts said that where the flames seemingly exited also isn't near the location of the auxiliary power unit or certain electrical panels that have been involved in previous onboard incidents. If the fire originated in any of those areas or the battery compartments—all located in the lower part of the fuselage—the flames either burned through the floor or crept up inside the skin of the 787. Emergency crews and investigators should be able to pinpoint the origin shortly, these experts said.

One person familiar with the preliminary information the airline conveyed to Boeing and its suppliers said there were no obvious patterns of battery problems or malfunctions on the Ethiopian 787.

Dreamliners also have suffered a spate of smaller technical glitches that have forced airline operators to delay and cancel numerous flights. Those types of issues aren't necessarily uncommon for a new jetliner like the Dreamliner, which first began carrying passengers in 2011. However, a fire aboard an aircraft is a considerably more serious event and is likely to be evaluated separately from the jet's teething issues.

In a separate incident on Friday, another 787 aircraft suffered problems Friday when a Thomson Airways flight was grounded because of "technical issues," a spokesman for the airline said. The flight had taken off from U.K.'s Manchester airport and was headed to Florida's Orlando Sanford International Airport, but had to return to Manchester "as a precautionary measure," the spokesman said.

The aircraft, which can carry some 290 passengers, was near capacity. There were no injuries and passengers disembarked. Engineers were inspecting the plane, the spokesman said.

United has been bedeviled by "several" flight cancellations due to a variety of issues involving the aircraft since the model was allowed to resume operations in late April—although the frequency of the problems has diminished recently, the United spokeswoman said. The latest was on Tuesday when a flight from London to Houston was scratched after pilots saw a message indicating that something was wrong with the plane. After mechanics checked and found the message was false, the crew had "timed out" and wasn't allowed to fly, the company said.

Ethiopian Airlines, one of Africa's oldest and fastest-growing carriers, was the first airline to reintroduce the 787 in late-April after the jet's 3½ month grounding. The airline took delivery of its first 787 in August 2012, and currently operates four of the long-haul aircraft in its fleet.

Robert Stallard, an analyst for RBC Capital Markets, said in a note after the fire that "any issues with the aircraft will likely face heightened scrutiny" given the battery problems. But he noted that during the 787's grounding, production remained on schedule and Boeing's shares held up. "We could see a similar situation this time around," he wrote, recommending investors buy shares on Friday's drop.

—Andy Pasztor, Marietta Cauchi and Susan Carey contributed to this article.

Write to Cassell Bryan-Low at cassell.bryan-low@wsj.com and Jon Ostrower at jon.ostrower@wsj.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phew, that is too many cursory hints as to "what's up with that", when it comes to the 787 problems. I do think with so little information known,  only blanket assumptions can be stated, erroring on the modest side, until someone steps forward with a "Press Bull". With that being said, I would jump in with this comment with no backing of facts. Fire is the ultimate by-product of some non compliant incident, as today's aircraft manufacturers spend inordinate amount of resources preventing a fire event. Statistic show far and few between incidences, like one every five years from operations activities amongst passengers, maintenance, and systems failures that would cause a fire. This incident becomes disturbing, because the few 787's flying have had several fires already.

Statistically, this is probably a systems caused fire. Not good news, from the bridge too far team. The billion dollar question: Will the 787 become grounded on the rocks again until a resolution is installed, if it is a system problem, or will some maintenance guy get fired for a cigarette butt in the trash can? 

I don't see a Boeing PR Team yet on the Horizon of the press pages. I assume they are deeply imbedded at London Heathrow general area mopping up and putting out any press fires at this time. By next week-end there should be some sort of discovery statement issued forth, and Boeing will have a concise mea culpa with a full sward available if needed. Until then, it would be best to watch the wires on this incident because it is just as important as the exploding battery story last January. The 787 is bumping and grinding its way into History, as possibly the best airplane ever built at this time. A brutal way to get recognition and attention with world travelers. The new technology penalty is enforcing its will on the ground around the world, and not in the air.

