http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/18165788/qatar-grounds-a-787-as-glitches-pile-up-on-boeing-jet/

In the last two days:

 

A DH8D suffered an hydraulic failure

An MD88 had an in-flight engine shut-down

An ATR72 had a suspected fuel leak

A B738 had a smoke on board indication (no sign of fire on post landing inspection)

An A319 had suspected tyre damage (post landing tyres proved to be intact)

An A332 dropped a body (as in dead person, likely a stowaway)

An A320 rejected take-off after a bird strike

An MD83 suffered an hydraulic failure

A B773 descended below safe height

A B788 suffered a smoking oven

A DH8D had reports of smoke in the cockpit.

 

Only 2 of those incidents made it into the 'main-stream' media.

Main-stream media are not a very good source to determine reliability statistics, especially if they resort to scare-quotes around the word minor.

media over blows things out of proportion all the time especially with 787. Heck if there was a ramp tractor engine smoking, i bet it would be blamed on the 787.  Qatar says it was a minor issue and not an incident. I wish they wouldnt make a reputation any worse then it is. 

In the last two days:

 

A DH8D suffered an hydraulic failure

An MD88 had an in-flight engine shut-down

An ATR72 had a suspected fuel leak

A B738 had a smoke on board indication (no sign of fire on post landing inspection)

An A319 had suspected tyre damage (post landing tyres proved to be intact)

An A332 dropped a body (as in dead person, likely a stowaway)

An A320 rejected take-off after a bird strike

An MD83 suffered an hydraulic failure

A B773 descended below safe height

A B788 suffered a smoking oven

A DH8D had reports of smoke in the cockpit.

 

Only 2 of those incidents made it into the 'main-stream' media.

Main-stream media are not a very good source to determine reliability statistics, especially if they resort to scare-quotes around the word minor.

 

Normal operating of aircraft does incur things like broken windows, tyre blowouts, damage through airport smashes with vehicles and a/c on the ramp. Even QANTAS has the odd engine explosion 737s usually), but we don't see common electrical issues on the same type.

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/26/us-boeing-changes-idUSBRE96P14M20130726

 

Well Boeing has just changed the Chief Engineer on the 787. More evidence for you naysayers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/26/us-boeing-changes-idUSBRE96P14M20130726

 

Well Boeing has just changed the Chief Engineer on the 787. More evidence for you naysayers.

 

I wouldn't say that.

 

"The memo said the moves were intended to give each of the five people involved an opportunity to broaden their experience, increasing "the bench strength of our teams.""

I still think Boeing is a great company, its a new airplane type for crying out loud, Im sure we will see many issues with the A350 as well.

Normal operating of aircraft does incur things like broken windows, tyre blowouts, damage through airport smashes with vehicles and a/c on the ramp. Even QANTAS has the odd engine explosion 737s usually), but we don't see common electrical issues on the same type.

 

How are problems with the batteries, and problems with an ELT that is only connected to a switch in the cockpit, 'common electrical issues?'. Based on the publically available evidence, the only similarity between the Ethiopian 787 incident and earlier battery issues is the word lithium. The ELT is not connected to the rest of the 787s electrical system, uses a completely different type of lithium based battery (it's not rechargeable for one, just like the one in your watch) and similar devices have been installed on many different airliner types. The latest reports I've seen have indicated that ELTs have been found with faulty wiring on a number of other 787s, which would indicate a Honeywell manufacturing quality control problem, not a Dreamliner design flaw.

 

My point is that if you want to show that the 787 is significantly less reliable than other aircraft you need to present some actual statistics, not just some stories in the main-stream media. Main-stream media by it's nature is selective and therefore is a poor source to understand the overall context of a certain incident.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/26/us-boeing-changes-idUSBRE96P14M20130726

 

Well Boeing has just changed the Chief Engineer on the 787. More evidence for you naysayers.

Insisting on actual statistics instead of a couple of news stories, and on a proper understanding of the physics involved, both of which are severely lacking in the media, does not make one a 'naysayer.' Unless you can provide us with the actual reason of the job switch, it isn't evidence of anything.

 

Just to be clear, I don't make the claim that the 787 is safe, but the question of whether or not it is should be answered based upon sound reasoning and at the moment: 'I don't have enough data to come to a conclusion, let's wait and see rather than make definitive declarations' is a completely valid answer.

Normal operating of aircraft does incur things like broken windows, tyre blowouts, damage through airport smashes with vehicles and a/c on the ramp. Even QANTAS has the odd engine explosion 737s usually), but we don't see common electrical issues on the same type.

Having some type of common recurring problem is typical of new aircraft introduction, however. That is why there are airlines that make it a policy of not being a launch customer. That is also why there were guys at Continental that bid 787 on the bet that they would end up with a lot of paid time off.

The 777, 757 or 767 didn't have these issues. Did they?

I still think Boeing is a great company, its a new airplane type for crying out loud, Im sure we will see many issues with the A350 as well.

Interesting. Let us watch and see if your quote is true. If not, what will you say?

 

And did you know Airbus took the lithium ion batteries out of its new A350?

 

I think it shows Airbus will do better, not taking risks.

Interesting. Let us watch and see if your quote is true. If not, what will you say?

 

And did you know Airbus took the lithium ion batteries out of its new A350?

 

I think it shows Airbus will do better, not taking risks.

 

I guess what im trying to say is, every new type of airplane will have issues. Im sure Airbus has learned a few things from the 787.

To the op, it seems like you're leading a witch hunt for this aircraft.

I am not following you and I keep seeing 787 topics (like this one you created just to bash it) and your postings of information not based on fact. It's all conjecture.

 

Airbus originally had planned for li-ion in the A350. They did not calculate the risk of it either.

They had the luxury of sitting back during their development stage to watch the 787 story unfold. They only backed off when li-ion became a naughty word.

I'm sure Boeing would've loved that same luxury.

They simply can not throw a ni-cad in there and call it good. Its not that simple. What they did do was the next best thing and engineer whatever risk is there out of the airplane.

 

Did anyone read the article above? The chief engineer of the 787 program got a promotion and 4 other chief engineers on different programs were moved also.

That is definitely not an issue. Just look at the quote in the article that HughesMDFlyer4 cited in post 6 above.

 

I've been on a flight test program for 3 years and have seen 2 chief engineers come and go.

 

Cessna proudly states that all new CJ4, Sovereign, Citation X and Citation M2 will have li-ion. That will not not stop me from riding in someone's jet if it was graciously offered.

The 777, 757 or 767 didn't have these issues. Did they?

What one item do they all have in common? If you guessed the ELT you'd be right. In fact, that same Honeywell ELT is installed in many, many aircraft of different manufacturers, so perhaps all of them should be grounded? :rolleyes:

 

 

They simply can not throw a ni-cad in there and call it good. Its not that simple. What they did do was the next best thing and engineer whatever risk is there out of the airplane.

 

The A350 can afford ni-cad batteries since the aircraft won't be as dependent on electrical power as the 787 is because Airbus engineers thoughtfully decided to include a bleed air system.