Cracks in the windscreen of an aircraft are not that uncommon. At least one or two occurred a week on C-5s and C-17s where I was stationed they actually make a special kind of tape that can be used for certain kinds of cracks in lieu of replacing the entire section of windscreen.

All new aircraft have teething troubles some have more than others nothing to see here but the media making mountains out of mole hills.

And they are making claims for compensation already.

As usual the media has blown it way out of proportion.

An emergency Airworthiness Directive(AD) on the lithium ion batteries is the only thing that grounded the airplane. The AD reads "prior to further flight modify the battery system." Boeing and the FAA will work out how that is to be done and the AD will be modified.
I'm not sure, but I would bet other country's aviation regulatory bodies have issued their versions of an emergency AD as well.

For those that do not know, AD's are a part(FAR 39 to be exact) of the FAR's(Federal Aviation Regulations) and are mandatory. If you do not comply with any AD, your airplane is unairworthy and not legal to fly. Period.
An emergency AD is pretty extreme and does not happen very often, and almost all of them will say "Prior to further flight, fix the ...." Normal AD's will have a certain length of time(flight hours, days, months) to fix the problem after the date they become effective.


I laugh everytime I've read "United(or insert other airline here) has decided to comply with the FAA instructions", like they really have a choice! A private owner might be able to ignore an AD at his own risk, but a airline operator or charter operator will face certificate revocation and heavy fines if they tried to pull that.

The other issues-fuel leaks, window cracks, and the other things mentioned are probably just teething troubles of a new airplane design.

:)

Yeah, it is more common than people think. I've seen a couple of our King Airs come in with a shattered outer pane of the windshield. No structural proplems at all. Of course the pilots get real nervous and they cinch their shoulder harnesses up real tight and they spend a few minutes pulling their underwear out of their butt cracks. :D

Small cracks and delaminations may be acceptable depending on where they are. Most heated windshields of pressurized aircraft have an inner pane and an outer pane. Alot of times a crack or delamination in the outer pane is acceptable as long as the heat still works and it does not obstruct the pilot's view.

:)

Who said that the plane has not been grounded over anything else but the battery issue? The other technical problems have been listed for reasons of completeness. They form a history until here, however. They might have been "teething problems". But the battery issue is not of that mild category. It could indicate major trouble.

However, the battery system on the 787 is like the primary aorta, and the jet's whole design philosophy stands and falls with electricity being available in batteries in much higher quantities than in other jets of that size. Several conventional systems have been replaced by new, electrical ones. Take the battery design out of the formula - and the whole concept threatens to collapses. So, the issue is by far not that harmless a teething problem as you make it appear, even more so when considering that lithium ion batteries are known notorious trouble makers: in cellphones, in laptops, in pedelecs. Whole production models of these items had to be called back by manufacturers in the past due to the battery having demonstrated go up in flames. They simply are not as stable than conventional batteries are. Several fires and molten isolations due to overheating batteries have rang emergency bells for the Dreamliner. If you repalce the lithium ion batteries against conventional ones, and in quantities that are needed to compensate the lighter lithium ion's total capacity, than you mean to attach significantly more weight to the plane (if the installed electrical circuits and systems can be made compatible with a new battery type in bigger quantities) This means major redesign work for the engineers. If parts of the electrical system even must be replaced, than we talk about major design changes that the engineers need to do. And then we talk about a very different and in principle: a new Dreamliner. The major argument for it - reducend fuel costs due to lighter weight - also is effected. The electrical innovations are said to have a total effect of reducing fuel by 4-8%. Take the innovations away, and you have a plane that needs as much more fuel. And that is when the carriers' bureaucrats starts to use their pocket calculators. They are pedantic about even less meaningful details, for example whether to fly with a cost index of 20, 40, or 60. Having simulated these differences nows I know that regarding fuel used per hour, the difference in the end result is minimal. But for carriers, it is pure money.

The battery issue may be the only issue for which the planes now got grounded, but it is a very major issue, that has led to fires repeatedly, and that has the potential to leave a major mark in the financial records of Boeing.

Hence, the Emergency Airworthiness Directive due the fires caused by the batteries on an aircraft where the batteries play a huge role instead of the run of the mill AD.

:)

sort of: That plane has some serious bug in it. stop it, look at it, fix it, or scrap it.
sounds serious.
Like a car maker making , not only a recall, but forbidding the use of said car at all.
3 letters:
F U N.

for the lawyers.


crack in window...
http://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Ploetz...le9967536.html

Der Spiegel refers to first conclusions from the Japanese authorities investigation. It seems that Boeing has taklen a too high gamble with the batteries, because they did not only choose Li-Ion batteries, but even worse: they chooses a battery of that type that is extremely dangerous and at high risk to overheat and go up in flames in very short time, it is a battery based on lithium-cobalt-dioxide. Experts say that amongst lithium ion batteries, these are amongst the most dangerous if not even the most dangerous.

