Why I would never fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner...an accident waiting to happen

jetsonx

Inspired by reading the thread:

"Is America proof right wing countries are not something to aspire to?"

I would like people to watch this documentary how (a once great) American company Boeing has been corrupted by greed.

For those people who think that the "American way" is good...watch this documentary. Truly eye-opening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os
link updated- thanks to poster "the monkey"

snubbleste

Boeing lawyers on alert in five, four..

the_monkey

Bollix .... if it aint Boeing ... I aint Going !!!

shooterjay

dont believe everything youtube tells ye

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

What a load of twaddle!

catallus

Jose Better Aircraft wrote: »

What a load of twaddle!

People's safety isn't twaddle! Have you never heard of the Titanic??!

the_monkey

heres the full doc

Banjo String

I'm with the op on this one. Flying on a 787 is actually a dumb thing to do, and it's an accident waiting to happen, you'd prob be blown off by the GeForce at take off ffs.

I'd much prefer to fly in one. Horses for courses though.

ebbsy

I like chicken.

kneemos

Didn't even give details of what safety measures have been compromised.
You could walk in anywhere and make those allegations.

Junkyard Tom

Bit of duct tape, be grand.

Grandeeod

Al Jazeera investigating an American company.......:D

Son Of A Vidic

Grandeeod wrote: »

Al Jazeera investigating an American company.......:D

You'll certainly get more journalistic impartiality from them, than you would from the likes of CNN, Fox News or Sky ect. Al Jazeera churns out some excellent documentaries that hit right across the geopolitical spectrum. You should try watching it some time.

FalconGirl

Moving assembly from Seattle where historically Boeing have built some of the safest aircraft to North Carolina for less skilled workers and a cheaper labour force speaks volumes. That documentary was a real eye opener. All about the bottom line nowadays at the cost of safety.

thecamcam

rather a boeing than an airbus tbh

nathang20

What chance do we have anymore? Mechanical error, PILOT error? My travelling is done! I've travelled enough of this world! I certainly don't want to prematurely see the next one!

mickdw

Without reading any of the links in this thread and going on my previous knowledge of the dreamliners history, I wouldn't get on one until they are alittle more tried and tested.
Overall, I would have more faith in boeing aircraft than airbus but as I say I would love to see a few more hours clocked up trouble free before I'd be stepping into one.

Spanish Eyes

Aviation and Aircraft Board might have something to say on this!

All air travel is safe until you are a minuscule statistic.

KungPao

I always feel safer on a Boeing than an AB. So many of the high-profile crashes are AB. MH370 & MH17 (Boeing 777s) don't count.

Spanish Eyes

So I buy a plane ticket for a journey.

TBH I have NEVER checked to see if what type of aircraft it is. If the price is right, give it to me!

Maybe some are more "into" their planes than others. But honestly who checks what plane it is before they fly?

Maybe some anoraks. But for the majority, it is bums on a seat, in a plane. End of story.

Eugene Norman

Boeings are incredibly safe. Airbuses, less so.

LeinsterDub

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Boeings are incredibly safe. Airbuses, less so.

The statistics suggest there isn't much difference

Stojkovic

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Boeings are incredibly safe. Airbuses, less so.

Fokkers ?

KungPao

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

So I buy a plane ticket for a journey.

TBH I have NEVER checked to see if what type of aircraft it is. If the price is right, give it to me!

Maybe some are more "into" their planes than others. But honestly who checks what plane it is before they fly?

Maybe some anoraks. But for the majority, it is bums on a seat, in a plane. End of story.

I check for long haul! If I'm to be stuck in a tin can at 37,000 feet for 10 hrs +, I'd like it to be a nice Boeing 777 or 747 for that retro buzz.

That said, I wouldn't mind a go of the A380.

nathang20

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Boeings are incredibly safe. Airbuses, less so.

Its like driving a 7 series BMW! Its all down to the driver. For the majority, cars don't cause crashes, drivers do!

mickdw

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Boeings are incredibly safe. Airbuses, less so.

