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

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.

Yurt2

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".

I have a friend that used to work for Al Jazeera and had previously worked for a major American 24/7 international news outlet (not Fox). He maintained that he had way more editorial freedom as a journalist with Al Jazeera than any other of his employers before or since.

Paramite Pie

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".

I'm gay and I watch Al Jazeera. It is well balanced. I've no doubt its more censored in their home country but it's Western branch is well up there with the best.

Also the female presenters never seem to cover their heads and their own website has many stories about gay rights etc.... including pictures of men kissing in the article.

http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/asia/2013/04/68146.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/01/russia-rising-anti-gay-hysteria-201511992033980189.html

There's no condemation (or support) or any personal opinions given, just facts and interviews. Although it does seem sympathetic in the 2nd link on Russian gay violence. Western Media is beginning to read like a blog post, too much of the writers opinions.

And here's a story from today about Jews in Uzbekistan being oppressed.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/04/uzbekistan-long-persecuted-bukhara-jews-150428083657675.html

Stereotypes be damned, that channel does good stories. Have you ever actually WATCHED it?

MoodeRator

And now the FAA warning of a software glitch
"The bug was revealed by tests by the Boeing laboratory, thank god, and not by some real world accident. If the plane is not powered down regularly between flights, its generator systems could switch into fail-safe mode, which would cut all AC electrical power. That could happen even if the plane were mid-air.

It does take 248 days of continuous power before triggering the software glitch, and planes are unlikely to stay powered on for that long under regular maintenance."

ScumLord

I don't think there's anything wrong with outsourcing or moving facilities. Companies outsource more and more these days. Manufacturing has become a very complex thing these days. You need all sorts of skill levels and experts on hand to make even a seemingly simple product. It's not always feasible for any one company to cover all the topics and skills needed to make something as complex as a pen, never mind an aircraft. It's very common for companies to outsource parts of production to a more knowledgeable company that has more expertise in a particular area.

Take batteries for example, they require chemical experts, electrical experts, material experts, all on top of your regular engineers and production experts. For an airline to invest in all that and the facilities to make them would cost a fortune. They're only making one type of battery for their own product so it makes much more sense to outsource the battery to a company that makes lots of different batteries for lots of different uses. They have done the research, tried things the airplane company wouldn't have thought of and probably made similar batteries for other companies that are trialed and tested in the real world.

Moving to a new facility would cause problems but it's not a new thing. Big corporations have trialed and tested ways of moving to a new facility where everything is planed down to the minute to make sure the factory is up and running as soon as possible. Everything that needs to happen on the factory floor is detailed out in procedure manuals so that even if all the staff quit one day they could retrain new staff rapidly. Businesses don't leave things to chance.

Boeing have obviously had problems, but I'm sure designing and getting a new jet plane to market isn't an easy thing to do. Mistakes always happen, redesigns are always necessary, usually people don't see any of that but in today's open society businesses can't hide those failures anymore and people judge them on expected failures and the trial and error process of making a product.

jetsonx

Crikey...batteries liable to explode and now software bugs. (And they are the software bugs which they have actually discovered...imagine how many undiscovered bugs are on this aircraft)

Boeing have really come up a cropper with this one.

If you're going on long-haul trip this summer - I would be checking my tickets carefully for any mention of a "B-787".

Egginacup

Grandeeod wrote: »

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

What's that supposed to mean?

Overflow

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Haha that's exactly what I do

efb

Should this not be in CT?

topper75

Fratton Fred wrote: »

...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....

But its not like the cabin crew are performing any kind of pre-flight checks other than making sure the jacks is clean and the sandwiches are fresh.

You may was well be checking if the sun is in Sagittarius.

scamalert

so how many actually dreamliners crashed so far ? i keep reading news over the years the amount of airbuses crashed,as for addicents its always there when new stuff rolls out be it car electornic gadgets etc.

as for documentary its mediocre at best,guy goes into work with hidden cam,speaks to staff random **** you do drugs hell ya everyone does-then really ?
another they don't drug test here-undercover guy yeah i know that :pac:

and the only guy they actually showed who tried to blow whistle-seemed he was totally out on drugs.

then putting scene with couple paper works and asking did you knew this,when the guy wasn't in his position at a time.