787 a realistic safe form of transport?

[britfrog 180]

lets take oluselves back to the 50's and 60's when jet transport was at its earliest days and there were several well publisised crashes of what was the jewel of english eyes.

quite correctly the CAA grounded the craft until the solution was found, but by then we had been leapfrogged by the americans and their 707 which IMHO was a better plane anyway, stole our sales.

put ourselves in todays situation where aircraft certification seems to be virtually self certification as long as you pay the fees (to the authorities), and loans are at high interest rates, but we can make money as long as we are allowed to cut corners and sell aircraft providing the initial testing of them passes muster after which the authorities close a blind eye. it is airbus eats boeing or visa versa, the buyer reaps the best price and the public pays the price.

taknig in  mind the well publicised problems, which most of us understand, how happy would you be for you and youir family to take a flight from say Gatwick to Cancun?

lets take the situation a bit more crazy, say we are leaving gatwick for Bermuda in a twotter !! there is absolutely no chance of reaching your destination, you know with some certainty the a/c will run out of fuel , ditch, and you will be fighting for your life (if you are lucky) in a raft.

Now we all know a twotter is an amazeingly reliable aircraft but you are at least alive and afloat awaiting rescuie.

giving the already known shortcomings of the wetdreamliner which ditches at over 100 knots more than the twotter how ready are you now to take your loved  ones on a plane which underwent questionable certification processes due to financial restraints with many unanswered , serious problems.

Personally for me it doesnt matter if it is airbus or Boeing there is no way i could allow my family to travel on an aircratf with such dubious airworthiness credentials, bearing in mind modern financial pressures.

what are your thoughts?

 

[allardjd 1,853]

While it's obvious that Boeing has a huge problem on their hands, I'm not sure the comparison between the Dreamliner problems to date and the early Comet disasters are appropriate at this point. Comet suffered two hull losses in early takeoff accidents (Rome Ciampino and Karachi, Pakistan), one with 100% fatalities. Those were followed within months by an in-flight structural failure in a thunderstorm (Calcutta), also with 100% fatalities. A year or so later, there were two more in-flight structural failures with 100% fatalities (Ciampino again and Elba). It was only then, after five total hull losses, four with 100% fatalities, that the CAA acted by grounding the fleet.

 

I'm not making light of the 787 fires; fire on an aircraft is an extremely serious thing - more so if it's made of plastic. Nor am I saying that a grounding and another round of trying to find the root cause is not called for at this point. It seems that would be a reasonably prudent thing to do.

 

It seems to me, however, that the comparison between the problems with the 787 at this point and the operating history of the Comet at the time the CAA grounded the fleet is not a fair one. Comet had at that point five hull losses and four 100% fatal accidents, three in flight. So far in the 787 there have been three issues with fuel leaks and I think four electrical fires, only one of which was in flight, and no fatalities or even serious injuries to date. I believe at least two were with unoccupied aircraft parked on a ramp. It is not quite an apples to apples comparison. Dreamliner is flawed and obviously still has some serious problems, but it's not yet Comet and very likely will not ever be permitted to be.

 

In fairness, Comet was fixed and went on to be a moderately successful airplane but because of its early flaws had lost the opportunity to become the pre-eminent airliner of its day to the 707.

 

Of course the 787 is a problematic airplane and possibly a commercial failure for the manufacturer, though it's hard to predict that with any certainty at this point. Large airplanes, either commercial or military, are a big risk for companies these days. Ask Airbus about the break even sales for the A380 with the wing rib bracket cracks (Type I and Type II) and the overweight, over-priced, overdue A400M that nobody wants, even those who are bound by the deals they've made with Airbus. It's quite possible that B787, A380 and A400M will all be net money losers for their respecive manufacturers by the time their respective assembly lines shut down. All three projects are deep in the red at this point but all three may yet, by turning their problems around and turning in a good operating history from here, manage to pull their fat from the economic fire. Interesting times.

 

John

[Mistwalker 3]

I totally understand what you're saying when it comes to comparing the disasters that befell the comet and the so far, by comparison, much less serious incidents with the Dreamliner BUT, I think it's more by luck than judgement that at least one hasn't fallen out of the sky yet. I would be VERY reluctant to trust to luck and timing that one of these fires didn't happen at 30,000ft. I know we're talking MAJOR commercial losses, both for Boeing and the operators, but if it were my call I couldn't in all conscience give the go ahead to keep those birds flying and still get a good night's sleep.

 

If the reports so far are true and it wasn't caused by something in the hold, that aircraft was supposedly cold and dark and somehow managed to instantaneously combust. If it could do that whilst sat on it's arse doing nothing, there's no way I'm risking my butt or my loved ones in it at 30,000ft. To some extent, the reality of the seriousness is irrelivent. it's public perception that counts. If people start refusing to fly on Dreamliners or displaying white nuckles when they're on them, The airlines won't buy it and Dreamliner is done.