For the most part I would agree however when it comes to the battery issues in the dreamliners, I'm not convinced that all is fully understood.

Spanish Eyes

KungPao wrote: »

I check for long haul! If I'm to be stuck in a tin can at 37,000 feet for 10 hrs +, I'd like it to be a nice Boeing 777 or 747 for that retro buzz.

That said, I wouldn't mind a go of the A380.

Fair enough. So get thee over to Aviation and Aircraft for more buzz!

They know their stuff over there, and TBH I am mad about planes and all that, but only a watching them take off and land kind of thing.

Still, each to their own. A tin can is a tin can, and I don't see much difference in any of them. On long haul, after a gin and tonic and a little 5mg helper I don't care much, happy days!

Peregrine

KungPao wrote: »

I always feel safer on a Boeing than an AB. So many of the high-profile crashes are AB. MH370 & MH17 (Boeing 777s) don't count.

That's just not true..

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Boeings are incredibly safe. Airbuses, less so.

That's a very serious accusation. You got anything to back it up?

jetsonx

mickdw wrote: »

For the most part I would agree however when it comes to the battery issues in the dreamliners, I'm not convinced that all is fully understood.

Exactly. Boeing know these batteries have a tendency to explode.

Their solution - encase them in a metal container...

Fratton Fred

I'm a nervous flyer, despite doing it fairly regularly. I always look at the cabin crew to gauge whether or not I should be worried.

Cabin crew love the Dream liner. So that's good enough for me.I did find the seats in economy a bit tight though.

Harry Palmr

thecamcam wrote: »

rather a boeing than an airbus tbh

KungPao wrote: »

I always feel safer on a Boeing than an AB. So many of the high-profile crashes are AB. MH370 & MH17 (Boeing 777s) don't count.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Boeings are incredibly safe. Airbuses, less so.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The statistics suggest there isn't much difference

mickdw wrote: »

For the most part I would agree however when it comes to the battery issues in the dreamliners, I'm not convinced that all is fully understood.

Nim wrote: »

That's just not true..

That's a very serious accusation. You got anything to back it up?

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8370/why-does-the-boeing-737-have-5-x-the-passenger-fatalities-of-the-airbus-320

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Only called that by the ignorant

BlaasForRafa

Not the first time that Boeing have gotten up to dodgy stuff, they basically used their political connections to bully their way into the USAF tanker replacement contract http://aviationweek.com/blog/long-sordid-path-kc-46-2011

markpb

Fred Swanson wrote: »

They are not called the scarebus for nothing.

Did you read the link provided?

As of 25 March 2015, the order of the airline models with the five lowest crash rates (for models with at least two million flights) has changed, with the Airbus A320 dropping to fifth place due to the March 2015 Germanwings crash in France:

0.00 - Airbus A340
0.05 - Embraer 170/190
0.07 - Boeing 747-400
0.08 - Boeing 737-600/700/800/900
0.10 - Airbus A320 (includes A318, A319, A321)

mickdw

Harry Palmr wrote: »

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8370/why-does-the-boeing-737-have-5-x-the-passenger-fatalities-of-the-airbus-320

We are talking about the dreamliner here. Fatality figures are not relevant at this stage.
Instances of spontaneous combustion would be a more interesting measure here.
Don't forget these aircraft were grounded and no real cure put in place before they were returned to the air. As the runaway condition re the batteries couldn't be repeated in test conditions, the fix was to place batteries in a sealed metal box.
Not what I would regard as a thoroughly engineered solution.
I don't fancy crossing the Atlantic with a 1000 degree Celsius fire burning in the battery compartment.

Eugene Norman

Nim wrote: »

That's just not true..


That's a very serious accusation. You got anything to back it up?

What. Saying less than incredibly safe is a "serious accusation". That's still safe. even very safe.

