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

I don't get it. What does this have to do with unions and qantas?

I don't get it. What does this have to do with unions and qantas?

 

You have missed the entire point. Do you even remember what you wrote ourself? Go and see what you accuse me of, then go back and read it. Take a few hours to think about it.

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.

 

Hint. You say something on the last line here. Do you know something? You make such a bad comment here it is not funny.

 

I haven't seen a 777 this year do an emergency landing due smoke. Haven't seen 50 777s grounded because of the danger and the apparent untrustworthiness of Boeing's design. Haven't seen a fire on an ELT in a 777 this year. Haven't seen a hull loss in a 777 this year apart from Asiana with pilots who were not competent.

 

Read the thread again. The media often get it wrong. But for example September 11th wasn't 'skewed' by the media. If you have half a brain you can discern where the media is truly wrong. It's not hard.

There was a 777 that almost had to ditch in the Pacific a few months ago. A major US airline almost lost its etops certification for that. My point is there is a lot of stuff going on in aviation that you don't hear about the way any hiccup with a 787 is reported. Compared to the things that do happen day in and day out, it really does not warrant the kind of attention and outrage that you and the media place on it.

There was a 777 that almost had to ditch in the Pacific a few months ago. A major US airline almost lost its etops certification for that. My point is there is a lot of stuff going on in aviation that you don't hear about the way any hiccup with a 787 is reported. Compared to the things that do happen day in and day out, it really does not warrant the kind of attention and outrage that you and the media place on it.

Exactly one of our 777's had a major fuel leak on the ramp earlier this year.

You be my guest then to fly a 787 if you think fires aren't a problem.

 

New technology is fine as long as it doesn't endanger people's lives. That is something you just don't get.

 

I'd be happy to get on a 787.

 

The airplane is endangering peoples lives?  Really?  Too bad no regulator or airline in the world agrees with you.  Teething problems happen, and the 787 is doing no worse than the 757, 767, or 777 experienced in their first few years of service.  The only difference now is that anything and everything is blown into the media for everyone to see.

I generally agree with everyone regarding the way media like to overhype, however..... We are talking about fires here on a new type of aircraft, electrical faults on a machine that has been hyped to be a primarily electric jet. The whole thing seems rushed

 

I could name a whole bunch of insider tech issues with the 787 that does not get reported, just the same way as your 777 fuel leak would not get reported by the media (unless there was a fire)

 

The 777,767,737,A3xx etc are proven machines, they will obviously go tech as they age and the first few machines will have glitches when they initially enter service.

 

We are not talking about gen bus failures, incorrect maintenance procedures, software faults, these almost fresh out of the factory aircraft have caught fire.

 

If anyone is in doubt about what a fire onboard a packed aircraft can do even when on the ground then have another read on British Airtours Flight 28M

 

Again, I think I will wait until she proves herself.

The biggest difference between flight 28 and the 787 is that 28 had an engine failure that punctured the fuel tank and plus the crew didn't use max braking during the rto because they thought that they blew a tire so evac was delayed a bit. Fuel fires tend to be worse than electrical in terms of how fast they get bad.

Hi Alex,

 

I probably should have been more clear, I was referring to the amount of panic & choas that ensues onboard when a fire takes hold within a packed aircraft.

The biggest difference between flight 28 and the 787 is that 28 had an engine failure that punctured the fuel tank and plus the crew didn't use max braking during the rto because they thought that they blew a tire so evac was delayed a bit. Fuel fires tend to be worse than electrical in terms of how fast they get bad.

 

Well an electrical fire in the wrong place can turn into a fuel fire pretty quickly . Fires are definitely not a normal teething issue. The two big questions on my mind are: 1) was there something specific about the 787 that set off the ELT at Heathrow, or was the 787 just unlucky (i.e. would that ELT also have ignited had it been installed on a T7) and 2) what happened on the Qatar plane?

I am going to find out what happened with the Qatar jet on Monday, its back in service btw, first flight since the incident and landed in Frankfurt this morning.

 

Edit - try to find out.

So the 787 is now operating with acceptable reliability rates, has been hit by lightning with no impact and had a fuselage repair completed...  Are we willing to say this was a bit of an overreaction yet or does the OP want to continue their conspiracy theory against Boeing and the 787?  I have been waiting for Daniel to come back and address his accusations but it appears they were unfounded all along...  Let's all hope for everyone's sake it continues like this and the-9 is a bigger success than the -8!!!

 

The average dispatch reliability so far stands at 98% and the 787 has an “operating cost better than estimates” which provides a 15% improvement over similar-sized aircraft, according to Mike Fleming, vice president (VP) of services and support of the 787 programme, in a Farnborough Airshow briefing this June.

 

 

 

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/08/23/boeing-787-dreamliner-programme-starts-to-soar/

 

• As of September 16, 2013
•  
• 14 Airline Customers
•  
• 84 Airplanes Delivered
•  
• 36,958 Flights
•  
• 7,391,600 Estimated Passengers Flown
•  
• 52,840,127 Miles Flown

I can tell you from insider knowledge that this aircraft is considered a pain in the &@($* from a maintenance point of view, nothing to do with catching fire. However not a big deal as its a new type and it is expected. I won't even begin to repeat what I have heard maintenance guys call this aircraft

I can tell you from insider knowledge that this aircraft is considered a pain in the &@($* from a maintenance point of view, nothing to do with catching fire. However not a big deal as its a new type and it is expected. I won't even begin to repeat what I have heard maintenance guys call this aircraft

 

OK, that I can respect but pain in the a** for maintenance is a far cry from the comments originally made in this thread about the 87...  Dispatch reliability certainly doesn't reflect major maintenance issues right now but it "appears" you are not talking about ongoing issues but the specifics of working on the plane.  Is that a fair interpretation? I don't want to put words in your mouth....

Yeah, just general maintenance issues. Nothing major, electrical glitches etc. Looks like I will be taking my first flight on one to Dubai in a few weeks.

Boeing just had the first flight of the 787-9

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AxxPtr_8V0