Boeing787 a motherfucker!(words from Boeing assembler).

[MT]

I knew it have battery problem but not that it had inbuilt potential structural failures!


https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/

[ez24]

Someday I hope I can fly in a 787 because I read people feel better in them.  Over 500 in service and no crashes.

[Mr. Scram]

I haven’t watched the video as I generally don’t watch videos that are linked without very little context, but almost every aircraft has inbuilt structural weaknesses. Sometimes it’s better to control the point of failure. A good example would be the bolts that attach the engines to the wings. Those are intended to snap off when the engine becomes unstable. It’s better to lose a dangerous engine than to have it tear your wings to shreds.

They often do the same in products. It’s better to engineer a simple or cheap part to fail in a predictable fashion than to have a consumer break the product thoroughly.

[chris_leyson]

Airbus use aluminium wire instead of copper in the A380 quote "to save the weight of 3 fat Americans". No kidding that's was was told and I'm thinking WTF did you just say that. Is that half a metric ton or something ?  Really, aluminium wire, it's one way to reduce weight. What I remember is the rudeness of the comment and the desparation to save weight.

[Mr. Scram]

Airbus use aluminium wire instead of copper in the A380 quote "to save the weight of 3 fat Americans". No kidding that's was was told and I'm thinking WTF did you just say that. Is that half a metric ton or something ?  Really, aluminium wire, it's one way to reduce weight. What I remember is the rudeness of the comment and the desparation to save weight.

Building a modern airliner is all about saving weight, so that's not really a surprise. Was this the informal statement of a single engineer or some official Boeing PR communication?

[Mr. Scram]

I just noticed that video is close to an hour long. Who's going to spend nearly an hour to respond to the two line opening of a thread?

[Stray Electron]

I just noticed that video is close to an hour long. Who's going to spend nearly an hour to respond to the two line opening of a thread?

    Hmm. People that fly a lot and that might want to consider not flying on a 787.

[Mr. Scram]

    Hmm. People that fly a lot and that might want to consider not flying on a 787.

Why would they not? Because literally no fatalities have occurred? Or because stepping out the front door is many times more dangerous than getting on an aircraft, even when taking the aircraft types that crash a lot more than the 787 into consideration?

Besides, in many cases you don't even know what you'll fly when you book.

[raptor1956]

The video was uploaded 3 years ago, and considering the political standpoint of Al Jazeera to the west back then, it's not hard to imagine the bias shown in this video.
My rule number one for watching news: don't watch Chinese news discussing US, and don't watch US news discussing China.

Sage advise right there!

Yeah, this story smelled of bullshit.  To be sure, the 787 had battery issues in the beginning that required some redesign, but after that I don't think I've heard an unkind word about the 787.  At least if you discount obvious trolling...


Brian

[tautech]

Yeah, this story smelled of bullshit.  To be sure, the 787 had battery issues in the beginning that required some redesign, but after that I don't think I've heard an unkind word about the 787.  At least if you discount obvious trolling...

No troll here but a guy with several friends in the industry and a captain daughter flying domestic and another type.

The vid asked a lot of questions about the validity of the documentation that allow theses things to get and keep airborne. Valid they are too !

Further to what the vid alerts us to is a more recent problem with RR engines.
https://airlinegeeks.com/2017/12/10/air-new-zealand-becomes-latest-airline-to-ground-multiple-boeing-787s/
What that doesn't expand on that might be being kept under wraps some is engine parts damaged control surfaces ......well that's the gossip I've heard from those in the industry.

My neighbor flies these and the NZ fleet has been grounded for a few months but reportedly they'll be in the skies again quite soon.

[raptor1956]

Yeah, this story smelled of bullshit.  To be sure, the 787 had battery issues in the beginning that required some redesign, but after that I don't think I've heard an unkind word about the 787.  At least if you discount obvious trolling...

No troll here but a guy with several friends in the industry and a captain daughter flying domestic and another type.

The vid asked a lot of questions about the validity of the documentation that allow theses things to get and keep airborne. Valid they are too !

Further to what the vid alerts us to is a more recent problem with RR engines.
https://airlinegeeks.com/2017/12/10/air-new-zealand-becomes-latest-airline-to-ground-multiple-boeing-787s/
What that doesn't expand on that might be being kept under wraps some is engine parts damaged control surfaces ......well that's the gossip I've heard from those in the industry.

