787 on fire

Seggy said:
Why is that?
Click to expand...
Nothing I'd say on the interwebz. Keep in mind I'm no Bill Lear, and I'm not the EMI guru (though maybe on this corner of the interwebz) , but I've got a few concerns left, and there is the crisis managemnt Boeing does that rubs me wrong. There are a number of things Boeing is still working on that would give me a warm and fuzzy when complete.The Boeing attitude is baffling to me sometimes but it isn't compromising safety.

SteveCostello said:
I suppose, then, that you are keeping them at home, and off the highway? Despite the issues, even the 787 is still safer than traveling on the highway.
Click to expand...
Am I suppose to take this post seriously? It seems like a cheerleader response to me intended for everyone that agrees with you, rather than a thought provoking response. The only thought that is provoking to me is who does this comparison convince? Aviation is a wildly different means of travel than the highways, and on a different plane of safety. Carnival cruise lines is probably safer than highway driving, I'd stay away from then too for a bit. Driving within a few miles of the house is much worse, statistically, than interstate driving but I don't park my car seven miles a way and hop a bus to the parking lot either.

I dont trust experimentals in hard IFR and I dont care how much off the shelf IFR crap you throw on there. Call me a cert snob but I probably evalute risk differently than you. If your goal is to convince me of something try a less cliche path.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Carnival cruise lines is probably safer than highway driving, I'd stay away from then too for a bit.
Click to expand...

Touché. That's a very valid point.

I didn't mean to be a cheerleader (although, I bet I would look FABULOUS in one of their outfits... WHEEE!!). I was just trying to make the point that avoiding travel on the 787 entirely seemed like an overreaction. They've had issues with an apparently unproven technology, and this has caused fires, something no one ever wants to experience in-flight, and is certainly worth considering options as far as which airplane you climb into. Points taken.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Nothing I'd say on the interwebz. Keep in mind I'm no Bill Lear, and I'm not the EMI guru (though maybe on this corner of the interwebz) , but I've got a few concerns left, and there is the crisis managemnt Boeing does that rubs me wrong. There are a number of things Boeing is still working on that would give me a warm and fuzzy when complete.The Boeing attitude is baffling to me sometimes but it isn't compromising safety.
Click to expand...

Joe, I am still trying to follow your reasoning.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the reasons for the initial fires have not been released yet. Even with that, let us assume it is the battery issue as all indicators are pointing to that. From my limited understanding Lithium Ion batteries need to be charged very specifically or it can be VERY bad news. Why should we assume it is a certification issue if the batteries weren't charged properly by a mechanic? Wouldn't that be a maintenance training issue?

Once again, how are these growing pains different than what other 'new concept' aircraft went through?
 
Seggy said:
Joe, I am still trying to follow your reasoning.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the reasons for the initial fires have not been released yet. Even with that, let us assume it is the battery issue as all indicators are pointing to that. From my limited understanding Lithium Ion batteries need to be charged very specifically or it can be VERY bad news. Why should we assume it is a certification issue if the batteries weren't charged properly by a mechanic? Wouldn't that be a maintenance training issue?

Once again, how are these growing pains different than what other 'new concept' aircraft went through?
Click to expand...
My statement about flying around on a 787 weren't related to this Heathrow thing. Honestly it was page five when the conversation started getting more broad that I wanted to chime in. I hope that makes some sense anyhow, maybe it was too thread hijacky of me.

You could have battery problems that would have something to do with MX charging them, your concern. My concern is the manufacturing process. These new batteries are a little tricky to get right during creation and tough to test for all critical anamolies (no spell check sorry). Two things i want to say at this point. One my concern on the manufacturing is second hand, I don't make LiIo batteries but someone I trust has a hand in it and he had concerns which are plausible. Secondly there are a number of things on an airplane electrical that may not be working because there is no way to test them without damage. Thats fine, I accept that.

MOVs for instance (type of varistor) are installed during manufacture and they often only work once. There is no way to test them for functionality. Some cheese eating surrender monkeys decided the benchmark in shunting tech to date wouldn't be used at all in their new flying surrender mega-plane. After millions of dollars, MOVs stuff the magic boxes of the double decker surrender vessle because the original design was impractile once it was brought to the cert test phase. So MOVs aren't perfect but we use thrm extensively. Is there an unlikely possibilty after an major environmental event no MOV is working on your airplane? A negligible possibility, yes.

LiIo's we are talking about are not the benchmark of batteries used in aviation today but it is likely (to me) they will become it. there are a number of challenges in the manufacture, transport, and storage of them, and I don't pretend to know them all. Manufacturing a safe one for use on airplanes is tricky. Internal failures are my speculation. Very easily I could be shown wrong and oblivious. I would bet Boeing will change some of their quality control processes with reference to battery manufacture for their vendors as a result.
 
SeanD said:
Investigators say the cause was from a lithium battery that powered the ELT.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...-787-dreamliner-fire-lithium-battery/2551451/
Click to expand...


This is awesome.

"Don't worry, if something happens to the plane because the lithium batteries that power the brakes explode, we'll be able to find you after you ditch with the ELT, which is also powered by lithium batteries, thus allowing you to start a forrest fire to send a smoke signal. Good luck, and God speed."
 
jtrain609 said:
This is awesome.

"Don't worry, if something happens to the plane because the lithium batteries that power the brakes explode, we'll be able to find you after you ditch with the ELT, which is also powered by lithium batteries, thus allowing you to start a forrest fire to send a smoke signal. Good luck, and God speed."
Click to expand...


I wonder if it might be time to seek out an alternative power source.
 
images


No doubt the 87 is getting better............:cool:
 
Yes, it is quite normal for airplanes to almost AND occasionally crash in their infancy. This is why we should NOT shy away! Put away your tin foil hats, people!
 
jtrain609 said:
This is awesome.

"Don't worry, if something happens to the plane because the lithium batteries that power the brakes explode, we'll be able to find you after you ditch with the ELT, which is also powered by lithium batteries, thus allowing you to start a forrest fire to send a smoke signal. Good luck, and God speed."
Click to expand...

As the article says though, this ELT type powered with these same batteries is installed on over 6,000 aircraft currently in service. I don't think that this is a Dreamliner issue.
 
crazyjaydawg said:
As the article says though, this ELT type powered with these same batteries is installed on over 6,000 aircraft currently in service. I don't think that this is a Dreamliner issue.
Click to expand...

No expert but its probably safe to say that the batteries in a 787 have a slightly higher load than a battery in an ELT.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top