The 787 is no longer a "new" aircraft!! It's been around for years now. So, these electrical problems, smoke, fires etc cannot be counted as "teething" problems! Hense the media interest!

Why, because all these problems are built into the a/c as designed. Boeing has frankly had long enough over the years to "ensure" that these are designed out of the a/c. They didn't bother methinks because they were too much in a rush to get the 787 into service. The media are rightly picking up on Boeing's faulty quality control and testing (or lack thereof).

All a/c have faults from time to time (especially those built on a Friday!) but the 787's faults all appear to be design faults which should have long ago been rectified.

Brilliant comment. Very well said. One if the best comments I have seen in here ever. Period.

 

You got it! The design flaws are what people are not just getting. They think if they turn a blind eye then it's just ok....... But it's not, and when they have a hull loss with a few hundred dead they will be in serious hot water then

The post below is taken from another forum, I should add I can fly up to 3 or 4 times a month with this airline at times using ID90 or 50 tickets, anyone who knows about ID90's will also know beggars can't be choosers, you wait list yourself and if a seat is available you jump on ASAP.

 

This is the first time I refuse to fly on a certain type of aircraft, yes all new aircraft go through teething trouble but fire is not something I am taking a risk with. If we find each other standing together at the ticket desk waiting for a seat on standby you are more then welcome to take my place on the 787, for the next 12 months I will stick with waiting a few extra hours and flying on their 777's and A330's

 

Will also add the only fire I consider not serious is when I light a cigarette or BBQ...

 

 

Attempt to hush up new Qatar 787 fire fails | Plane Talking

 

Attempt to hush up new Qatar 787 fire fails

 

Ben Sandilands | Jul 27, 2013 9:04AM | EMAIL | PRINT

*Updated with link to 787 management change

After days of stonewalling it has been confirmed that a Qatar Airways 787 caught fire, according to some reports, in a rear underfloor part of the fuselage, last Sunday as it was moving into position to take off from Doha airport.

The fire has been described as ‘serious’ in some quarters, ‘not serious’ by the airline, and also by one contact as having extensively damaged an important panel in the electrical bay that also caught fire in a test flight Dreamliner in November 2010, causing an emergency diversion to Laredo where that jet was evacuated.

It may be another reason for Qatar Airways to be reluctant to restore its original ambition to fly 787s between Doha and Perth from 1 February, a long oceanic route route with comparatively few emergency diversionary airport options along the way that would have become Australia’s first scheduled Dreamliner service, but has since been overlooked by the airline as it rebuilds and expands its services with the plastic electric jet.

 

 

goes on . . .

 

Note there are two major panels - the one during flight test was essentially under wing trailing edge and would be considered the forward panel

 

the rear panel is at the aft end of the cargo bay

I agree with you. I keep telling people about the 767, 777 and 757. Even the 747. Since when did they have fires like this? It is not acceptable and I believe in those days of old the old school would have been very adamant about solving the problem BEFORE it got out. If there was a risk they would have taken the safer option. These days "modern" thinkers don't have any understanding and it is perilous. Turning a blind eye to things in development must be a culture now or the Chief Engineer has too much power to veto any safety risk issues.....

I'd like to know how it got to this. But modern society is throwing away a lot of important elements of common sense if I may wrap it up in that phrase.

I miss the old school.

Looks like Boeing has been reluctant to share vital information according to this article which references the NY Times.

 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/01/30/dreamliner-boeing-knew-of-10-other-ana-battery-incidents/

 

 

Dreamliner: Boeing knew of 10 other 787 battery incidents

 

After years of lying about its Dreamliner project Boeing has now been caught by investigative reporters on the NYT withholding information that would have assisted the current investigation into battery fires on two 787s.

 

A damning story about what Boeing knew about earlier multiple and quite serious failures in the batteries in All Nippon Airways 787s has been broken in the New York Times.

