Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 172

Thread: ANA 787 Emergency Landing in TAK - FAA grounds 787

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Member James Bond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    43°29'04.4"S 172°31'30.7"E
    Posts
    398

    Default ANA 787 Emergency Landing in TAK - FAA grounds 787

    Reported as a "battery malfunction warning" by CNBC. All pax and crew safe.

    Destination was HND.

    http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b787-34497.htm
    Last edited by seahawk; 01-17-2013 at 06:11 AM.
    AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

    Quote Originally Posted by orangehuggy View Post
    the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21038128#TWEET527941

    Gabriel will tell us its no big deal... You couldnt pay me to get on one of these shitboxes .

  3. #3
    Member James Bond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    43°29'04.4"S 172°31'30.7"E
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiecker View Post
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21038128#TWEET527941

    Gabriel will tell us its no big deal... You couldnt pay me to get on one of these shitboxes .
    Just in (CNBC):

    ANA Airways suspending all Boeing 787 Dreamliner flights for emergency inspection, following emergency landing tonight.
    AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

    Quote Originally Posted by orangehuggy View Post
    the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...09U05G20130116

    17 out of how many? This is unreal. Hey Gabriel how is your teething pain?

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiecker View Post
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...09U05G20130116

    17 out of how many? This is unreal. Hey Gabriel how is your teething pain?
    Okay, you are right. It's a pain in the ass. Like when Qantas and others grounded the A380 fleet to check the engines.

  6. #6
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,699

    Default

    and out come the airbus fanboys....

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    But its not just ONE thing its multiple things.. battery fires, fuel spills, oil spills, smoke in the cockpit.. Within 1 WEEK !!!!!

    Its a different bag of rice here.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default 787 GROUNDED by the FAA

    Sorry charlie, ( Gabriel) I guess its not the Airbus boys. Its just common sense.

    RT @MattSoleyn: #Breaking - #FAA: All U.S. Airlines ordered to ground the #Boeing 787 indefinitely. $BA #finance


    http://www.prod.kirotv.com/news/news...ng-787s/nTyfB/
    Last edited by TheKiecker; 01-16-2013 at 11:25 PM. Reason: linky

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    I cant believe Airbus would do this to Boeing !!!

    http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intel...unded-for-now/

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,468

    Default

    Okay, I admit there is an important issue to be fixed there (I had done it in the past too, saying that, among all the incidents, the electrical system was critical thing).

    But is there a necessity to call my name and put happy, LOLing and dancing emoticons? I can't imagine you happiness if a 787 crashes in downtown Manhattan killing 1000 souls.

    And, for the record, I've never been part in the "Airbus fanboys vs Scarebus" discussion. Ok?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Okay, I admit there is an important issue to be fixed there (I had done it in the past too, saying that, among all the incidents, the electrical system was critical thing).

    But is there a necessity to call my name and put happy, LOLing and dancing emoticons? I can't imagine you happiness if a 787 crashes in downtown Manhattan killing 1000 souls.

    And, for the record, I've never been part in the "Airbus fanboys vs Scarebus" discussion. Ok?
    I agree it's over the top Gabriel. A few weeks ago I questioned the precautionary landing of a 787 in New Orleans. I think I was correct in questioning it, but it has certainly shown in the following events that there have been a number of serious issues with this aircraft. I believe, like you, that the 787 is probably a good airplane, and will end up being shown to be so, but right now there are some very serious questions about its systems that need to be resolved.

    3WE, I apologize.

  12. #12
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deadstick View Post
    3WE, I apologize.
    No need- I'm always playing devil's advocate- and took 1/2 of your statement- when you did lay out "both sides" in your full post.

    Gosh, I forgot about that incident...yeah, something electrical and a moderately prompt precautionary landing...

    I'm also thinking of Brian W's post about how getting someone to the emergency room in 6 min, but they die is a success because you met your goals...

