Another one bites the dust (787)

[MH]

Originally Posted by HundertzehnGustav

okay...?!! why a russian pilot?

Hydraulics ....

[Catfish]

^ 'xactly, that's what i had in mind

[Oberon]

American components

Russian components

ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!!

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

American components

Russian components

ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!!

Usually China these days

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Alas, progress always has a cost somewhere...but progress we must.

Actually no. Sure we progress but we aren't forced to do so by playing Russian roulette. Planes can be extensively tested and we do have safe designs that are available. It's not like we have to scrap all proven designs and go with a modern, probably less safe design just because of progress. If I buy a flight ticket I want to be sure I actually arrive at the destination and I don't give a hoot whether the aircraft is a Boeing an Airbus or an Ilyushin as long as it gets me safely where I want to go. We can't risk lives just for "progress" when more reliable solutions are at hand.

[MH]

Although the number of accidents per flight has been decreasing with time, the number of fatalities per year has been variable, without dropping.
Evolution of the number of accidents and fatalities

Aircraft accidents are less likely to occur today than 20 years ago. Nevertheless, the growing number of aircraft in operation and their increasing capacity cannot result in a reduction of onboard fatalities



Air travel safety is definitely a data-driven activity. Although the number of aircraft in operation is constantly on the rise, accident rates are falling, making air transport the safest of all means of transportation.
Improvements bear fruit, and the usefulness of aircraft monitoring and redundancies can be witnessed everyday.
The increase in flight length also contributes to explain the drop in the number of plane crashes. Since accidents mainly occur during the take-off and landing phases, a long-haul aircraft performing only one or two long cycles a day is indeed less likely to be involved in an accident than a short-range aircraft performing in the region of ten short cycles a day.
Finally, the introduction of regulations and of checks by authorities and the growing experience of aircraft manufacturers all contribute to the safety of air transport.
However, what with a growing number of aircraft now operating, even though the rate of accidents per flight may drop slightly, the actual number of accidents will increase. Since aircraft carry an ever increasing number of people, the number of onboard fatalities will per force rise too.



.

.....

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Actually no. Sure we progress but we aren't forced to do so by playing Russian roulette. Planes can be extensively tested and we do have safe designs that are available. It's not like we have to scrap all proven designs and go with a modern, probably less safe design just because of progress. If I buy a flight ticket I want to be sure I actually arrive at the destination and I don't give a hoot whether the aircraft is a Boeing an Airbus or an Ilyushin as long as it gets me safely where I want to go. We can't risk lives just for "progress" when more reliable solutions are at hand.

They had pretty safe, available and reliable designs for prop driven airliners. Does that mean we should have stayed with them and not developed jetliners?
No-one is asking the worlds companies to scrap all modern airliners and adopt 787s only (although Boeing would quite like to do that) so there are plenty of options for airlines to take, the 787 is just attractive because of the miles per gallon it has, and once it shakes its bad karma from the battery issue (which, I remind people, does not seem to be the cause of this latest fire in the first place) then it will likely go on to be a successful aircraft in its own right, just like the Comet which is still flying today in a modified form as the Nimrod, despite killing some 426 people durings its career as an airliner (the Comet is not to blame for all of those, five of the crashes were controlled flight into terrain from pilot error). No aircraft is perfectly safe, no machine is perfectly safe, and to be honest, every time you get on an aircraft you could very well be playing Russian roulette, just the same as if you get in a car, on a train or on a boat, sure safety records and improvements can tilt the odds in your favour but nothing is perfect, even the fabled A340 could still have a fatal accident one day, it's just been incredibly lucky so far.
Besides, as an aircraft passenger, you pay your money and take your chance, unless you have enough money to spare that you can afford to not take the cheapest fare, or reject boarding the flight if you see it's a 787.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Usually China these days

Beijing would say that it's the same thing.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Oberon

In a nutshell:
Don't use me for Guinea pigging! Give me a reliable ride that works.
Test the stuff thoroughly and only give it into mass productions once it works as intended. Bug fixing after the release might be too late for several hundred people. This is not a video game that you can patch after you have screwed your customers over at release with a half finished product.
(I'm not talking about the 787 here but about aircraft / vehicles in general)

[Catfish]

But all do it, it is called bananaware.
Ripens at the customer ..