Replacing them will inevitable lead to a higher total weight of the airliner, and probably major design changes to the electrical system. An alternative may be to just alter certain values in the regulation and monitoring software that keeps track of the batteries' status and should shut them down whenever there is a problem. Expoerts are quoted however with being totally surprised that Boeing's software in this regard seems to be failing. And even if the software is the cause and gets corrected, you still are flying in an airplane with several potential incendiary bombs aboard that are known to be relatively sensible and easily loosing stability, and that still could be ignited easier than other battery types due to environmental factors.

As I learned to day, already during the developement of the Dreamliner these batteries caused headaches, and in 2006 caused a fire during which flames 3 m high shot out of the affected compartement where the battery was stored, according to eye witnesses.

I think that so far it seems that Boeing has made a very bad mistake when opting for this and no other battery model. To base the whole design philosophy of the airplane on such an electrical demand that it can only be met with these and no other batteries, probably also wasn't the smartest of moves.

Two fires from batteries, due to the same cause in the electric system, and within two weeks, with only 50 Dreamliners so far in operation. Would I currently board and fly with this plane? No, I wouldn't.

Boeing - has a major problem, me thinks. All deliveries have been put on halt meanwhile, too.

NTSB has released it's first interim report, together with 100 pages of documenting material.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2...787_3-7-13.pdf

http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hi...TOKEN=67900912

They still are fishing in muddy water.

The fire in Boston took them fire brigade 100 minutes to extinguish. The ventilating system that was designed in the Dreamliner to especially ventilate smoke in case of fire out, to failed the intention. The needed emergency valves were taken out by the failing electricity system. Clever design - :shifty:

It seems the list of questions does not get worked down and answered, but gets longer and longer.

German TÜV, has this to say about cars: the more electronics they include, the more often they need to get repaired, no matter the manufacturer. Simple empirical fact from the homeland of solid car making. ;) :D

the more parts are in a system, the more parts can fail.
yea, but its so funkeh!

Meh.

I am looking to buy an old, simple car that i could mend myself, or at least do some basic maintenance on it without electrocuting myself, or wiping out the software that runs that car...

Peugeot 205 or somesuch.

Mechanical issues are most common problems with cars.
Electronics is for governing the engine and so on and if designed in right way adds to reliability and allows optimal preference.
Also is the last thing to fail contrary to mechanical devices.
No.... old cars could be easer to tinker with but had been not reliable and very wasteful.

According to TÜV, DEKRA and GTÜ, electrical failures were topping the list of reasons to visit the garage in 2012 - once again, one must say. The closest mechanical reason for garage visits were failing brakes.

The more electrical components are build into cars, the higher the probability for them needing to make unplanned pit stops. Older models with less electronics scored better here.

Mind you, we do not talk about a car that is running since long with a car fresh from factors, we talk about models independently from the time their cars already have rolled outside the factory.

My father just has bought himself a new car, second hand. The salesman confirmed it also, my father is not hightech guy and does not like a thousand blinking lights and computer gimmicks in car, he does not know how to use them and finds them distracting (me too). The salesman said: "The more electrical gimmicks, the more primadonna you get."

Couldn't put it any better myself.

Back to the Nightmareliner. :)

You see you have all backward again.
The reason for high reliability in today's engines is the electronics.
Electrical problems are mostly due to bad wiring.
But yeah..real men drive 4l v12 cars with 100hp.

Problems....

Don't discuss with me - talk to the numbers. 2012 the above organisations checked and certified over 8 million cars in Germany alone. Show us that their lists and counts are wrong. Electrical problems caused roughly 25% of all garage visits. Second place was brakes with 19 or 20%. Also: the share of garages repairs due to electric problems is constantly climbing since the late 80s or early 90s. Electrics are the most common reason for needing to go to the garage since many years, and the share of electrical failures is growing and growing. This is a trend that is independent from car manufacturer (brand or nation).

The more electrical gimmicks a car has, the more sensible it is. In an older Peugeot of friends of mine, a shortcut in electric window movers (moisture, probably) caused the deregulation of some function in the bingiter. The motor did not start, or failed in mid-ride. Because of the window. :lol:

I think ADAC, world'S biggest automobile association, by trend says the same, they do their own tests, checks and statistics, but no certifications like DEKRA, TÜV and the like (certification of cars is obligatory in Germany every two years).

Never said that. Do not own that. Do not even get your point. Rethorics, I assume.

I don't even have a car. Saves me an awfully lot of money.

the point is "big volume, many cylinders, little output, a lot of pollution"
the point is: old cars suck, and you guys have not understood that electronics make the new cars better


MY point is: if the new cars had no electronics, they would also suck.