My neighbor flies these and the NZ fleet has been grounded for a few months but reportedly they'll be in the skies again quite soon.

Was unaware of the RR engine issues.  Most of the engine makers have had problems with one model or another at one time or another and I guess it's RR's time for one.  So, is this a Boeing 787 problem or a Rolls Royce problem or does one equal the other.  A major aircraft is composed of many parts from many suppliers and for some things it's easier to view it as part of the AC but with engines it's a different story as many AC can be fitted with engines from different suppliers.  Also, the dollar value of the engines make up a fair percentage of the total cost.  Should we start a thread titled "Rolls Royce Trent 1000 is a motherfucker!"


Brian

[Stray Electron]

Besides, in many cases you don't even know what you'll fly when you book.

  I always do. It's usually listed along with other details about the flight. If it's not, it's very easy to go look it up. I always make it a point to know what kind of aircraft it is and where my seat is AND where the exits are in relation to my seat. 

"The video was uploaded 3 years ago, and considering the political standpoint of Al Jazeera to the west back then, it's not hard to imagine the bias shown in this video."

   That's true but it doesn't necessary mean that they're wrong about the 787.  It has had more than it's share of delays and screwups.  Remember the Space Shuttle had a perfect safety record too; until suddenly it didn't!  Then the history of design failures and BAD management decisions became glaringly obvious. Even with a MAJOR redesign it still suffered a second major flaw which in hindsight was obvious.  IMO the multiple battery failures alone are a good indication that the 787 wasn't designed or built to the normal safety and engineering standards. And the decision to continue to use Lithium batteries on the 787 is frightening! You can fly on one if you like but I think I'll choose something else.

[tautech]

Yeah, this story smelled of bullshit.  To be sure, the 787 had battery issues in the beginning that required some redesign, but after that I don't think I've heard an unkind word about the 787.  At least if you discount obvious trolling...

No troll here but a guy with several friends in the industry and a captain daughter flying domestic and another type.

The vid asked a lot of questions about the validity of the documentation that allow theses things to get and keep airborne. Valid they are too !

Further to what the vid alerts us to is a more recent problem with RR engines.
https://airlinegeeks.com/2017/12/10/air-new-zealand-becomes-latest-airline-to-ground-multiple-boeing-787s/
What that doesn't expand on that might be being kept under wraps some is engine parts damaged control surfaces ......well that's the gossip I've heard from those in the industry.

My neighbor flies these and the NZ fleet has been grounded for a few months but reportedly they'll be in the skies again quite soon.

Was unaware of the RR engine issues.  Most of the engine makers have had problems with one model or another at one time or another and I guess it's RR's time for one.  So, is this a Boeing 787 problem or a Rolls Royce problem or does one equal the other. 

Who makes the restraining envelope around the engine to protect the airframe and control surfaces, answer that and then we can point the finger and ask was it well enough tested to ensure airframe integrity upon engine failures.
Smells like more dodgy 'safety' documentation like what was outlined in the vid.

[Richard Crowley]

It's usually listed along with other details about the flight. If it's not, it's very easy to go look it up. I always make it a point to know what kind of aircraft it is and where my seat is AND where the exits are in relation to my seat. 

That is always good practice. Whether you are flying, taking some other transportation, sitting in a theater, or restaurant, or sleeping at home.

That's true but it doesn't necessary mean that they're wrong about the 787.

It doesn't mean that they "right" either. The whole news business has become just another form of profitable entertainment. Some people are amused by dancing girls, and others by sensational "news". A good writer/producer/editor can spin ANY story whatever way they please.  That is why they have only a fraction of the credibility they enjoyed in previous generations. The popular term is "fake news".

It has had more than it's share of delays and screwups.

What extraordinarily complex modern technology hasn't?

Remember the Space Shuttle had a perfect safety record too; until suddenly it didn't!  Then the history of design failures and BAD management decisions became glaringly obvious.

The "bad management decisions" appear to be operational vs. equipment design.

You can fly on one if you like but I think I'll choose something else.

The reputation and track record of the operating company is a far more compelling factor where you have a choice vs. the equipment. Many of the airlines with the best safety records (i.e. Qantas, et.al) operate B787s.

