News Heathrow reopens after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire

[Andy44]

The 787 will be a case study in how not to introduce a new jetliner to the market. If Boeing is not careful this thing will turn out to be its very own L1011 TriStar debacle, which pushed Lockheed out of the jetliner market. At least the L1011 had a reputation as a reliable and safe bird.

 

[garyw]

So, for the 787 teething problems we've got:

Battery fires - Possibly solved
Air conditioning issues that can melt a hole in the fuselage
Problems with the braking system
engine oil issue - Engines and not the 787 itself

I'd call that serious enough to buy an A380 instead of a 787.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, the 787 is another product category as a A380... the A350 XWB would be the comparable product.

Also, the issues are critical, but Boeing is known to have delivered much worse quality to the airlines in the past... Boeing aircraft ripen in the air.

 

[garyw]

I know that the A350 is the comparable product but if you've been burnt by the 787 issues I'm sure you'd rather go for the proven model, i.e. the A380.

Boeing may ripen in the air but the press coverage the 'dreamliner' is getting means it's rapdily going toxic.

 

[Urwumpe]

I know that the A350 is the comparable product but if you've been burnt by the 787 issues I'm sure you'd rather go for the proven model, i.e. the A380.

Boeing may ripen in the air but the press coverage the 'dreamliner' is getting means it's rapdily going toxic.

Well, the 747 had even some deadly crashes before the initial technological issues had been sorted out and it became a real success.

 

[garyw]

747 was built in the 60's. Back then you didn't have twitter or youtube showing people just what size hole had been burnt in the skin. All they'd have are a few column inches or a front page exclusive if it was bad.

These days we can pick and choose the news we which to receive thanks to social media.

 

[Urwumpe]

747 was built in the 60's. Back then you didn't have twitter or youtube showing people just what size hole had been burnt in the skin. All they'd have are a few column inches or a front page exclusive if it was bad.

These days we can pick and choose the news we which to receive thanks to social media.

We had worse stuff than twitter and social media. We had the pilots lounge at the local airport. Just look at the old nicknames for flawful planes around WW2... like "Zippo" for a German bomber... the communication channels changed, the topics didn't.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

The difference being that passengers can more easily get exposure to the bad news about aircraft, within the industry the news is probably only slightly faster now.

 

[Screamer7]

To be honest, I would not like to be in a plane halfway over the Atlantic and it's on fire.
And that is what the ordinary air traveller thinking when they read this.
The A 380 also had it fair share of problems,but not on this scale.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

All new aircraft have teething problems, but the 787 seems to have been certified before it was ready in my view. Most of there problems should have been picked up during testing not in service. As for the comparison with the A380 and A350 both of them are more conventional than the 787 to varying degrees, And Airbus seems to have stuck to the safer side with the "new" technologies ( use of nickel-cadmium batteries in the A350 as an example).

 

[APDAF]

I think that Boeing paid someone off to get the 787 certified.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think that Boeing paid someone off to get the 787 certified.

I think the matter is rather, that the people who do most of the certification are actually employees of Boeing or one of their subcontractors. The FAA only checks that the paperwork is correct, not that the paperwork really represents the technology.

 

[C3PO]

I think that Boeing paid someone off to get the 787 certified.

I think the matter is rather, that the people who do most of the certification are actually employees of Boeing or one of their subcontractors. The FAA only checks that the paperwork is correct, not that the paperwork really represents the technology.

So the answer to that is: Yes

 

[ADSWNJ]

I think that Boeing paid someone off to get the 787 certified.

I sure hope that this is 100% incorrect. Regardless of manufacturer - you can be sure that there are thousands of passionate engineers and mechanics who just want to build beautiful and safe machines, and who must be working under immense pressure from accident investigations, regulators and their own management to find and eliminate problems.

 

[Urwumpe]

I sure hope that this is 100% incorrect. Regardless of manufacturer - you can be sure that there are thousands of passionate engineers and mechanics who just want to build beautiful and safe machines, and who must be working under immense pressure from accident investigations, regulators and their own management to find and eliminate problems.

That is the same in every engineering job. Even if you work in a field, that causes rarely deadly accidents. When the big director coughs, the whole R&D gets a cold.

 

[N_Molson]

If the 787 was a rocket, I would say that the program has been "rushed out".

 

[Urwumpe]

If the 787 was a rocket, I would say that the program has been "rushed out".

Thats not new information. It was Boeings chance to turn the tides. :lol:

There is somewhere an article from my former boss, professor Elmar Breitbach, who explained the European state of engineering research in carbon fiber fuselages for airliners, and how Boeing attempts to rush the ten years late-start in research behind.

There is still little known about the corrision problems of the 787... they simply burn up too fast to tell. The research at the DLR was using the time for very practical research, like how typical airport ground handling damages affect carbon fiber fuselages.


Here is a shorter German article about the project in the local newspaper here (from 2006):
http://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.d...alles-haengt-am-schwarzen-rumpf-id261810.html

Here is a number of presentations from a workshop done at the end of the "Schwarzer Rumpf" research project:

http://www.dlr.de/fa/Desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1481/2087_read-3588/

 

[Andy44]

If the 787 was a rocket, I would say that the program has been "rushed out".

If it was a rocket, you'd fly each one once and throw it in the ocean.

So you'd rarely fly one long enough to see a fire.

 

[Notebook]

Batteries 'not linked' to 787 fire at Heathrow No passengers were aboard the plane when it caught fire Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Ethiopian 787s to continue flying
Dreamliner catches fire at Heathrow
Boeing shares fall after 787 fire

There is no evidence of a direct link between the Boeing 787 Dreamliner's batteries and the fire at Heathrow Airport on Friday, investigators said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23302722

N.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

Boeing Dreamliner: Air investigators urge action over fire

Air accident investigators looking into the Boeing 787 Dreamliner fire at Heathrow last week may have identified the cause.

In a statement, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch said a transmitter used to locate aircraft after a crash needed more "airworthiness actions".

Good news and bad news for Boeing then.