 

The well referenced story implies very clearly that Boeing kept silent over vital information after the two incidents in a JAL and an ANA Dreamliner that lead to the groundings of the jet that Boeing has insisted wasn’t necessary.

 

This is an extract from the NYT story that casual visitors to its site will be able to read in full:

 

Officials at All Nippon Airways, the jets’ biggest operator, said in an interview on Tuesday that it had replaced 10 of the batteries in the months before fire and smoke in two cases caused regulators around the world to ground the jets.

 

The airline said it had told Boeing of the replacements as they occurred but had not been required to report them to safety regulators because no flights were canceled or delayed. National Transportation Safety Board officials said Tuesday that the replacements were now part of their inquiry.

 

The airline also, for the first time, explained the extent of the previous problems, which underscore the volatile nature of the batteries and add to concerns over whether Boeing and other plane manufacturers will be able to use the batteries safely.

 

In five of the 10 replacements, All Nippon said that the main battery had showed an unexpectedly low charge. An unexpected drop in a 787’s main battery also occurred on the All Nippon flight that had to make an emergency landing in Japan on Jan. 16.

 

The airline also revealed that in three instances, the main battery failed to operate normally and had to be replaced along with the charger. In other cases, one battery showed an error reading and another, used to start the auxiliary power unit, failed. All the events occurred from May to December of last year. And all the batteries were returned to their maker, GS Yuasa.

 

Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman for the National Transportation Safety Board, said investigators had only recently heard that there had been “numerous issues with the use of these batteries” on 787s. She said the board had asked Boeing, All Nippon and other airlines for information about the problems.

 

“That will absolutely be part of the investigation,” she said.

 

Several matters stand out. Boeing leaned on the FAA not to require a fire suppression system in the relation to lithium ion batteries in the 787 because a fire was impossible.

 

Boeing has resisted the grounding order, as well documented in the US media.

 

And Boeing has been insisting to its customers, like Norwegian, which is due to put 787s in service in April, that the grounding order will soon be lifted.

 

What does it take to make Boeing get real on these matters?

 

What does it take for it to become an accountable and transparent company prepared to face the consequences of obvious problems with the Dreamliner, and with its certification by an FAA that is now supposed to be reviewing its own actions in approving the jet as safe to fly?

Looks like Boeing has been reluctant to share vital information according to this article which references the NY Times.

 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/01/30/dreamliner-boeing-knew-of-10-other-ana-battery-incidents/

 

 

 

 

Too bad that is from January before the grounding, before the fix and is a blog...  What is your point in posting dated information to further your argument?  What is your argument that all 787's should be re-grounded?  Well I guess every other plane using that ELT should be grounded as well as the calls for inspections are spreading beyond the 787. 

http://centreforaviation.com/news/boeing-expands-elt-inspections-to-include-717-737ng-747-400-767-and-777-aircraft-250009

Boeing: ELT inspections

CAPA > Direct News Sources > Boeing: ELT inspections

29th July, 2013

 

28-Jul-2013 As most of you know, we sent out instructions to our 787 customers earlier this month giving them information on how to either inspect or remove the Honeywell Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) on their airplanes.

Today, Boeing is asking specific operators of 717, Next-Generation 737, 747-400, 767 and 777 airplanes to also inspect aircraft with the Honeywell fixed ELT. We’re taking this action following the U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) Special Bulletin, which recommended that airplane models with fixed Honeywell ELTs be inspected. The purpose of these inspections to is gather data to support potential rulemaking by regulators. 

We’ll be working closely with our customers in the coming days. As always, the safety of passengers and crew members who fly aboard Boeing airplanes is our highest priority.

 

 

 

We ALL get it, we know where you stand on the 787 but maybe you should focus on relevant information opposed to dated information to back your point...

Brilliant comment. Very well said. One if the best comments I have seen in here ever. Period.

