Japan Grounds Fleet of Boeing 787s After Emergency Landing

hcs_$reboot writes "The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has already occupied some of Slashdot news space recently: FAA to investigate the 787 (Jan 11) or 787 catches fire in Boston (Jan 08). Today (Jan 16 JST) another incident happened that led to Japan grounding its entire 787 fleet until an internal investigation gives more information about the problem. A 787 from ANA had a battery problem and smoke was detected in the electronics. The plane had to make an emergency landing and passengers were evacuated. "

Comments

This can't be true

[GodfatherofSoul]

Why, just last week Boeing told us the safety concerns were a non-issue!

Re:This can't be true

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yes!! I love self-interested assertions. They are the true test of validation and veracity. Like the FBI stating so clearly that they did not entrap Megaupload, or violate jurisdiction.

Who needs to specifically address the specific critical points, when patronization has so much integrity?

And...
You have best handle ever. Ever.

Re:This can't be true

[jellomizer]

Well someone had to buy those Samsung battery, after the laptop recall.

Re:This can't be true

[icebike]

Second Li-Poly battery total meltdown in as many weeks.

Boeing had to get the FAA to waive its rules regarding Lithium batteries on planes in order to get this plane certified in the first place, and build containment boxes for the batteries into the design.

For the most part the risk of Lithium batteries lies in the requirement for rigid control of recharging, being careful not to over charge and also of draining the battery completely, the annoying habit of catching fire when the rules are not followed, or when the battery is short-circuited make large Li batteries (8-gram equivalent lithium content or more) banned in luggage, and shipments.

I suspect that the FAA will rescind this waiver, and force the replacement of the battery packs with something less prone to burn..

Re:This can't be true

[timeOday]

Well, I think this is becoming a bit of a mania, too. Would a warning light of the same nature triggered an emergency landing and deployment of the inflatable slides on any other plane? I doubt it. The passengers were in no immediate threat, especially after the plane landed, and chute evacuations always result in some minor injuries. So why did they do it? I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, just that life gets a lot tougher once everybody views you with skepticism.

Re:This can't be true

[AmiMoJo]

No other type of battery has the same capacity/weight ratio though, so either they cut down on the functionality or they increase the weight of the aircraft (and thus reduce its fuel efficiency somewhat). To make it worth using Li-Poly over something else they must really need a hell of a lot of energy storage, otherwise the space and weight saving wouldn't be enough to risk it.

Re:This can't be true

[postbigbang]

Seems more like a QA problem. Energy density is important, but reliability and safety trumps implementation waivers. There's an engineering team that's getting an earful, and rightfully so. Cheers to the airlines for having the guts to ground their fleets; ANA and JAL just went up on my list.

Re:This can't be true

[0123456]

Somehow I suspect most airlines consider not catching on fire more important than a slight improvement in fuel efficiency. Someone's going to lose a shedload of money if these planes are out of service for long.

Re:This can't be true

[quacking duck]

They did it because on top of the smoke warning, they also got a battery fault warning in the same cargo compartment where a battery caught fire on a sister airplane just last week.

The slide chutes were perhaps a bit much if there was no smoke in the cabin after landing, but the emergency landing itself is easily justified.

Re:This can't be true

[Rakishi]

This is why pilots don't fuck around with fire warnings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_120
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Airways_Flight_295
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_991
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6

Re:This can't be true

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think this is becoming a bit of a mania, too. Would a warning light of the same nature triggered an emergency landing and deployment of the inflatable slides on any other plane? I doubt it.

I suspect if you ask most pilots what they would do if the 'plane is on fire' light came on, it would involve landing fairly soon.

Pussies.

Re:This can't be true

[X0563511]

Because where there's smoke, there is fire?

You don't just ignore smoke.

Re:This can't be true

[spirito]

Only Li batteries have the energy density required for Boeing "more electric" aircraft concept (http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=222308).

Re:This can't be true

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a *lot* of research done just to flame one Slashdoter. Ever wonder why so many of us prefer to be AC's? It's because of idiotic trolls like the above AC.

I fail to see how Jeremiah Cornelius resume that has one misspelled word on an unrelated piece of paper invalidates his point? Apparently your one of those who doesn't understand basic logic, and thus attempts to pull out any garbage no matter how old and unrelated it is, just to invalidate your opposition.