[allardjd 1,853]

As I understand, the batteries that caused the earlier ground fires are not connected in flight. They provide brakes and lights on the ground.

 

Not disagreeing that the fires are serious stuff and MUST be understood and eliminated before pax and crews are put at further risk. No question about that, just reacting to the inference that the CAA was somehow more proactive in 1954 than the FAA in this case. I think that's stretching it a bit since CAA waited out far more serious events before throwing the flag (or is that showing the red card?).

 

John

[hurricanemk1c 195]

To my mind, the current 787 problems seem more relatable to the DC-10 than the Comet, but even that is different.

 

To me, I think people are loosing confidence in the 787. G-TUIC, a Thomson example, turned back at 10 degrees West to Manchester following hydraulic problems. Granted, these problems can occour to any aircraft of any type with hydraulics, but the 787 is getting more and more bad press.

 

Reading up on the JAL incident in Boston in January, the batteries were only connected for half an hour before they burnt. The factual report is available on the NTSB website - interesting reading!

[britfrog 180]

an update on the thompson flight

their "Tech" issues  were that all the toilets except 2 ceased to function whilst crossing Ireland so they turned around and circled for 3 more hours burning off fuel so they could land.

 

apparently to jettison fuel one has to declare an emergency so they flew around as peoples bladders filled even more than usual

 

I for sure would be crapping myself wondering what next is going to stop working

[mutley 4,498]

Sort of relieved we didn't fly on G-TUIC after all! Phew 

[Aircraft Aviation 2]

I did a week's worth of work experience this year at Rolls Royce (felt very lucky to get offered!). They weren't exactly glowing with praise regarding Boeing's efforts to fix the 787 battery problems, word is that some very sneaky shenanigans took place to "repair" the fault.

[GHAO 0]

Well, provided the wings are attached and their isn't too much explosive decompression (a la Comet) then I feel safe on any plane - I know the pilots will do their darndest to get the plane down safely, and the plane will certainly try to keep it all together as well. Modern airplanes are tough - remember Aloha Airlines B737 which landed with a large bit of the front roof missing? Some people call it miracles when there are so few casualties in a big crash - also remember these are multiple-hundreds of tonnes of metal travelling at 200mph through the air - but we all know it's mostly down to the skill of the engineers. Plus a bit of luck perhaps.

[hurricanemk1c 195]

The problem with the 787 is the great unknown. No large, commercial, civil aircraft has even been made with as much carbon composite material as the Dreamliner. That would be my main worry about the 787

[allardjd 1,853]

Not without problems, and a learning curve to be climbed, but it's where we're going, like it or not.

 

http://forum.mutleyshangar.com/index.php/topic/3533-plastic-airplanes-november-2009/

 

John

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

Many airliners have teething problems, though these days they are supposed to be ironed out BEFORE they go into service, What's happening now is that problems that no-one had thought of are now rearing their heads. My problem with the 787 is that basicly it's just an oversized Airfix Kit with a few metal bits added to make us feel safe! Old aircraft were made of metal and that makes the public feel safe. Your average family going on holiday to the sunny Costa Bomb don't care about carbon this and plastic that, they want a big metal bird to get them there. As George mentioned about the Aloha B737,that was an old school aircraft made the old fashioned way and was as tough as old boots. These new plastic fantastics maybe all singing and dancing, but I'd be very wary of flying in a plane that melts if some leaves the kettle boiling! You have to see things from the average Joe Publics point of view. We all understand the technical stuff when it comes to aircraft, but most people don't. All they see is the news headlines, and they don't make good reading. In this day and age where news and stories are instantly beamed to every household in the world within seconds, Boeing has got to get it's act together quickly and put peoples fears to rest, otherwise it's Dreaminer will be come a very public Nightmare. All this said, I love the 787 and really hope they can sort out the problems.

 

[allardjd 1,853]

Ah, but your family going to the Costa Bomb DO care and care very much about ticket prices.  One of the primary drivers of going to composite aircraft is weight, simply because it has such a great effect on payload capacity and fuel burn.  With rapidly rising fuel prices, the airlines are clamoring for ever more efficient aircraft and the maker who can market the one with best fuel economy and most seats per ton of fuel burned will book the lion's share of the orders.  It's simple economics and Boeing and Airbus and the engine makers are simply trying to give the customers what they are asking for - better fuel economy in each successive model.

 

Yep, there are problems, but all large aircraft have them, particularly those using new technology.  The old technology isn't immune, however.  The wing rib bracket cracks in the A380s are pretty serious too and are causing losses at airbus, schedule delays and angst with the operators, and that's in an all-metal part of the aircraft. 