(jealous tongues say this is how Mickeysoft improves its products)

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

In a nutshell:
Don't use me for Guinea pigging! Give me a reliable ride that works.
Test the stuff thoroughly and only give it into mass productions once it works as intended. Bug fixing after the release might be too late for several hundred people. This is not a video game that you can patch after you have screwed your customers over at release with a half finished product.
(I'm not talking about the 787 here but about aircraft / vehicles in general)

Generally that's what companies are supposed to do, obviously in some cases due to financial concerns corners are cut...who gets the blame there, the cutter or the creator of the reason for the cut? That's a completely different thread right there.

[Skybird]

Why is there no news on the 787 that on the same day started from Manchester to Florida but had to return in midair due to, as the passengers said, technical problems with the electric system, starting in the toilets? I read it briefly mentioned in two reports only, and then nothing as if being switched off.

As far as Boeing is concerned, they will move all heaven and hell if they can to have any problems of their 787s not being linked in the media to the electrical system. They already tried that with two fire&smoke incidents before 2012, but the authorities, Japan or Korea it was, did not buy it.

[Skybird]

German news Die Welt refers to British official investigation reports, quoting that the Brits make again issues with the Lithium batteries linked to the emergency transponder responsible for the fire. Report says that fires in that part of the plane cannot be extinguished in mid flight since the extinguishers cannot reach there, and thus this fire could have led to disaster if it had happened in midair, over the Atlantic - less than one third of incidents with such fires ended with anything less than total loss of the plane, says an earlier British report on such flight accidents which gets also referred to.

The batteries again. Quelle surprise.

Are jobs and profits still more important than lives, or when will they ground these damn planes, finally? The neon-red, bold-printed, capital lettered writing on the wall does not become any clearer. The electrical system is bull. Just this: bull. You pushed that dependency too far, Boeing, and with too inapt energy carriers.

[Skybird]

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/articl...geloescht.html

It is about Japanese airline All Nippon Airlines having discovered wrong wiring in the firing extinguishers aboard one of its 787s. In case of an engine fire it would have caused the fire extinguisher emptying into the intact engine, leaving the burning one untackled. After that find, ANA examined all its 787s and found the same mistake in two more planes. ANA rival Japan Airlines rated the findings so serious that they called back midair flights by their own 787s.

Meanwhile it was reported that a 787 by Quatar Airliners was grounded for ten days as well.

World's first burn-by-wire jet, really.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Skybird

German news Die Welt refers to British official investigation reports, quoting that the Brits make again issues with the Lithium batteries linked to the emergency transponder responsible for the fire. Report says that fires in that part of the plane cannot be extinguished in mid flight since the extinguishers cannot reach there, and thus this fire could have led to disaster if it had happened in midair, over the Atlantic - less than one third of incidents with such fires ended with anything less than total loss of the plane, says an earlier British report on such flight accidents which gets also referred to.

The batteries again. Quelle surprise.

Are jobs and profits still more important than lives, or when will they ground these damn planes, finally? The neon-red, bold-printed, capital lettered writing on the wall does not become any clearer. The electrical system is bull. Just this: bull. You pushed that dependency too far, Boeing, and with too inapt energy carriers.

Of course! look at the O ring on the Challenger. The safest plane is a Cessna 172...when I'm not in it- "clear prop magneto on" (allright master switch)! Imagine my shock one time when on pre flight inspection, I found the prop hub bolts not wired!!! and the certified mechanic, who cleared the plane, said he'd "get to it.!!" He is no longer certified and my hand still hurts; and I'm in VIIB's now. My landing in front of the now defunct 98th aerosquadron theme restaurant at a certain airport was a classic-flat mainspar tire-the thud tripped my emer. xmitter.... Two rules: anyone you walk away from is a good one and it's the little things that kill you-tighten those gas caps on the upper wing slipstream after the fueler is done.