Re:This can't be true

[postbigbang]

I don't think engineering teams are that thin skinned. To do what they did, they had to get a waiver from the FAA, according to reports. Did management apply for the waiver, or did the team convince management to get the waiver? I'm fairly sure, given experience, that it wasn't management saying: go use high-density batteries in this application, rather, it was part of an overall design to have that juice available nearby where it would be used, so as to save weight and complexity. But then again, this is Boeing, and they live by their own rules.

Re:This can't be true

[tibit]

I think that Boeing has simply regressed, like most big, legacy american corporations. Over time, they seem to be able to accomplish less and less, while taking more and more money to do it. If there was another Musk-style visionary to have a SpaceX-style operation, but making jets, they could probably capture the entire market in two decades...

Re:This can't be true

[tibit]

Tell that to those who perished on Swissair's flight 111. There, the indications of a fire were ignored.

Re:This can't be true

[tlhIngan]

For aircraft, the real reason is lithium + aluminum leads to rapid oxidation of the aluminum. Basically a small blob of lithium in contact with aluminum will eat a hole in the aluminum. That's why there's lithium restrictions. The containment vessel has to be made of another metal (steel, normally) so that the lithium will not come into contact with any aluminum structure.

Re:This can't be true

[quacking duck]

Somehow I suspect most airlines consider not catching on fire more important than a slight improvement in fuel efficiency.

Agreed.

Someone's going to lose a shedload of money if these planes are out of service for long.

The alternative is losing a shedload of people if warnings aren't looked into, and develop into catastrophic failure. Too many preventable air accidents have happened because money was a factor (rushed takeoffs to stay under pilot flighttime limits; takeoff/landing in terrible weather; poor or improper maintenance/parts; ill-equipped airports and control towers; etc).

The 787 has been in active service only a bit over a year, they really have not yet found all the bugs. British Airways 038, a Boeing 777, was brought down by something as simple as a few extra millimetres of piping protruding from the fuel/oil heat exchangers.

Re:This can't be true

[labnet]

Not all lithium batteries are equal. Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries for example are reasonably safe. You can over charge them, put a nail through them plus they last 10 years, but they don't have as high an energy density as found in cobalt based cells which are more typically used in laptops and cellphones. Lithium will still catch fire though is exposed to water!

Re:This can't be true

[samkass]

I think in retrospect the emergency landing was the right call and the inflatable slides were not. You don't fool around with fire in a plane, but asking passengers to deplane via slide is also not to be taken lightly. And I think you're probably right that the previous incidents led them to over-react on the evacuation. But in the end it was the pilot's call and I'd rather have a pro-active pilot than one afraid to do what they think is right.

Re:This can't be true

[multi io]

Seems more like a QA problem. Energy density is important, but reliability and safety trumps implementation waivers.

Do you think Boeing would have used the high energy density if low energy density would have sufficed? They wouldn't have included those Li-Poly batteries and endured all the regulatory hassle that comes with them if they hadn't really needed it for their basic aircraft design. Which means they probably can't really replace them now. I understand that the 787 doesn't use bleed air, which saves energy, but means that you need much more electrical power to supply the formerly bleed-air driven systems (like cabin air supply and in-flight wing de-icing), hence the need for larger batteries.

Re:This can't be true

[JanneM]

Seems the "more electric" concept isn't really viable until a safer high-density battery technology is available, then.

Re:This can't be true

[Dzimas]

A well trained crew does not simply declare an in-flight emergency for fun. They'd much rather proceed to their destination than put the aircraft down at the nearest alternate after an ear-popping emergency descent which is rapidly followed by an emergency evacuation and a transportation board investigation. As for your assertion that their reaction was manic, do you remember this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

Re:This can't be true

[siddesu]

Yes. The batteries are a part of a marketing trick. 787 is sold as a miracle fuel-saver, so I won`t be surprised if engineering was subject to a lot of pressure and made unreasonable and outright dangerous decisions to achieve the marketing goals of 30% fuel savings. This happens often enough. And since it is 1/3 "made in Japan", the Japanese airlines had it unloaded on them probably with some armtwisting. Kinda like the unsafe reactors in Fuckyoushima. As always, it is business first, safety later.

Re:This can't be true

[Anonymous Coward]

It was 100% the right decision to err on the side of safety. They did not know how much the fire had progressed towards fuel lines. Which had "fuel dripping" issues with the 787 recently.

But hell yeah, if these pilots were better politicians, the Boeing $hills would have it easier to explain away everthing on message boards like this.

