Japan Airlines B787 fire at Logan Airport 7th Jan

[Brown1950 67]

Looks like the cause of the fire could be associated with Lithium Batteries(first application in a

civil airliner)

 

To see what can happen when these batteries explode see fatal crash in Sept 2010 of B747F

in Dubai.

 

Good thing the B787 was not flying at the outbreak of the fire !

[jacko 8,766]

Looks like the cause of the fire could be associated with Lithium Batteries(first application in a

civil airliner)

 

To see what can happen when these batteries explode see fatal crash in Sept 2010 of B747F

in Dubai.

 

Good thing the B787 was not flying at the outbreak of the fire !

Actually they are used by Airbus too but only on the A380 emergency lighting. Source

 

Quite a controversy here as Boeing got the rules changed.

Article.

Edited January 8, 2013 by jacko

[regensburg 1]

Looks like they should call it the Nightmare Airliner

[short 215]

Lithium batteries are prohibited in luggage for this very reason.

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

Wild horses couldn't drag me on to a Nightmareliner.

[js007 795]

I wonder why they felt Lithium batteries were necessary, given their danger.

[Brown1950 67]

I wonder why they felt Lithium batteries were necessary, given their danger.

 

http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/aviation-lithium-ion-markets

[Samsonite 181]

Many of the pneumatic and hydraulic systems found on other jet airliners have been replaced with electrical systems on the 787. The onboard generators produce enough electricity to power 400 homes. Some say these recent incidents are "teething problems," but they have had years to work these things out and I would think these problems should have been found and solved a long time ago.

[regensburg 1]

Who would fly on a plane with so many faults ?

[Samsonite 181]

The problems will be worked out and in a couple of months forgotten about. The other 49, of the 50 so far delivered, are still flying and have logged over 18,000 cycles and 50,000 flight hours. As soon as the authorities have the information they need and the repairs are made (battery and wiring replaced) this one will also be back in the air.

The 777 has turned out to be the most reliable plane produced to date, especially the 777-300ER, but it too had its problems when it first went into service. All airplanes do. Some more than other.

The Lockheed L-1011 was a great plane, but it had engines problems due to the Rolls Royce engines. Currently the A380 has had wing component cracking problems which will take each plane so far delivered and everyone yet to be delivered this year, out of service for up to 8 weeks to repair the problem. It won't be until next year that they start delivery A380s without the problem.

We could go back 43 years to the first generation 747s that sat on the flight line with weights hanging off the wings where the engines should have been due to problems with the P/W engines. As I said, they all have initial problems that are worked out.

Thankfully, nothing has happened with recent "new" jet airliners like what befell the Comet, the first jet airliner, back in the 1950s.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Samsonite

[LasRobos 270]

The problems will be worked out and in a couple of months forgotten about.

 

The 777 has turned out to be the most reliable plane produced to date, especially the 777-300ER, but it too had its problems when it first went into service. All airplanes do. Some more than other.

 

Less than a year after the first appearance of the 777, United Airlines wrote a letter describing the 777's reliability as "a major disappointment". But as you say, today the 777 is considered one of the most reliable jets flying.

 

Currently the A380 has had wing component cracking problems which will take each plane so far delivered and everyone yet to be delivered this year, out of service for up to 8 weeks to repair the problem. It won't be until next year that they start delivery A380s without the problem.

 

And don't forget the A380 exploding engine, I believe on a Singapore Airlines 380.

 

How soon we forget. Most new jets have problems when they are first introduced. There is more reason for the 787 to have teething problems than typical given the leap in technology including the replacement of the heavy pneumatic control systems with electrical systems and digital circuitry as well as being the first passenger plane to be build mostly with carbon-fiber materials.

[steamer 158]

Lithium batteries have been allowed for years as long as they were in a device rather than loose.

[jacko 8,766]

But as you say, today the 777 is considered one of the most reliable jets flying.

 

 

 

A phrase I dislike intensely as it tells you nothing. It isn't THE MOST RELIABLE, otherwise it would say that. So it is second, third or fourth rated........ don't know.... just means someone can't be bothered telling you the real numbers so hits you with that phrase....one of the most annoying phrases out there.

There is data by airline, by type, by type of delay, by type of failure causing the delay and no doubt much more. I'm not sure how much of that information is publicly available.

[Samsonite 181]

If you want to take the time to look it up, go right ahead, but you're find the 777 has better than a 99% dispatch rate.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Samsonite

[jacko 8,766]

If you want to take the time to look it up, go right ahead, but you're find the 777 has better than a 99% dispatch rate.

I tried to find some rankings, the ATR came out higher than most!

Let the person making the claims provide sources!

United were unhappy a few years back.

I found Boeing claims of 99.2% for the 300ER

The 787 has 96.3 %, but does that include recent events?

 

A380 marketing head Richard Carcaillet says the retrofit improvements lifted the fleet's dispatch reliability rate by a percentage point, to 99.3%, from the beginning of 2012. So the A380 is better?

Edited January 12, 2013 by jacko

[LasRobos 270]

I tried to find some rankings, the ATR came out higher than most!

Let the person making the claims provide sources!

United were unhappy a few years back.

 

This is actually evidence that was used to prove the point that most new planes have significant problems when they are first introduced. The letter is dated less than a year after the 777 was brought into service. Yet despite the problems United had with the 777 when it was new, it is now considered one of the most reliable jets out there. This is based on experts interviewed by the Wall Street Journal. That may not be good enough for you, but that is your problem, not mine.

[jacko 8,766]

This is actually evidence that was used to prove the point that most new planes have significant problems when they are first introduced. The letter is dated less than a year after the 777 was brought into service. Yet despite the problems United had with the 777 when it was new, it is now considered one of the most reliable jets out there. This is based on experts interviewed by the Wall Street Journal. That may not be good enough for you, but that is your problem, not mine.

Yes, these numbers change And United's opinion probably has too.

New aircraft designs may initially have poorer reliability.

Source it or waffle it. Boeing 777 one of the worst...well worse than the A380, and A320 at 99.7% (Source China World Aviation Leasing Co., Ltd.).

I don't have a problem at all.

But I really wonder about these numbers to be honest.

Edited January 12, 2013 by jacko

[Samsonite 181]

With over 1,400 777s sold, so far, I doubt it is "one of the worst." Sounds like someone has been sniffing the "white out."

[jacko 8,766]

With over 1,400 777s sold, so far, I doubt it is "one of the worst." Sounds like someone has been sniffing the "white out."

Big Macs must be one of the best then!

[Samsonite 181]

Big Macs must be one of the best then!

 

Whole different ball game when you are paying $200 to $300 million per airplane vs a couple of bucks for a burger. But, then you know that....

Edited January 14, 2013 by Samsonite