Eugene Norman

Harry Palmr wrote: »

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8370/why-does-the-boeing-737-have-5-x-the-passenger-fatalities-of-the-airbus-320

Kinda see Boeing winning there in its 747 and 737 models. 747-400 is at 0.07 incidents per million.

jetsonx

mickdw wrote: »

the fix was to place batteries in a sealed metal box. Not what I would regard as a thoroughly engineered solution.
I don't fancy crossing the Atlantic with a 1000 degree Celsius fire burning in the battery compartment.

I'm no aeronautical engineer but that solution does not seem right. It just seems a little too ad hoc.

I wonder if passengers in boarding areas for the "Dreamliner" across the globe really knew of this fatal design flaw affecting this model aircraft - would they be feel safe boarding one?

mickdw

Don't forget the dreamliner that set fire to itself on the ground at heathrow. If I remember right, this was after it returned to service following grounding.
If that was found to have been the same battery issue, I feel it may have been a fatal blow to the aircraft.
Luckily it was found to be started in a battery pack or power source for a locator beacon and was not something specific to the dreamliner.
Still, experts agree that this fire could likely have taken out the aircraft if in flight.

bnt

What makes this a "right wing" issue? I may not be a pilot, but I understand that the left wing is just as important.

Sh1tbag OToole

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm with the op on this one. Flying on a 787 is actually a dumb thing to do, and it's an accident waiting to happen, you'd prob be blown off by the GeForce at take off ffs.

I'd much prefer to fly in one. Horses for courses though.

Back in my day GeForce were passive cooled, now they have fans powerful enough to send a grown man flying?

smurfjed

The approach that was taken by Al-Jazeera had a lot to do with the attitude of the Everett unions as they were extremely against moving part of the construction to North Carolina. As more and more of the aircraft enter service, you can see how good they are based upon their airline dispatch reliability.
Would I fly in one, sure, done it twice so far, loved the aircraft, didn't like the seating. Would I fly one, yep, about 7 days training and I would be good to go

Dangerous Man

I would have liked if they got into the specifics of what was being done in Carolina - bit vague - but enough to make me ****ing terrified of ever stepping foot on a Nightmareliner so I suppose job done.

inforfun

I am more concerned about the airline i fly with than whether i put my arse in a Boeing or Airbus.

Streetwalker

Grandeeod wrote: »

Al Jazeera investigating an American company.......:D

Al Jazeera is one of the most level headed and non biased news networks out there and doesn't seem to be influenced by governments or special interest lobby groups like an RTE, Fox or Sky news would be in it's reporting.

mickdw

I took the time to watch the Al jazeera documentary and to be honest, alot of it is just filler.
I don't believe that the dreamliner is a badly built aircraft.
I do believe that it is a very advanced aircraft and represents the medium term future of air travel however I'm convinced that they have produced an aircraft that requires battery tech beyond that which is currently available.
To have batteries on board that are not fully understood and can not be guaranteed not to combust is not an acceptable situation.

pfurey101

Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari Govt with Sharia law as the main source of their legislation. So if your are not gay, female, drink alcohol, have never had a fling, a muslim involved with a non muslim, non democratic, not up for a stoning or a lashing, do not dress modestly, don't mind dying in numbers building football stadiums or any other mad daft fancy building - then I'd imagine Al Jazeera is indeed "one of the most level headed and non biased news networks out there".

Reoil

So much bull**** spewing from just one thread...

kowloon

ebbsy wrote: »

I like chicken.

Lamb is where it's at these days.

Stillhouette

pfurey101 wrote: »

Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari Govt with Sharia law as the main source of their legislation. So if your are not gay, female, drink alcohol, have never had a fling, a muslim involved with a non muslim, non democratic, not up for a stoning or a lashing, do not dress modestly, don't mind dying in numbers building football stadiums or any other mad daft fancy building - then I'd imagine Al Jazeera is indeed "one of the most level headed and non biased news networks out there".

Don't watch it then. Personally I will watch Al Jazeera English before any other international news network.