Re:This can't be true

[postbigbang]

> Do you think Boeing would have used the high energy density if low energy density would have sufficed? They wouldn't have included those Li-Poly batteries and endured all the regulatory hassle that comes with them if they hadn't really needed it for their basic aircraft design.

Heh. Not my point at all. The design called for a battery, they choise Li, and now that choice is biting them-- after a waiver. They designed and deployed through all their "testing", this design, whichis biting them hard.

I don't decry Boeing wanting to design economical and efficient aircraft at all. What they did do is: not think it through, and in not doing so, caused themselves enormous amounts of grief. Big batteries? Small batteries? This is their engineering team making a choice that's causing worldwide quality concerns about their new and heavily delayed and criticized wonder-craft. Not very wise.

Re:This can't be true

[girlintraining]

To make it worth using Li-Poly over something else they must really need a hell of a lot of energy storage, otherwise the space and weight saving wouldn't be enough to risk it.

You're the first person on this entire thread to hit the nail on the head. The Dreamliner uses a sophisticated network of computers and sensors to fly. If all the engines fail, power must be supplied from the APU, basically a UPS for airplanes. Because of the amount of electronics and the fact that due to a lack of power the hydraulics and other critical systems must also remain powered... there is a massive power need. The APU is designed to power the aircraft's systems in the event of an all engine failure from cruising altitude all the way to landing; Although the more common scenario is that an electrical fault causes fuses, etc., to blow, and the APU is switched on (an isolated power source) so the plane can land safely.

Re:This can't be true

[timeOday]

I really was referring to the deplaning, not the diversion and landing.

Re:This can't be true

[icebike]

No, that's not why.

The reason is that lithium fires happen fairly easily, and the fire extinguishing systems aboard aircraft are not all that effective against such fires.

Several FAA bulletins have reported that "The current fire suppression agent, Halon 1301, found in class C cargo compartments is inefficient in controlling a lithium metal cell fire." Yet halon is just about all they have on board other than water.

See Slide 7: http://www.777cheatsheets.com/resources/Lithium_Battery.pdf

See Page 9: http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/04-26.pdf

Tests were conducted using 4, 8, 16, and 32 CR2 batteries, the 10.75 fire pan, and 220 ml of
1-propanol. In each case, the results were identical. Discharging the halon prior to battery
ignition resulted in the extinguishment of the 1-propanol fire and no battery involvement.
However, discharging the halon after only one battery was ignited had no effect on stopping the
propagation of the battery fire to adjacent batteries. The halon extinguished the 1-propanol fire
immediately but had no effect on the lithium fire with the exception of turning the normally
white sparks bright red.
The color change of the lithium sparks indicated that a reaction was occurring between the
lithium and the Halon 1301. This reaction had no effect on the fire progression, neither
hindering nor promoting the spread of the battery fire. The vented electrolyte fires, normally
pale red in color, turned bright red when exposed to Halon 1301.

Re:This can't be true

[jrumney]

I think in retrospect the emergency landing was the right call and the inflatable slides were not. You don't fool around with fire in a plane, but asking passengers to deplane via slide is also not to be taken lightly.

So you want a plane with a suspected fire onboard to pull up next to the terminal building and use the airbridge? Or you want the passengers to sit on the burning plane waiting for the mobile stairs to drive over from the other end of the airport to the quarantine area where planes at risk of fire/explosion are required to stop, well away from any other structures or aeroplanes?

Re:This can't be true

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, this is what I was gonna say, the R/C guys are moving to LiFePo because it's more stable than normal LiPos. Why didn't Boeing?

Re:This can't be true

[Rakishi]

Just because a plane is on the ground doesn't mean a fire can't kill passengers still inside:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolavia_Flight_348

This is not counting other cases where fires destroyed the airplane but didn't kill anyone due to a quick enough evacuation.

Furthermore, some basic web searching show that using emergency evacuation slides isn't unheard of in cases of suspected airplane fires due to no one wanting to repeat the incidents I just listed.

Re:This can't be true

[Rakishi]

This approach has killed hundreds of people in the past as they burned alive or suffocated while pilots and airport personnel dicked around instead of getting them off the damn plane.

Re:This can't be true

[timeOday]

Well, that is a good answer with good examples. In retrospect anyways the current fire doesn't seem quite analogous, but as you say the whole point is to avoid an analogous mishap and you never have perfect information at the time either.

Re:This can't be true

[cheesybagel]

The 787 is supposed to use electrical actuators instead of hydraulics powered by engine bleed air. That is where the need for all that power comes from.

