Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Masterthread - 787 Problems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I still would say it's one of the safest planes to fly out there.
    Based on what please?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by FN-GM View Post
      Based on what please?
      Didn't he already mentioned it before he drew the conclusion?

      Comment


      • #18
        As an addendum, this should put some perspective into the 777 for EIS+2:
        http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-upkeep-11562/ (via @jonostrower)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by globetrekker84 View Post
          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?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by FN-GM View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              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.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by FN-GM View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by globetrekker84 View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Another 787 incident

                    Originally posted by globetrekker84 View Post
                    You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on 787. I, however, have no reservations about flying on one.
                    post deleted
                    Last edited by SQtraveller; 20 August 2017, 04:55 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Latest is that JAL is grounding their 787 fleet as well.

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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by CarbonMan View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by milehighj View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by CarbonMan View Post
                              ... hanging around lawyers way to much.
                              Ah. That can really screw with your head.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                FAA grounds 787s

                                post deleted
                                Last edited by SQtraveller; 20 August 2017, 04:56 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X