[NiHaoMike]

Airbus use aluminium wire instead of copper in the A380 quote "to save the weight of 3 fat Americans". No kidding that's was was told and I'm thinking WTF did you just say that. Is that half a metric ton or something ?  Really, aluminium wire, it's one way to reduce weight. What I remember is the rudeness of the comment and the desparation to save weight.

And the use of lithium cobalt batteries in the 787 instead of the vastly safer LiFePO4 batteries saves remarkably little weight - replace one average American with Rinoa Super-Genius (who is not even that skinny) and that would just about offset the weight difference. The weight difference between lithium cobalt and lithium manganese (considerably safer than lithium cobalt but not as safe as LiFePO4) is even sillier - less than the weight difference between Rinoa Super-Genius and Naomi Wu. (Don't know much about Tesla's safer chemistry that does use cobalt so can't comment about that.)

Really, there needs to be more effort put into solving the obesity epidemic in the US.

[raptor1956]

Yeah, this story smelled of bullshit.  To be sure, the 787 had battery issues in the beginning that required some redesign, but after that I don't think I've heard an unkind word about the 787.  At least if you discount obvious trolling...

No troll here but a guy with several friends in the industry and a captain daughter flying domestic and another type.

The vid asked a lot of questions about the validity of the documentation that allow theses things to get and keep airborne. Valid they are too !

Further to what the vid alerts us to is a more recent problem with RR engines.
https://airlinegeeks.com/2017/12/10/air-new-zealand-becomes-latest-airline-to-ground-multiple-boeing-787s/
What that doesn't expand on that might be being kept under wraps some is engine parts damaged control surfaces ......well that's the gossip I've heard from those in the industry.

My neighbor flies these and the NZ fleet has been grounded for a few months but reportedly they'll be in the skies again quite soon.

Was unaware of the RR engine issues.  Most of the engine makers have had problems with one model or another at one time or another and I guess it's RR's time for one.  So, is this a Boeing 787 problem or a Rolls Royce problem or does one equal the other. 

Who makes the restraining envelope around the engine to protect the airframe and control surfaces, answer that and then we can point the finger and ask was it well enough tested to ensure airframe integrity upon engine failures.
Smells like more dodgy 'safety' documentation like what was outlined in the vid.

The amount of rotational energy in a large jet engine is enormous and you could surround the engine with inch thick armor plate and still have issues if an engine explodes not to mention the plane would struggle to get in the air with inch think armor plate around both engines.  The article you linked didn't say much about the damage to the AC itself so perhaps you have a source for information that detail the non-engine damage.  But, it's a fair question as to who designs the engine shielding and I could come up with pros and cons for either the AC maker of the engine maker.

Engineering is the art of making something that does the job but doesn't waste weight/money going much beyond the design requirements.  This is true in most areas of engineering but no where is this more true than aviation and aerospace.  You could design an AC like an M1A1 tank but it would never get off the ground!


Brian

[raptor1956]

Airbus use aluminium wire instead of copper in the A380 quote "to save the weight of 3 fat Americans". No kidding that's was was told and I'm thinking WTF did you just say that. Is that half a metric ton or something ?  Really, aluminium wire, it's one way to reduce weight. What I remember is the rudeness of the comment and the desparation to save weight.

And the use of lithium cobalt batteries in the 787 instead of the vastly safer LiFePO4 batteries saves remarkably little weight - replace one average American with Rinoa Super-Genius (who is not even that skinny) and that would just about offset the weight difference. The weight difference between lithium cobalt and lithium manganese (considerably safer than lithium cobalt but not as safe as LiFePO4) is even sillier - less than the weight difference between Rinoa Super-Genius and Naomi Wu. (Don't know much about Tesla's safer chemistry that does use cobalt so can't comment about that.)

Really, there needs to be more effort put into solving the obesity epidemic in the US.

The US gets a bad rap about obesity and rightfully so, but have you looked around elsewhere?  Seems to me first world nations are all fatter than they were a generation ago and much fatter than two generations ago. 


Brian

[tautech]

Yeah, this story smelled of bullshit.  To be sure, the 787 had battery issues in the beginning that required some redesign, but after that I don't think I've heard an unkind word about the 787.  At least if you discount obvious trolling...

No troll here but a guy with several friends in the industry and a captain daughter flying domestic and another type.

The vid asked a lot of questions about the validity of the documentation that allow theses things to get and keep airborne. Valid they are too !