Re:This can't be true

[MrNaz]

A receipt for disaster? I'm glad that the forces of nature are committed to providing accurate documentation of their transactions with humanity.

Has anybody said

[Joce640k]

"Dreamliner, Screamliner..."

Re:Has anybody said

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

No Oscar. But they will. They will.
-- James Abbot McNeil Whistler

Re:Has anybody said

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

No, the American way is to egregiously cut safety corners in favor of profit, until Something Terrible happens, and the girlymen rise up chanting "Think of the children", then we ban in-flight movies as a Magic Talisman so "nothing like this will ever ever ever happen again". Rinse and repeat.

Re:Has anybody said

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Titanic was built the American way?

Re:Has anybody said

[fustakrakich]

Notice that the date it entered service was very close to Halloween...

Re:Has anybody said

[kelemvor4]

Actually, the American way is to say that safety concerns are not an issue when I can't imagine they didn't know they are

No, the American way is to say that the market will find an optimal solution, and if customers want safe airlines, they're free to purchase from another carrier.

You know, the whole laissez-faire capitalism thing.

If we implement safety features on the more expensive airliners, the safety features will eventually trickle down to the less expensive ones.

Re:Has anybody said

[viperidaenz]

The Titanic never made it to America. It was built by the Irish.

Re:Has anybody said

[Meeni]

Or the contrary, the lower price point will trick people (which are not perfectly informed and rational, and therefore make choices that go against their own interest -all the time- ), and the lack of safety features will become pervasive in the industry because if you do things right, you are not cost effective (and even if you remain profitable, you eventually get bought by some other company that is more profitable and can cash you out).

Re:Has anybody said

[spatley]

whoosh

Re:Has anybody said

[Maritz]

Though in a sense I agree, the people who worked on it would never have described themselves as "Irish". ;)

Re:Has anybody said

[multi io]

If we implement safety features on the more expensive airliners, the safety features will eventually trickle down to the less expensive ones.

I realize you're being sarcastic, but this kinda worked for the car companies.

A Swissair FL111 crash waiting to happen

[JoeyRox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

Re:A Swissair FL111 crash waiting to happen

[Alex Zepeda]

There have been a lot of lessons learned since SW111. The biggest lesson is, IMO, that of a quick response. One of the big problems with SW111 (and AC797) was that delays (a matter of seconds in the case of AC797) made the difference between life and death. The ANA pilot declared an emergency, got the plane on the ground, and got the passengers off ASAP.

It hasn't been clarified which battery was problematic in the most recent 787 incident. If it was the APU (the one that caught fire in Boston) or the main battery, Boeing designed for the "one of those batteries catches fire" case. Both are enclosed in a fire resistant enclosure, and both are designed so that smoke from such a fire is vented away from the cabin. That's a gigantic difference from SW111 and AC797 where the fires occurred in an area that was not designed to contain fire.

There are conflicting reports of smoke, and conflicting reports as to which battery was at fault in the latest instance... but barring smoke in the cabin, it likely wouldn't have ended up much worse (a couple of injuries from using the emergency slides).

Re:A Swissair FL111 crash waiting to happen

[TheNinjaroach]

That made for some horrific reading. I'll be thinking about it all day, thanks.

Compressed charcoal is sometimes called diamond

[Overzeetop]

How many times have you seen a diamond burn without immersing it in pure oxygen? It's just compressed graphite, after all.

The correct joke should have been: Boeing should reconsider using Sony batteries in their planes.

Re:Compressed charcoal is sometimes called diamond

[Joce640k]

Dreamliners are made of diamond?

Re:Compressed charcoal is sometimes called diamond

[viperidaenz]

It's all just carbon.

Re:Compressed charcoal is sometimes called diamond

[Overzeetop]

Actually, yes - I've seen someone burn a diamond. It was a great deal more difficult to light than charcoal.

I survived.

[Anonymous Coward]

I flew the 787 from Haneda to Frankfurt two weeks ago, and am happy to report the flight was excellent and as far as I can tell I wasn't killed in a fire.

Re:I survived.

[TheNinjaroach]

Have any creepy new nine year olds in your life lately?

Re:I survived.

[ravenlord_hun]

So, "I can say with 95% confidence that I survived"?

Re:When they make a plane out of compressed charco

[h4rr4r]

Are you really this dumb or are you just pretending?

Re:When they make a plane out of compressed charco

[hawguy]

Will not a fire light it up like a briquette?