 

You got it! The design flaws are what people are not just getting. They think if they turn a blind eye then it's just ok....... But it's not, and when they have a hull loss with a few hundred dead they will be in serious hot water then

 

 

Based on publically available evidence, we have the following major incidents for the 787:

 

- Fire in electrical panel during 787 testing.

- The JAL/ANA battery fires (unless you buy Boeing's b.s. that it's only a fire if the entire plane is ablaze )

- Ethiopian Heathrow fire.

- Qatar incident, what ever it was.

 

This seems a high number of incidents, but I've yet to see anyone provide a statistical analysis to prove the claim either way.

No cause has yet been published for the JAL/ANA fires or the Heathrow fires.

For the JAL/ANA fires, it could be a design flaw, it could also be a production quality issue. According to Boeing the 'super fire-box (or whatever Boeing calls it)' and battery redesign has fixed matters. In principle I accept their  redesign + containment argument, but I don't know enough details to pass judgement on the implementation.

For the Ethiopian fire, based on the AAIB bulletin the likely source was the ELT. Inspections have found pinched wires in  ELTs on other 787s, which again would be a production quality issue, not a design flaw.

On the Qatar incident I don't have enough data to say anything sensible.

Likewise for the test flight fire, although I do believe that resulted in a redesign, presumably fixing whatever design flaw was the root cause.

 

In summary: the 787 may or may not be experiencing more issues for a plane its age. My gut feeling is it is, but I've yet to see any actual numbers. Based on the available evidence, the major incidents may have been caused by design flaws, or they may have been caused by something else (e.g. quality control issues).

 

Now if based on that you want to invoke the precautionary principle and demand all 787s are grounded until the causes of the JAL/ANA and Heathrow incidents have been found, that is an argument I can get behind. However to say at this point that the 787 definitely has design flaws, is jumping to conclusions.

 

Note that I'm not saying that the 787 doesn't have design flaws, just that the current publicly available evidence does not support the assertion that it does.

Too bad that is from January before the grounding, before the fix and is a blog... What is your point in posting dated information to further your argument? What is your argument that all 787's should be re-grounded? Well I guess every other plane using that ELT should be grounded as well as the calls for inspections are spreading beyond the 787.

http://centreforaviation.com/news/boeing-expands-elt-inspections-to-include-717-737ng-747-400-767-and-777-aircraft-250009 Boeing: ELT inspections

CAPA > Direct News Sources > Boeing: ELT inspections

29th July, 2013

 

 

 

 

We ALL get it, we know where you stand on the 787 but maybe you should focus on relevant information opposed to dated information to back your point...

 

 

My whole point is that they were turning a blind eye and didn't want anyone to know.

 

This history is relevant as if a company has no integrity is that not important? Maybe not to you.

Based on publically available evidence, we have the following major incidents for the 787:

 

- Fire in electrical panel during 787 testing.

- The JAL/ANA battery fires (unless you buy Boeing's b.s. that it's only a fire if the entire plane is ablaze )

- Ethiopian Heathrow fire.

- Qatar incident, what ever it was.

 

This seems a high number of incidents, but I've yet to see anyone provide a statistical analysis to prove the claim either way.

No cause has yet been published for the JAL/ANA fires or the Heathrow fires.

For the JAL/ANA fires, it could be a design flaw, it could also be a production quality issue. According to Boeing the 'super fire-box (or whatever Boeing calls it)' and battery redesign has fixed matters. In principle I accept their redesign + containment argument, but I don't know enough details to pass judgement on the implementation.

For the Ethiopian fire, based on the AAIB bulletin the likely source was the ELT. Inspections have found pinched wires in ELTs on other 787s, which again would be a production quality issue, not a design flaw.

On the Qatar incident I don't have enough data to say anything sensible.

Likewise for the test flight fire, although I do believe that resulted in a redesign, presumably fixing whatever design flaw was the root cause.

