Does the FAA have the ability to enforce this on airlines operating outside the United States?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Masterthread - 787 Problems
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by FN-GM View PostDoes the FAA have the ability to enforce this on airlines operating outside the United States?
Comment
-
Originally posted by globetrekker84 View PostMy two cents: The windshield crack is nothing to note. It happens on hundreds of planes a day. The fact that it happened on a 787 was a freebie to the media, who don't know any better. I'm willing to bet that it's happened a few times already.
The oil leak is something overblown too. That, I'm willing to bet it was a maintenance issue. Probably just an overfill condition.
That said, given all the redundancies that I've seen and are aware of on that plane, I still would say it's one of the safest planes to fly out there.
http://www.zie.nl/video/algemeen/Boe...k/m1mzww3fgrqf
The plume of smoke from the exhaust clearly indicates a broken oil or hydraulic line. Maintenance could safely be ruled out from this case as one can safely assume that no engine components could have been changed on an aircraft this new.
The batteries, lithium ion, are notorious for overheating issues. Lithium ion is the prime suspect in two recent freighter crashes and there was a renewed call to ban lithium ion to be shipped on board aircrafts. I find it ironic that the authorities have allowed Boeing to install lithium ion as a standard equipment despite its notoriety. Would FAA be bold enough to issue an AD to replace the Li-Ion batteries with conventional ones ?
While no issues have cropped up yet so far, I strongly feel the extensive use of composites in fuselage construction is going to be an issue in the near future.
Peace Out.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CarbonMan View PostThe long arm of US regulators extend way beyond the aviation industry .... <Imperial March from Star Wars playing in the background>
Originally posted by boing View PostWhile I've to agree with you on the windshield issue, the oil leak doesn't seem to be a minor issue.
http://www.zie.nl/video/algemeen/Boe...k/m1mzww3fgrqf
The plume of smoke from the exhaust clearly indicates a broken oil or hydraulic line. Maintenance could safely be ruled out from this case as one can safely assume that no engine components could have been changed on an aircraft this new.
The batteries, lithium ion, are notorious for overheating issues. Lithium ion is the prime suspect in two recent freighter crashes and there was a renewed call to ban lithium ion to be shipped on board aircrafts. I find it ironic that the authorities have allowed Boeing to install lithium ion as a standard equipment despite its notoriety. Would FAA be bold enough to issue an AD to replace the Li-Ion batteries with conventional ones ?
While no issues have cropped up yet so far, I strongly feel the extensive use of composites in fuselage construction is going to be an issue in the near future.
Peace Out.
And you're right that manufacturers should be wary of relying too much on composites.
Originally posted by cscs1956 View PostCorrect.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-battery-issue
Airlines must take safety issue seriously.
Oh, and after making repairs, they should make sure they don't have poor maintenance right?
Comment
-
Originally posted by SQGamespeed View PostThese incidents have already soured the safety reputation of the 787 similar to the A380 after its string of problems, from QF's infamous engine blowout (and many other issues with Rolls Royce engines) to cracks in the wing.
The A380 was never grounded worldwide......or anywhere for that matter. Quick action by both Airbus and Rolls Royce did help in this regards, but the QF engine matter could have been very disasterous for all concerned, with a whole in a fully laden wing and seriously damaged hydraulics.
With regards these batteries, I too am susrpised at their use. I mean, if you can't even prevent an iPhone exploding (my colleague's did) the technology may not be the most suitable for such a critical environment. It was only a few months ago I got an email from CX explaining what precautions needed to be taken while transporting batteries on board so the airlines take it as an issue.
Finally, I don't believe composites will be a problem since it's not like we're talking about a $250 sail dingy or a 1980's kit car here. If done correctly I would have no fear flying in an older composite aircraft when the time comes later.
Comment
-
Originally posted by scooby5 View PostThe A380 was never grounded worldwide......or anywhere for that matter. Quick action by both Airbus and Rolls Royce did help in this regards, but the QF engine matter could have been very disasterous for all concerned, with a whole in a fully laden wing and seriously damaged hydraulics.
With regards these batteries, I too am susrpised at their use. I mean, if you can't even prevent an iPhone exploding (my colleague's did) the technology may not be the most suitable for such a critical environment. It was only a few months ago I got an email from CX explaining what precautions needed to be taken while transporting batteries on board so the airlines take it as an issue.
Finally, I don't believe composites will be a problem since it's not like we're talking about a $250 sail dingy or a 1980's kit car here. If done correctly I would have no fear flying in an older composite aircraft when the time comes later.
So you can see even airlines handle the situation quite differently.
Comment
-
Originally posted by scooby5 View PostFinally, I don't believe composites will be a problem since it's not like we're talking about a $250 sail dingy or a 1980's kit car here. If done correctly I would have no fear flying in an older composite aircraft when the time comes later.
Aluminum would show visual indications of weakness and ramp incidents, AKA ramp rash, in the form of dents. When picked up, structural repairs could be initiated to strengthen the affected area. Composites, on the other hand, do not show signs of knocks as well as aluminum due to their inherent stiffness.
A US agency had already raised its concerns on this before.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...-s-agency.html
Comment
-
Originally posted by SQtraveller View PostNews over night:
Guardian article link here
Mary Schiavo, a former DoT inspector general, said that the grounding is looking less likely to be days, "but possibly months"
There has been some commentary that the A350 may need to redesign their electrical system as a result of whatever ruling emerges from this as it also uses lithium ion batteries. She makes the point, that while this might be the case, at least Airbus will have the opportunity to fix it "behind closed doors"
Comment
-
Originally posted by boing View PostIf a complete overhaul of its electrical network is mandated, the cost savings B787 brings would be affected badly.Last edited by SQtraveller; 20 August 2017, 04:56 AM.
Comment
Comment