Yeah yeah, it's "compressed graphite", or whatever the euphemism is for the material.

It appears that the bigger danger in a crash (to both the rescue workers and any survivors) is inhaling carbon fibers:

http://www.netcomposites.com/news/dangers-of-carbon-fibre-debris-from-aircraft-crashes-exposed/3306

Research at Farnborough in the 1990's indicated that if carbon fibre composite material is shattered in the absence of fire there will be little or no release of respirable fibres. If you burn carbon fibre composite material without subjecting it to high energy impact there will be little or no release of respirable fibres. However, if you subject carbon fibre composite material to high energy impact while simultaneously burning it with a high temperature flame - typically 1000C (typical aircraft crash conditions) significant quantities of respirable fibres may be released

The downsides of outsourcing

[volvox_voxel]

I've read that Boeing was intent on outsourcing as much of the design as possible, and even had a catch-phrase: "the product is the process". I've read that in order to clean up the design, they needed to bring in more Boeing engineers. I wonder what extent this is true, and how much of their plane was designed by third parties? With engineering, it's always hardest to get that last fraction of a percent nailed and verified; an exponential more effort for that last few percentage points. I have a friend that designed electronics for aircraft, and understand that the cables, connectors, and electronics are subject to a very high standard for robustness, I find it rather shocking to hear that there was a fire. I wonder what kind of technical over-sight did they do with their contractors and their own engineers. I've always considered that Boeing was over-the-top with this sort of thing. This is a cautionary tale for anyone that wants to outsource. How do you guarantee that your subcontractor has done a sufficient job? That subcontractor does not necessarily want to let you in on all of the engineering details so they can avoid being designed out. Assuming that they were given everything, I wonder if they had their own engineers review them. I understand that if you print out the number of individual components in a modern fighter aircraft as a function of time, it would be linear on a log scale, meaning that the number of all components have grown exponentially. As subsystems become more complicated, they are increasingly designed by small teams of specialists. Outsourcing has it's merits. It's hard to be a generalist.

Re:The downsides of outsourcing

[Richard_at_work]

This has nothing to do with outsourcing - under no circumstances would Boeing have made these batteries, and all f them were installed on the Washington State FAL. Nothing to do with outsourcing, nothing to do with unionism.

Re:The downsides of outsourcing

[Pascal Sartoretti]

This has nothing to do with outsourcing - under no circumstances would Boeing have made these batteries, and all f them were installed on the Washington State FAL. Nothing to do with outsourcing, nothing to do with unionism.

Outsourcing in itself is not an issue, as long as you clearly define what you expect, follow up your suppliers, check their processes, their products, etc. All of this takes time, hence money. It can work, but also turn into a nightmare if/when :

• - Your suppliers themselves subcontract to other suppliers, which in turn...
• - A stupid PHB slashes costs by "trusting" and not checking the suppliers
• - Different countries, cultures, languages

...smoke was detected in the electronics.

[fustakrakich]

That's where it's supposed to be. Only when it comes out is there a problem.

Re:smoke

[oobayly]

Of course you should. How are electronics supposed to work without the smoke? You fell for that semiconductor theory hook, line and summer.

Youtube video about Swissair FL111 crash

[JoeyRox]

This will make your day more horrible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq8wEpQXodw

Re:When they make a plane out of compressed charco

[viperidaenz]

So put a filter in the oxygen mask that drops down in an emergency?

Proper time to mention...

[Skuld-Chan]

That this is the first aircraft Boeing built that uses outsourced production...

Evacuating Passengers

[holophrastic]

I know the TSA has been doing cavity searches for a long time. But exacuating passengers seems both extreme, and dirty. Shouldn't the world health organization have something to say about this?

Maybe next time there's an emergency landing, they should consider evacuating the plane, instead of the passengers. Besides, if it's a rough landing, some of the passengers are likely to self-evacuate.

Re:Evacuating Passengers

[Luckyo]

That was in Japan. They routinely recommend anal suppositories for medication that we usually take oral stuff in the EU/US, such as stuff to bring down fever associated with flu. And yet, they have no TSA.

So that was a pretty multi-faceted joke of you.

Re:A380 787

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you must mean the first ever commercial jet airliner; which was of course not American. The whole industry learnt lessons from microfractures in stress points in the new aluminium airframes, and after the windows were redesigned it managed to get 30 years of service.

So what's the US excuse now? Forgot how to build, did we?