 

In summary: the 787 may or may not be experiencing more issues for a plane its age. My gut feeling is it is, but I've yet to see any actual numbers. Based on the available evidence, the major incidents may have been caused by design flaws, or they may have been caused by something else (e.g. quality control issues).

 

Now if based on that you want to invoke the precautionary principle and demand all 787s are grounded until the causes of the JAL/ANA and Heathrow incidents have been found, that is an argument I can get behind. However to say at this point that the 787 definitely has design flaws, is jumping to conclusions.

 

Note that I'm not saying that the 787 doesn't have design flaws, just that the current publicly available evidence does not support the assertion that it does.

 

Fires in the electrical system of the aircraft and electrical problems tell me that it is very possibly a design flaw in light of the design flaw they covered up with the batteries. They tried to reassure everyone that is was ok until the ANA had an emergency landing.

 

Then they were made to do something about the problem.

 

If the company can't be trusted to sort it's design flaws out then maybe we shouldn't trust the build of aircraft.

 

I say lets (or me more specifically) build out own. Without lithium ions. And with an electrical system that doesn't fail.

 

 

Since when did they have fires like this?

 

How about the MD-11 and its issues with overheating IFE units (remember SWR 111?)

 

 

 

- Ethiopian Heathrow fire.

 

Which again is not Boeing's fault since they do not make the ELT's, that fire could have happened to any plane carrying that make and model ELT. 

How about the MD-11 and its issues with overheating IFE units (remember SWR 111?)

 

 

Which again is not Boeing's fault since they do not make the ELT's, that fire could have happened to any plane carrying that make and model ELT.

It's very strange that the ELT fire has ONLY happened on the 787 and industry has it that it was a known problem on the 787 and not other aircraft. Hmmm....

Well I'm talking about the 757, 767 and 777. But was the IFE supplied by Boeing for the MD11s?

 

And this also brings a remarkable point. The Halifax disaster was caused by a fire. Let us look at that and we will question even more the 787 cover ups and issues it has.

 

 

But was the IFE supplied by Boeing for the MD11s?

 

Highly doubt it, they are probably third party on all airliners whether its Airbus, Boeing, Douglas, Tupolev, etc just like galley equipment and many other cabin fixtures.

 

 

 

The Halifax disaster was caused by a fire. Let us look at that and we will question even more the 787 cover ups and issues it has.

 

But that crash has also been caused by the lengthy checklists that the crew decided to accomplish vs landing ASAP, post flight 111 SWR immediately disabled all IFE on MD-11's until a fix can be created. Boeing has issued a fix that should contain any fire long enough for the crew make a landing, I'm sure if the 787 was still in development delivery schedules would have been pushed back but its not really feasible to ground airplanes for over a year especially with some airlines relying on it to pull a profit while you are trying to find the root cause of the problem that could be traced back to the battery maker. 

 

 

 

It's very strange that the ELT fire has ONLY happened on the 787

 

I highly doubt it only happened on 787's, if such a think were to happen on an A320 before the 787 had problems I'm sure the media wouldn't create as much of a hysteria as they are now. 

 

 

Well I'm talking about the 757, 767 and 777.

 

As for the 777 look up the Egypt Air 777 that caught fire at the gate and the plane was a writeoff since the fire burnt a sizable hole through the fuselage, they were in the process of boarding and the pilots couldn't tackle the blaze with a halon extinguisher. 

Highly doubt it, they are probably third party on all airliners whether its Airbus, Boeing, Douglas, Tupolev, etc just like galley equipment and many other cabin fixtures.

 

 

But that crash has also been caused by the lengthy checklists that the crew decided to accomplish vs landing ASAP, post flight 111 SWR immediately disabled all IFE on MD-11's until a fix can be created. Boeing has issued a fix that should contain any fire long enough for the crew make a landing, I'm sure if the 787 was still in development delivery schedules would have been pushed back but its not really feasible to ground airplanes for over a year especially with some airlines relying on it to pull a profit while you are trying to find the root cause of the problem that could be traced back to the battery maker.

