787 DREAMLINER DELAY TO BA
Back to Forum- This topic has 145 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 12 Jul 2013
at 20:19 by LuganoPirate.
-
- Author
- Posts
- Skip to last reply Create Topic
-
flyingcanadianParticipantFurther to the comments above, I see that Boeing intends to return the 787 to commercial service within “weeks, rather than months”. Even after several months and 500 pages of research, they have NOT FOUND THE CAUSE. They are ONLY going to ensure that it is SAFE and SHOULD/IF a fire re-occurs, then it will be contained within the Battery Unit. Any comments PLEASE, and do you yourself feel it safe enough to fly the “Dreamliner”? I appreciate that financially this will be hurting “Boeing”, but do you cut corners for Pax safety?
19 Mar 2013
at 11:36
VintageKrugParticipantI’d have no hesitation in flying on one, once re-certified.
19 Mar 2013
at 12:14
Shanwick1249ParticipantAnaB
..and also, I hope, to report them more accurately.
The FAA has not approved any ‘fix’ to the 787. Boeing has been given permission to start trials on two aircraft in an attempt to demonstrate its work-around for the 787 battery/electrical system problem (which the company has still not diagnosed or solved).
If this workaround is approved by the FAA then the 787 will be allowed back to the air (almost certainly with restrictions). It remains to be seen if other airworthiness authorities (or the NTSB) will be as happy to put their hands over their eyes has the FAA has proved to be so far.
19 Mar 2013
at 12:30
biarritzsurf9ParticipantI really don’t think that ‘containment’ of the issue will be seen as a solution by us frequent flyers. ‘Venting and containment’ of a fire is the solution proposed by Boeing. Really? I know they must be under huge pressure but if they go ahead with this solution then the aircraft’s reputation will suffer even further ……
19 Mar 2013
at 12:57
MartynSinclairParticipantIf its safe enough for the pilots to fly, its safe enough for me to passenger in the 787…
19 Mar 2013
at 13:30
JohnHarperParticipantWell while I usually agree with the sentiments Martyn expresses above, in this case, it’s not good enough.
I certainly don’t want to fly on a plane where the problem of a fire has not been solved but it has been contained and a venting solution has been introduced.
19 Mar 2013
at 14:13
HarryMonkParticipantI certainly won’t fly on it until the cause had been identified and the necessary re-work / re-design has been completed. As others have already said, containment of a possible future fire is not a good enough solution.
Whats next? Allow passengers to smoke on board as long as there are more fire extinguishers?19 Mar 2013
at 14:53
excessbaggageParticipantOr a car manufacturer getting round a problem with its brakes, by making better airbags.
19 Mar 2013
at 14:55
TimFitzgeraldTCParticipantWith the fire “containment” being a temporary fix I guess “if” they get a license to fly commercially it might only be on the basis that they are no more than “x” many minutes from a runway in the event of an emergency. So they may be OK for US/Japanese domestic flights perhaps but certainly not transcontinental flights.
I certainly wouldn’t touch them for anything longhaul until they had got it properly sorted. I can’t imagaine many pilots would be over happy with it either. Also where are airlines going to get insurance from to cover any potential accident. If I was in the airline insurance market and all that was in place was a fire containment device – I wouldn’t be insuring. Fires and planes don’t mix well.
19 Mar 2013
at 14:59
lloydahParticipantYou know, last time I was on a 777 -300 (Jan) I felt safe, comfortable and in no way wanting to be on a 787. That’s how it’s going to stay with me too unless BA get some 747 8s in their fleet. Certificates or no, I don’t want to fly on anything that means I’m thinking “I wonder what the batteries are doing this minute?”
19 Mar 2013
at 15:38
canuckladParticipantThe management at Boeing must live in cloud cuckoo land !!
Are we , as intelligent people going to be brain washed into thinking there are different degrees of fire severity on an aircraft !!!
How many incidents have there been in the past where pilots have processed themselves to death as they deal with a fire on board!!
Ask any fireman, what the most unpredictable thing they have to deal with!!………ehhhh….FIRE !
MADNESS —- FIRE RISK = AIRCRAFT STAYS ON THE GROUND
They would need to prove themselve safe, before I get on board…similar to tAirbus and the FBW issues…
19 Mar 2013
at 15:48
Henkel.TrockenParticipantI’m with others, I’m not flying on something that has an increased risk of fire and has devices in place to contain this.
Well put canucklad, Boeing really are in cloud cuckoo land and clearly desperate to get this in the air again.
I’ve said from the word go I would only fly it after it had been in service for a considerable amount of time and I still have a gut feeling that it’s not safe.
19 Mar 2013
at 16:45
Flyingsoldier1993ParticipantI do not feel comfotable with this so called “Fix” Nor do I trust the FAA any longer. They certified this plane to be safe in the first place.
19 Mar 2013
at 16:57 -
AuthorPosts
