Masterthread - 787 Problems

[FN-GM]

I still would say it's one of the safest planes to fly out there.

Based on what please?

[9V-JKL]

Based on what please?

Didn't he already mentioned it before he drew the conclusion?

[globetrekker84]

As an addendum, this should put some perspective into the 777 for EIS+2:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-upkeep-11562/ (via @jonostrower)

[FN-GM]

As an addendum, this should put some perspective into the 777 for EIS+2:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-upkeep-11562/ (via @jonostrower)

But how does this make the 787 safer?

[globetrekker84]

But how does this make the 787 safer?

It doesn't. That is a reference to the initial teething problems that the 777 ran into EIS+2...and look where that program is now.

I'm not at liberty to divulge the reasoning for my logic on 787 unfortunately. In doing so would reveal my role, but let's just say I have spent a good portion of my career on the design and development of the aircraft, and the people that I deal with set the world standard for designing, developing, and ensuring that the 787 is the safest and most technologically-advanced aircraft ever built by humans.

Some issues are minor and some more serious, but in the end, there are multiple redundancies built into each component and systems. The lessons learned from Swissair 111 are apparent here, as more stringent requirements for flammability, smoke density, and toxicity, were enacted after that event. For example, the NTSB photographs (http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130114.html) show that the module (for the most part) remained intact and withstood the chemical fire. Yes there would have been smoke, but the fact that it was able to burn for 40 minutes (far in excess of Section 26 of RTCA DO-160E) and only cause relatively minimal damage would be a testament to the engineering work done by Boeing and its sub-tier supplier.

[FN-GM]

In doing so would reveal my role, but let's just say I have spent a good portion of my career on the design and development of the aircraft,

So you would be bias, might as well disregard what you have claimed. There is nothing to support what you have said. Time will tell if it is safer.

[globetrekker84]

So you would be bias, might as well disregard what you have claimed. There is nothing to support what you have said. Time will tell if it is safer.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on 787. I, however, have no reservations about flying on one.

[scooby5]

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on 787. I, however, have no reservations about flying on one.

After another emergency landing this morning in Japan..... I would consider it for the time being.

[SQtraveller]

Another 787 incident

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on 787. I, however, have no reservations about flying on one.

post deleted

[CarbonMan]

This latest incident seems like the worst - at least from a PR perspective - with pictures of emergency chutes popping out around the aircraft.

If I had a more suspicious mind, I can't help but think that there's some sort of concerted conspiracy to blackball the 787/Boeing! Hmmm, wonder who stands to gain?

[wsssaero]

Latest is that JAL is grounding their 787 fleet as well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...09O02720130116

[milehighj]

If I had a more suspicious mind, I can't help but think that there's some sort of concerted conspiracy to blackball the 787/Boeing! Hmmm, wonder who stands to gain?

Sorry to be pedantic, but the first part of your first sentence is clearly contradictory with the second part, and your second sentence.

[CarbonMan]

Sorry to be pedantic, but the first part of your first sentence is clearly contradictory with the second part, and your second sentence.

Alas, it's a side effect of hanging around lawyers way to much.

[milehighj]

... hanging around lawyers way to much.

Ah. That can really screw with your head.

[SQtraveller]

FAA grounds 787s

post deleted