 

 

I highly doubt it only happened on 787's, if such a think were to happen on an A320 before the 787 had problems I'm sure the media wouldn't create as much of a hysteria as they are now.

 

 

As for the 777 look up the Egypt Air 777 that caught fire at the gate and the plane was a writeoff since the fire burnt a sizable hole through the fuselage, they were in the process of boarding and the pilots couldn't tackle the blaze with a halon extinguisher.

A good thought out counter argument.

 

But the Eygpt Air 777 was one out of hundreds and the the 777s haven't experienced fires in electrical panels, batteries and ELTs.

 

Name one aircraft type apart from the 787 with the same problem as the 787 ELT. I bet you can't.

That's because it would have never made the news on any other aircraft. I know of a recent fire incident involving the windshield heat of an aircraft as it was landing. Did you hear of it? I challenge you to find anything in the media about this incident.

That's because it would have never made the news on any other aircraft. I know of a recent fire incident involving the windshield heat of an aircraft as it was landing. Did you hear of it? I challenge you to find anything in the media about this incident.

 

Tried looking for it, and came across this article instead: http://archive.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/03/faa-studies-boeing-jet-windshield-fires.html

 

Choice quote: "The incidents are prompting new concerns about the adequacy of federal safety rules and voluntary industry efforts to combat windshield-fire dangers on wide-body Boeing 767 and single-aisle 757 aircraft."

Nope, that's just some general piece on the general hazard. I'm challenging him to find a specific article on the specific incident which occurred back in May. All you have to do is google 'ELT fire' and pages and pages of articles from Reuters, business week, cnbc, Forbes, wholesalepricevacations, etc etc etc., all on the Air Ethiopia 787 fire pop up. Why won't the general media cover the incident that I am challenging him to find articles on? Isn't a fire in the cockpit just as dangerous? You'd think it would get as much play as an ELT battery fire on a parked and empty plane, wouldn't you?

Nope, that's just some general piece on the general hazard. I'm challenging him to find a specific article on the specific incident which occurred back in May. All you have to do is google 'ELT fire' and pages and pages of articles from Reuters, business week, cnbc, Forbes, wholesalepricevacations, etc etc etc., all on the Air Ethiopia 787 fire pop up. Why won't the general media cover the incident that I am challenging him to find articles on? Isn't a fire in the cockpit just as dangerous? You'd think it would get as much play as an ELT battery fire on a parked and empty plane, wouldn't you?

Depends on what else was going on in the world at the time . You just have to look at avherald on a random day and compare how much gets in the general media (or even the specialised aviation media).

Just in case it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you and also responding to the earlier claim that 757s and 767s didn't have any fire problems and/or design flaws.

Depends on what else was going on in the world at the time . You just have to look at avherald on a random day and compare how much gets in the general media (or even the specialised aviation media).

Just in case it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you and also responding to the earlier claim that 757s and 767s didn't have any fire problems and/or design flaws.

The point i am making to IAF747 is that there was a similarly dangerous incident on May 2 on a different type of aircraft and there is only one article about it in a local paper. While if it was a 787, every writer in the western and eastern world will scramble to put it on the front page. By searching for 'elt fire' you will get tons of hits on the 787 fire. But a similar search on 'windshield heat fire' turns up crickets. What Daniel does not realize is that his perception and outrage is completely skewed by the popular media.

The point i am making to IAF747 is that there was a similarly dangerous incident on May 2 on a different type of aircraft and there is only one article about it in a local paper. While if it was a 787, every writer in the western and eastern world will scramble to put it on the front page. By searching for 'elt fire' you will get tons of hits on the 787 fire. But a similar search on 'windshield heat fire' turns up crickets. What Daniel does not realize is that his perception and outrage is completely skewed by the popular media.

 

You read the following: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/375437-qantas-and-the-boeing-777/page-5