Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 172

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

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    FAA Grounds ALL 787's .

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

    Gabriel tell me more about the 747...

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKiecker View Post
    FAA Grounds ALL 787's .

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

    Gabriel tell me more about the 747...
    Holy shimoly! That's some serious shiznit.

  3. #23
    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

  4. #24
    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/

  5. #25
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,120

    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?

  6. #26
    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.

  7. #27
    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..

  8. #28
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,118

    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.
    Industry outsider with a little knowledge and a lot of questions, who leaves PPRUNE alone so insiders can have good discussions there...

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    263

    Default

    "Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe."

    Shouldn't this had been part of the certification process? What happened to proper regulation? At least someone at the FAA had the balls to take action. Not saying this is necessarily a serious safety issue, but just in case. It's much better than having one crash "in downtown Manhattan". I certainly wouldn't like that, even though I do admire Airbus.
    I guess at this point no one really knows anything. There are rumors circulating about a known issue with the Li-ion batteries on the 787, which was played down. Credible or not, it does seem possible the issues with the 787 are stemming from the business side. The plane was three years and the pressure must have been tremendous. This could have led to cutting a few corners. Are we going to see a an exec or two take responsibility for this?

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    1,090

    Default

    As already mentioned, mismanaged and underfunded programme. Airplane itself is very promising, I think they have to go back a step and swap the Li-Ion batteries for something
    else.
    The producer of the batteries which happens to be japanese had a fire caused by the same kind of batteries which led to a building burning down,
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ritory-381148/
    "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

  11. #31
    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"

  12. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Ram View Post
    "Before further flight, operators of U.S.-registered, Boeing 787 aircraft must demonstrate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the batteries are safe."

    Shouldn't this had been part of the certification process? What happened to proper regulation? At least someone at the FAA had the balls to take action. Not saying this is necessarily a serious safety issue, but just in case. It's much better than having one crash "in downtown Manhattan". I certainly wouldn't like that, even though I do admire Airbus.
    I guess at this point no one really knows anything. There are rumors circulating about a known issue with the Li-ion batteries on the 787, which was played down. Credible or not, it does seem possible the issues with the 787 are stemming from the business side. The plane was three years and the pressure must have been tremendous. This could have led to cutting a few corners. Are we going to see a an exec or two take responsibility for this?

    This may be the best post ever on the internet.

  13. #33
    Member saupatel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    551

    Default

    Oh well, i was going to LAX this weekend just to see the 787's.

    Screw it just remove the Li-Ion batteries and stick a few Energizer batteries in there

  14. #34

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    As already mentioned, mismanaged and underfunded programme. Airplane itself is very promising, I think they have to go back a step and swap the Li-Ion batteries for something
    else.
    I guess that is not so easy, as Li-ion was of course chosen for a reason: In the 787 many systems are operated electrically that conventionally were powered hydraulically or by something else. thus, the reserve batteries which supply the electricity in case of engine failure must provide a very high capacity.

    So I guess exchanging Li-Ion for something else is not an option - it's either to make the Li-ion technology safe for aviation, or to change the concept of the airplane. The latter would be a pity, because I think the way they were going is the right one!

  16. #36
    Member hongmng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    East Greenbush, NY, USA
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Just a question:

    Will Ethiopian, LAN continue to fly their 787 to places not in US, EU, or Japan?(Like from Ethiopia Capital to Tel Aviv, Guangzhou, etc)

  17. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hongmng View Post
    Just a question:

    Will Ethiopian, LAN continue to fly their 787 to places not in US, EU, or Japan?(Like from Ethiopia Capital to Tel Aviv, Guangzhou, etc)
    No. All the Airlines will almost certainly wait until the FAA gives the all clear.

    How long does everybody think it will be grounded for? I'll take a guess at 18 days.

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsv View Post
    No. All the Airlines will almost certainly wait until the FAA gives the all clear.

    How long does everybody think it will be grounded for? I'll take a guess at 18 days.
    Is that some standard duration, or do you have some basis for that guess?

    Since the goal is to convince FAA that the batteries are safe, what can they do and how long would it take?

    An interim solution of e.g. putting more temperature sensors and making unscheduled landings every time something gets a little warm might not be the most economic solution...

  19. #39
    Administrator seahawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany - near DUS
    Posts
    7,497

    Default

    Impossible to say, considering the FAA wants them to prove that the battery and the containment are safe, while both failed 2 times in a week, so I guess proving this will be hard, if they do not find a fault in the installation or something.

  20. #40
    Junior Member Arrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Old Credit Pilsner; not just for breakfast anymore
    Posts
    99

    Default

    I would put the question out as to 'what is new/novel in the particular system?'

    I appreciate that the airframe is revolutionary rather than evolutionary and (again from the parlour talker corner) I would think that somehow the power draw/power flow-through on the battery system is for some reason exceeding the design intentions. Is it possible that therre's a SwissAir 111-type situation at platy?

    Arrow

Posting Permissions

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