We need WiFi in those planes ASAP

[sshir]

With internet connection it is much more handy to short Boeing stock on the first whiff of smoke.

Re:We need WiFi in those planes ASAP

[sunking2]

Would that be considered insider trading?

Re:We need WiFi in those planes ASAP

[gstoddart]

With internet connection it is much more handy to short Boeing stock on the first whiff of smoke.

Or at least update your Facebook profile or tweet about your imminent demise. :-P

proof high-capacity Li batteries are dangerous

[swschrad]

this energy density is not safe for flight, folks. you can't get out and wait at the side of the road for the fire to stop, like you can if your hybrid car starts arcing and smoking.

Re:proof high-capacity Li batteries are dangerous

[Eunuchswear]

Damn, if this level of energy density is inherently unsafe, how unsafe must the massive tanks of jet fuel be?

Pretty damned unsafe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

Like The Man Says

[Oxygen99]

"If it's Boeing, I ain't going..."

Re:A380 787

[VAXcat]

I was referring more to the way it kept disintegrating in flight, but whatever...

Engineering has been suplanted by cost accountants

[Anonymous Coward]

I had worked as an engineer for approximately 30 years. What I have witnessed has disturbed me.

In the last 10 to 15 years, design decisions that used to be made by engineers have been replaced by cost accountants restricting most decisions of a technical nature and replacing it with "most cost effective solution".

I did some consulting for a small aero engines company about 15 years ago that had a brilliant concept dreamed up by a non-technical MBA executive to start building aero engines for small aircraft based on race car engines. Reasoning for that is because they are high performance engines. Well d'ohhh that is not what you want in an aero engine, you want reliability & safety as the most important factors. Race car engines need to be rebuilt after every race. Not a desirable attribute for an aero engine.

Needless to say extensive testing which I was involved with proved that this idea was half baked and it failed. Problem was executive management freaked and were cursing the engineers for destroying their "brilliant idea" and acted in a savage manner to the staff by trashing many of them.

In many aerospace companies, I have had been involved with have pushed out most experienced staff in favour of young and cheap staff. If I was to guess, I suspect Boeing has done the same thing. I have heard from many experienced colleagues that old technical problems that were resolved decades ago in the aerospace industry are re-emerging due to in-experienced staff and loss of knowledge.

This shift I suspect contributes in part to many of the issues being experienced in the Dreamliner.

my two cents

Re:A380 787

[segedunum]

Yeah, the DeHaviland Comet airliner was a sterling example of the quality of European aircraft design...

Yes it was considering it was the first jetliner. Someone had to go first and it certainly wasn't the US because they were so far behind.

Re:A380 787

[Savage-Rabbit]

That was an ENGLISH plane. But yeah, they tried to crash an A380 by means of engine explosion.

...and the aircraft survived. That fact would actually motivate me to get on an A380 rather than the reverse. The advantage of really big aircraft is that they can soak up more damage than their little brothers.

The damage, in case anybody is interested:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/files/2011/05/qantasa380engine.jpg

Re:Why Not Bigger Generator Turbines ?

[multi io]

I guess the batteries are for emergency situations where the engines don't work. During normal operation, the engine-driven generators supply all the electricity. I think.

I like the 787

[kennytosh]

I have a very good friend that worked for one of these sub-contractors in Rockford, IL. Heâ(TM)s a brilliant engineer. He told me about the enomous pressure Boeing put on them to complete their work by their deadline. Boeing constantly threatened the sub-contractor with fines. He spent many, many months working 70-80 hour weeks. Getting called into 2am meetings. Careers flamed out because of the stress. Substance abuse ran rampant. Families suffered. I hope no one gets hurt or killed flying on the 787. I hope the shareholders get handed a big bill to remedy the teething issues plaguing what was once a promising breakthrough design.

New nickname ...

[PPH]

... seen for the 787: The Firebird.

Re:A380 787

[jrumney]

But yeah, they tried to crash an A380 by means of engine explosion.

787 engines on the other hand don't need an explosion to self-destuct.

Re:A380 787

[jrumney]

and you'll note that none of the recent incidents with the 787 are traceable to the engine.

Not if you define recent as the last two weeks, where the problems have really escalated. But there have been two engine incidents in the last 8 months, as well as one incident involving the same engine on a 747-800.

Re:herpa derp

[mug funky]

care to say that without "Post Anonymously" checked?

Re:Michael Kelso Avionic Electrical Engineers Scho

[riverat1]

Have you considered getting help for your obsessive/compulsive disorder?