Addendum Speculation: All Things 787 goes to the Board Game "Clue" With This Statement

"The aircraft fire is unrelated to the batteries. This will be confirmed tomorrow in a boeing press conference. Fire is strongly believed to be as a result of galley overheat - failure of coffee heater trip switch which was left on.Burnt out much of the galley and area above causing deep damage to aft bh and rudder/elevator system. Aircraft sadly a write off - unless pride of hull loss/p.r dictates repair even if economically un-viable."

Colonel Mustard killed "Miss Scarlet Hot" with  a coffee pot in the Galley". No rope, pipe, knife, candlestick or gun, just a hot pot.

Don't go to sleep on me yet, I have a story to tell from my youth. I once ran a small convenience store to put me through the University's Business School. I ran four coffee pot burners for people who suffered from sleep deprivation while studying for finals week in school.  Often was the case in multi tasked situations, the coffee pot negligence situation would occur, when customers stopped coming in at four in the morning just before the delivery trucks drivers started stopping in at 5:00 am.  What happens between 4:00 am to 5:00 am stays in the store. That is to say the last dredges would summarily burn up from neglect.  But I was there to smell it and take care of it. I could see that happening on an airplane in a galley if unattended for 8 hours. However, the galley should auto shut down when the last crew member checks out. Really sloppy operation if no one is assigned to shut down all appliances before the next crew comes on shift. Unless a maintenance crew member came on to service, brew a pot, and then left it on until it caught fire. A simple thing can cost the airlines, when its crews service crews or flight crews operate new appliances, like brewing and leaving the coffee pot unattended after a brief visit of cleaning and servicing on a parked aircraft during layover. Its new and why not enjoy the spoils of a new aircraft while on the job.

Donald Trump Proclaims: "You Are On Fire, 787" @ LHR!

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Catches Fire in London

Jon Ostrower and—Daniel Michaels, Andy Pasztor and Duncan Mavin contributed to this article above.

Please refer to Title Link for a complete preliminary report from the WSJ.

Once again the 787 has promulgated another fire incident report for the Head scratchers at London Heathrow Airport on an Ethiopian 787 parked empty. This "engine is off" event is difficult to report about, only speculative commentary is being accepted at this time by the world's press inferring in a continuous stream of relevance through talking about a battery from the last fire tying it to this fire. Fortunately, a recurring fire symptom happens most often on the 787, when it is on the ground and empty of passengers. The early facts will quickly suggest an area of investigation. Where on the 787 the fire happen, what happen, and when did it happen? Investigations don't drive the newspaper, but a vacuum of detail are awaiting the evening news. Once that vacuum is filled with the dirt, then a proper investigation and news headline can be written.  Right now its a stock market headline, not a passenger headline. What is disturbing is the recurrence of the word "fire", at one of the world's foremost airports, London Heathrow.


Image showing the fire damage to the Ethiopian 787 via Sky News
This is severe damage to to the CFRP structure above the crews rest quarters and galley area. The investigators have the hot spot to decipher.

Boeing is in need of a break, because they cannot manufacture any more headlines assisting the Dreamliner, without flying an aircraft that could be grounded very soon, and once again! Unless they (investigators) come up with a plausible cause for fire that could of happen on any aircraft parked at an airport. Boeing needs a third party cause for fire at London Heathrow, like a cigarette butt in the garbage, or a kitchen fire that lights up a galley or in the bathroom long after the customers unload. I don't think that will happen since the press is eager for headlines. Boeing you are guilty again by association of another fire on another 787. I hope and pray this does not become another Hindenburg catastrophe at some point in the future. Oh, Stay away from docking mast in New Jersey, "787"! Lessons have been learned, and are still being learned as the aircraft is used. One can speculate, but no one for certain knows what is going on with the 787 problems experienced by its customers. All anyone can sense is that Boeing needs to get its arms around the problems instead of the usual PR responses.