 

It may be that the 787 will be the Comet of the composite airplanes, the also-ran that missed out on being the pre-eminent airliner of its era because of early design faults.  Rest assured, however, that 787 problems or no, this is the beginning of the age of composite airliners, not the end.  If you persist in not flying on an "Airfix kit" airliner, in fifteen years you're going to have a hell of a time finding a way of getting where you want to go.

 

John

[Mistwalker 3]

My issue isn't with what aircraft are made of but the obvious lack of testing before inflicting them on the unsuspecting public. So many faults coming to light within a few weeks and months of the first off the production line going into service just screams at a rush to get these out the door and making money. Luckily this time around, it's Boeing itself paying the price rather than the public paying for it with their lives. I know these machines are enormously complex and faults will occur but come on. Don't do a Microsoft and use paying passengers as beta testers for the first 12 months. At 30,000ft, it's not as trivial as "Windows is checking for a solution to the problem".

[allardjd 1,853]

Steve,

 

I can't argue with a word of that.  Nobody wants to see a disaster. 

 

John

[GHAO 0]

I thought it was only the batteries anyway that were the iffy part of the plane. It wouldn't take much to just switch them with better batteries that don't blow up, or install more cooling. The added weight would be minimal, and the aircraft should hold, seeing as the composites are stronger than the metals they're replacing.

But how did the batteries get through the flight testing without failing and suddenly they do on service? Maybe it's a human error kind of thing - the first T-tails on the first jets were unforgiving to pilots if you got to a deep stall - the wing blanketed the elevators in still air rendering them useless when you reached a certain angle of attack. Not saying it's pilot's fault though, but a careless steward or engineer who just isn't used to the operating procedures might make something go wrong.

I still hope the 787 comes through, because I reckon if the A350 is perfect and the 787 flops, that could be Boeing going under. Particularly with the 1500 A320s sold at the 2011 Paris Air Show (and 150 B737s I think).

[Mistwalker 3]

If I remember correctly, they can't just replace these fancy smancy batteries with the more usual ones because the entire electrical system is somehow unique to these new ones and would require a complete rebuild of that electrical system. Something like that, anyway. I know there's some technical reason they can't just swap them out and so are left with no option but to fix them.

[allardjd 1,853]

Honeywell ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) Eyed in Dreamliner Fire

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/honeywell-transmitter-eyed-dreamliner-fire-probe-6C10642274

 

Too soon to say whether this device is the cause, but the ELT is located very near where the burn-through occurred. All airliners and many smaller AC carry them in one form or another and some kind of lithium battery is a common feature. In this one, not Lithium-ion, but Lithium-Manganese, a different animal from the 787 batteries involved in earlier fires.

 

John

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

Just thought of a great way to solve the battery problem, you just have a very very long extension lead at the back of the plane as is found on a vacuum cleaner etc, they plug the thing in to the mains at the departure airport, fly to where they need to go, then once they are at their destination the pilot simply steps on a button that winds all the cable in ready to start again! .....(tongue very firmly in cheek!) 

[Mistwalker 3]

You could be on to a winner there, Alan. You should patent that, mate.

[allardjd 1,853]

Sounds good - until you have to launch a second airplane. I can see unforeseen entanglements.

 

John

[dodgy-alan 1,587]

Sounds good - until you have to launch a second airplane. I can see unforeseen entanglements.

John

LOL,!

[allardjd 1,853]

Japan Airlines 787 with possible fuel pump issue returns to Boston...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/19/japan-airline-787-with-possible-pump-issue-returns-to-boston/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fnational+%28Internal+-+US+Latest+-+Text%29

 

Another Dreamliner flight RTB - it sounds more precautionary than anything but one more un-needed tick mark in the negagive column.

 

John

[britfrog 180]

What  a tough time for not only Boeing  but the operators as well and i guess even more so for the pilots, who must be getting twitchy now.

Now all a 787 has to do is deviate by 5 degrees from its normal course and it hits the news, because of the numerous online radar sites

It cant be doing the potential passenger bookings any good either.

 

[britfrog 180]

Have just been reading the AIB's initial report on the 787 heathrow fire. apparently the cause was centered on the ELT which is behind roof panels. According to the report the halon extinguishers (worryingly carried onboard) had no effect on the fire , and it wasnt until the panels could be removed that they could extinguish the fire witth water and foam. Currently it is not clear if the cause of the fire is a short circuit or another runaway lithium battery, however it does beggar the question what would have happened if the plane was mid atlantic with only halon extinguishers!!

At any rate the AIB have petitioned the FAA to demand all operators disarm temporarily all these models of ELT's