Further to what the vid alerts us to is a more recent problem with RR engines.
https://airlinegeeks.com/2017/12/10/air-new-zealand-becomes-latest-airline-to-ground-multiple-boeing-787s/
What that doesn't expand on that might be being kept under wraps some is engine parts damaged control surfaces ......well that's the gossip I've heard from those in the industry.

My neighbor flies these and the NZ fleet has been grounded for a few months but reportedly they'll be in the skies again quite soon.

Was unaware of the RR engine issues.  Most of the engine makers have had problems with one model or another at one time or another and I guess it's RR's time for one.  So, is this a Boeing 787 problem or a Rolls Royce problem or does one equal the other. 

Who makes the restraining envelope around the engine to protect the airframe and control surfaces, answer that and then we can point the finger and ask was it well enough tested to ensure airframe integrity upon engine failures.
Smells like more dodgy 'safety' documentation like what was outlined in the vid.

The amount of rotational energy in a large jet engine is enormous and you could surround the engine with inch thick armor plate and still have issues if an engine explodes not to mention the plane would struggle to get in the air with inch think armor plate around both engines.  The article you linked didn't say much about the damage to the AC itself so perhaps you have a source for information that detail the non-engine damage.  But, it's a fair question as to who designs the engine shielding and I could come up with pros and cons for either the AC maker of the engine maker.

Engineering is the art of making something that does the job but doesn't waste weight/money going much beyond the design requirements.  This is true in most areas of engineering but no where is this more true than aviation and aerospace.  You could design an AC like an M1A1 tank but it would never get off the ground!


Brian

They use Kevlar, think bullet proof vest. Weight isn't the issue, it's the engine component failure AND the inability to safely contain/constrain the shrapnel from damaging airframe or control surfaces.
The engine failure containment systems must be near 100% proof.

[Mr. Scram]

The US gets a bad rap about obesity and rightfully so, but have you looked around elsewhere?  Seems to me first world nations are all fatter than they were a generation ago and much fatter than two generations ago. 


Brian

Somewhat surprisingly it's not a first world issue.

https://www.worldobesity.org/data/map/overview-adults

[james_s]

Who makes the restraining envelope around the engine to protect the airframe and control surfaces, answer that and then we can point the finger and ask was it well enough tested to ensure airframe integrity upon engine failures.
Smells like more dodgy 'safety' documentation like what was outlined in the vid.

It's integral to the engine, and while not infallible it is quite effective at containing debris, it's something taken very seriously by turbine engine manufactures.

[Richard Crowley]

It's integral to the engine, and while not infallible it is quite effective at containing debris, it's something taken very seriously by turbine engine manufactures.

I still feel more comfortable seated in a row that is not in-line with the engines.   

[james_s]

I still feel more comfortable seated in a row that is not in-line with the engines.   

Me too, although injuries resulting from uncontained turbine engine failures are exceedingly rare, I haven't looked at the stats but probably up there somewhere with getting struck by lightning.

I did find it interesting sitting directly across from the prop on a Q400 though, I could clearly watch the pitch change with the throttle setting.

[tautech]

I still feel more comfortable seated in a row that is not in-line with the engines.   

Me too, although injuries resulting from uncontained turbine engine failures are exceedingly rare, I haven't looked at the stats but probably up there somewhere with getting struck by lightning.

I did find it interesting sitting directly across from the prop on a Q400 though, I could clearly watch the pitch change with the throttle setting.

Did you watch the trick they do at landing ?

[Richard Crowley]

Me too, although injuries resulting from uncontained turbine engine failures are exceedingly rare, I haven't looked at the stats but probably up there somewhere with getting struck by lightning.

It is also quieter farther away from the engines.  I was always dubious about the consumer-level noise-cancelling headphones/earbuds.  But then I bought a cheap pair from a vending machine at an airport and was pretty surprised at their effectiveness at mid- and higher-frequencies. Of course not very effective at lower frequencies.

[Mr. Scram]

Me too, although injuries resulting from uncontained turbine engine failures are exceedingly rare, I haven't looked at the stats but probably up there somewhere with getting struck by lightning.

I did find it interesting sitting directly across from the prop on a Q400 though, I could clearly watch the pitch change with the throttle setting.

Getting hit by lightning is much more likely.