Originally posted by mfeldt
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
ANA 787 Emergency Landing in TAK - FAA grounds 787
Collapse
X
-
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
-
Well, CBS news said tonight that all 787s have been grounded. Worldwide.
I hope this turns out well for the 787 and for Boeing, but if they have to replace those lithium ion batteries, that will be expensive.
Why hasn't the 747-8 had any problems like the 787's had? I know that it shares a lot of the same technology.
Comment
-
The highly diverse* planning team meets to discuss batteries.
Aggressive, young business graduate- "I hear that Lithium Ion batteries have great performance."
Tired elder engineer- "Yeah, and I recall laptop computers catching fire and real scare that it might happen on an airplane."
Aggressive, young business graduate- "But we will engineer safety systems around it, and our supplier says they can design batteries that won't overheat and catch fire, and do it for less than the company you suggested.
Tired elder engineer- "Yeah, whatever, never mind that the company I worked with supplied safe batteries for years, and never mind that at 41,000 feet in the middle of the ocean, might be a crappy situation if something went wrong."
Conclusion: Team lead feels that the engineer has a bad attitude and drools at the potential accolades for finding a cheaper, better battery
*Footnote "Diverse" is a jab at the tendency to get folks who LACK EXPERTISE to work on these teams and is not a statement in regard to sex, race, sexual orientation, age, religion, veteran or disability status.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Let us not forget that in its early days of service some Airbus engine parts decided to blow through the engine cowling and the wing...
Yeah, it was mostly the engine's fault, but a number of critical things in the wing- incuding the spars came very close to being taken out, making the flight come awfully close to ending in a smoking hole.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by UALdave View Post
...I really don't understand...
...pose a high fire risk...
...but maybe not low enough.
Therefore that's not all there is too it.
Remember, an engine failure on a single engine plane is a bad thing. However, if you are going to experience an engine failure, you are better off in a single than a light twin.
So, just swapping out batteries might not be the answer and maybe someone should consider putting parachutes on light planes?Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by chris78cpr View PostDoes anyone know what the reg of the ANA 787 that made the emergency landing?
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostRemember, an engine failure on a single engine plane is a bad thing. However, if you are going to experience an engine failure, you are better off in a single than a light twin.
Now back to the 787 I think your analogy with the tired engineer is quite right! I've seen that happen in many many businesses in my life.AD.com apocalypse survivor. 727 Fan.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostRemember, an engine failure on a single engine plane is a bad thing. However, if you are going to experience an engine failure, you are better off in a single than a light twin.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kpeters View PostI know it's off topic but can you elaborate on that? Other than not being qualified enough to fly with only 1 engine on a twin, wouldn't the power from the remaining engine at least give you a controlled descent?
1) On a twin, you have twice the chances to suffer an engine failure.
2) Pilots of small twins, on average, are not that good at handling 1 dead engine and the other at full power. The result is that, sometimes, they loss control, with consequences typically much worse than a forced-off airport landing with no power.
Combining 1) and 2), the result is that, after an engine failure, there are proportionally more death in light twins than in singles.
But that's on average. If you are rally good at handling engine failures in light twins, your chances to survive an engine failure are better in a twin than in a single.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by hongmng View PostI think every twin when certified by FAA needs to be able to climb at a certain rate in the event of an engine failure?
Light PART 23 twins that have a stall speed of 61kts or less are not required to be able to climb in one engine.
Other than that, all light PART 23 twins, regardless of its stall speed, are not required to be able to climb in one engine in other than clean config, the prop of the dead engine feathered, and the speed t "best engine-out climb speed", which is typically faster than the take-off speed. That means that there is a short period of time after rotation where you'll not be able to climb on one engine.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
Comment