    Too many business grads who spewing 'agressive feel good goals and processes' while running over math and valid concerns?

    The timeline is everything...proper 'construction' is secondary.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Okay, I admit there is an important issue to be fixed there (I had done it in the past too, saying that, among all the incidents, the electrical system was critical thing).

    But is there a necessity to call my name and put happy, LOLing and dancing emoticons? I can't imagine you happiness if a 787 crashes in downtown Manhattan killing 1000 souls.

    And, for the record, I've never been part in the "Airbus fanboys vs Scarebus" discussion. Ok?

    Jan 16 2013 : Gabriel admits he MIGHT be wrong..

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    1,090

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiecker View Post
    Sorry charlie, ( Gabriel) I guess its not the Airbus boys. Its just common sense.

    RT @MattSoleyn: #Breaking - #FAA: All U.S. Airlines ordered to ground the #Boeing 787 indefinitely. $BA #finance


    http://www.prod.kirotv.com/news/news...ng-787s/nTyfB/
    As for calling Gabriel for ITS, well, not too pleasant, ITS always called 787 a "plastic plane".
    Heres the official response to the grounding, http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2563
    "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    201

    Default

    How much weight would be added to the 787 if traditional lead cadmium batteries were installed, in place of the lithium ion batteries now in place? How much would it cost?

    I just can't understand why Boeing would go with the more risky lithium ion batteries-I mean, it's not like they didn't make the 787 light enough without them.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    1,090

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by UALdave View Post
    How much weight would be added to the 787 if traditional lead cadmium batteries were installed, in place of the lithium ion batteries now in place? How much would it cost?

    I just can't understand why Boeing would go with the more risky lithium ion batteries-I mean, it's not like they didn't make the 787 light enough without them.
    Its also a matter of size, since other batteries with the same amount of juice will be larger.
    Another interesting claim is that the current batteries on the 787 only can be used up to
    85% otherwise the get locked. I heard the term "usable fuel" but not "usable electricity"?
    http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...mid=obinsource
    "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    Its also a matter of size, since other batteries with the same amount of juice will be larger.
    Another interesting claim is that the current batteries on the 787 only can be used up to
    85% otherwise the get locked. I heard the term "usable fuel" but not "usable electricity"?
    http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...mid=obinsource
    Not that uncommon - it (ironically) with some battery types improves longevity.

    The battery in the Toyota Prius is only ever allowed to charge to 80% and discharge no lower than 40% - effectively you have a battery pack you are only using 40% of its total capacity out of.

    See here for more: http://www.hybridinterfaces.ca/stockNIMH.html


    Same with Lead acid chemistry - many people believe that because they have a deep cycle battery in their RV/House/ Second battery in the 4x4 that they can regularly cane all the energy out of it. Cycle life in all lead acid chemistry is massively improved the lower the depth of discharge.

    http://www.google.com.au/search?q=le...tm%3B500%3B345

    The only battery that seems to be the exception to this is NiFe chemistry.

  18. #18
    Member saupatel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    551

    Default

    Looks like Boeing is flight testing one of the frame today from FTW to PNE.

    http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE382

    Nevermind. Its just a relocation flight with special permission from the FAA.
    Last edited by saupatel; 02-07-2013 at 06:33 PM.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    at 1,600 metres
    Posts
    1,259

    Default

    Today's NTSB press release
    http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130207.html

  20. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Berlin , Germany
    Posts
    61

    Default The 787 - A technical masterpiece ?

    It seems to me that the Boeing 787 is an airplane without any special skills. Technically not round and full of problems and dangerous breakdowns. The FAA gronded the type because of many many problems we all know.
    Now it happened again in Heathrow when a 787 from Ethiopian caught fire and was damaged and in Boston recently when this bird had to return to Logan Intl. because of a light that warned from a fire.

    These are more than theeting troubles to me. They are now dangerous and nasty. The 787 : a great plane with starting problems or a flop ?

    What do you think out there around the globe ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •