Dreamliners

[muttondressedaslamb]

Would be good to get Terrorfex or some other clever fucker to explain what the fuck is going on with these planes.

 

I fly a lot but always been a nervous flyer. And I see BA had these things on order so good chance a few of us would have experienced them in the near future. Anyone been on one? Been on a few A380s, are they just like them? Huge and smooth is my experience and a pain in the arse to disembark.

[spamspamspam]

All that I know is there was a fire one one last week. They may now think its to do with lithium ion batteries leaking onto electrical equipment.

 

There are usually some technical issues when new planes come out but I think this is the first time they've felt the need to ground a new plane in years so they must be pretty concerned.

 

They'll fix the issue, change or replace the type of battery and they'll be up and running again.

[Ke1t]

Would be good to get Terrorfex or some other clever fucker to explain what the fuck is going on with these planes.

 

I fly a lot but always been a nervous flyer. And I see BA had these things on order so good chance a few of us would have experienced them in the near future. Anyone been on one? Been on a few A380s, are they just like them? Huge and smooth is my experience and a pain in the arse to disembark.

 

I need to bang down Valium and booze before you can get me on a plane. I'm absolutely terrified of flying, and regardless how often I fly I don't hate it any less.

 

From what I can gather a battery went out on the Dreamliner? I hadn't realised these planes run on batteries, but it must take a fuckload of AAs to get one of them big hoors airborne.

 

Worst I've ever experienced was Aeroflot's Tupolev TU134 bombers, which they claim were designed for passengers... my arse they were. I shrieked like a girl any time I flew in one of those things, Valium or not. Entire fleet was retired last year. No loss to aviation imo.

 

Anyway, Dreamliners... they just look like the sort of aircraft you would get in a 1970s disaster movie. I hope never to set foot inside one.

[dave_min]

Would be good to get Terrorfex or some other clever fucker to explain what the fuck is going on with these planes.

 

I fly a lot but always been a nervous flyer. And I see BA had these things on order so good chance a few of us would have experienced them in the near future. Anyone been on one? Been on a few A380s, are they just like them? Huge and smooth is my experience and a pain in the arse to disembark.

 

New planes are always full of little problem, that's why BA are 150th or so in the queue for a 787.

 

I wouldn't worry about it.

 

Nothing majorly bad has happened (yet).

[muttondressedaslamb]

I need to bang down Valium and booze before you can get me on a plane. I'm absolutely terrified of flying, and regardless how often I fly I don't hate it any less.

 

From what I can gather a battery went out on the Dreamliner? I hadn't realised these planes run on batteries, but it must take a fuckload of AAs to get one of them big hoors airborne.

 

Worst I've ever experienced was Aeroflot's Tupolev TU134 bombers, which they claim were designed for passengers... my arse they were. I shrieked like a girl any time I flew in one of those things, Valium or not. Entire fleet was retired last year. No loss to aviation imo.

 

Anyway, Dreamliners... they just look like the sort of aircraft you would get in a 1970s disaster movie. I hope never to set foot inside one.

 

 

I tried to source valium for my flight to Oz but couldn't get any. I now have a friend who has suffered a personal tragedy and has said to me she will continue with her valium prescription so just to let her know when I want one. Every cloud and that.

 

I wouldn't say I hate flying, just nervous. I think I have got worse as I got older. And I am better flying on my own as I just have to get on with it then rather than bugging those with me for some sort of emotional support.

 

Was going to fly Aeroflot to Japan via Moscow years ago, but decided against it when my sister told me they flew with chickens and other animals and when I checked out their safety record. Paid an extra

[Ke1t]

I tried to source valium for my flight to Oz but couldn't get any. I now have a friend who has suffered a personal tragedy and has said to me she will continue with her valium prescription so just to let her know when I want one. Every cloud and that.

 

The wife has a big extended family, prescription drugs do the rounds like sweeties with that lot. Arabs might not be allowed to drink, but the swarthy fuckers make up for it with medication.

 

 

Was going to fly Aeroflot to Japan via Moscow years ago, but decided against it when my sister told me they flew with chickens and other animals and when I checked out their safety record. Paid an extra

[muttondressedaslamb]

Heard that some of the Chinese airlines are dodgy as fuck. A mate was doing an internal flight and said there was no adherence to safety, people didn't bother belting up when taking off or landing and they got to smoke. Actually that's just the Chinese, not the airline I suppose.

[OddJob]

I've been on many flights and i too still get nervous. I'm fine enough once i'm up in the air and the seatbelt signs go off, but when we hit turbulence my stomach does somersaults, especially if it's a horrific case of it.

[spamspamspam]

Heard that some of the Chinese airlines are dodgy as fuck. A mate was doing an internal flight and said there was no adherence to safety, people didn't bother belting up when taking off or landing and they got to smoke. Actually that's just the Chinese, not the airline I suppose.

 

The times of the flight when you're most likely to crash is take off and landing. If it crashes on take off its ball of flames, a seat belt will do you no good.

The air on a plane that allows smoking is cleaner than ones that dont. They didnt ban smoking because of safety or customer comfort, it was to save them money on air filters. Now the air goes round the plane something like 11 times before they clean it so thats every fuckers germs getting passed about for about an hour. When they allowed smoking it was 4 times, people came off feeling better.

 

I'd say yon Chinese have the right idea

 

 

Go to your doctor, tell him you have a long flight and it scares the shite out of you, mention valium, he'll give you a script for 4-6 blueys

[Pudgie]

The air on a plane that allows smoking is cleaner than ones that dont. They didnt ban smoking because of safety or customer comfort, it was to save them money on air filters. Now the air goes round the plane something like 11 times before they clean it so thats every fuckers germs getting passed about for about an hour. When they allowed smoking it was 4 times, people came off feeling better.

Fucking bastards! Last two flights from Glasgow, the Mrs has come away with strep throat and now she's got the flu after flying last week.

[tightbreeks]

you would think boeing would've flown the 787 for hours and hours. maybe pressure from the board forced it to fly too early.

[dave_min]

you would think boeing would've flown the 787 for hours and hours. maybe pressure from the board forced it to fly too early.

 

[tightbreeks]

the brains are ripping out of me the now, i'm brainiac poindexter.

[Terrorfex]

Quite simply, the 787 is a brand-new aircraft and like a lot of sophisticated new pieces of equipment, problems emerge that weren't accounted for during design and didn't show up during testing.

 

 

 

If we delve a little deeper though, it gets a bit more complicated. Firstly, the 787 is the world's first mass-produced commercial airliner to be built from composites as a majority (well, 50% isn't a majority, but close enough) of material. In addition, it's the first of its kind to feature bleedless air systems - every other kind of aircraft takes pressurised air from the engines to provide pressurisation and air conditioning for the cabin, air for pneumatic systems, etc. The 787 uses electrical generators to accomplish this. These two novel features (especially the first one) were heavily scrutinised by the FAA during certification; they were game-changers in the same way that Airbus's "Fly-By-Wire" systems were.

 

This is relevant because these new technologies meant the 787 endured one of the toughest, most comprehensive certification processes in modern aircraft engineering history. The FAA went through this aircraft with a fine-toothed comb, looking for anything out of the ordinary.

 

Believe it or not, rather than suggest the FAA don't know what they're doing, this (at least to me) suggests the problem with the 787 isn't how it was built, but essentially, who built it.

 

The 787 might be well-known for being revolutionary technologically speaking, but it's also well-known in industry as being the most outsourced aircraft ever built. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that Boeing has never had as little to do with its own aircraft as the Dreamliner Project. Entire subsections of the aircraft were contracted out to companies all over the world. It's also well-known that this attempt at lowering costs and spreading risk - as well as (hopefully) speeding up the project actually led to enormous delays as various contractors and subcontractors hit deadlines without having solutions.

 

For example, the Vertical Stabiliser of the 787 was outsourced to a company that then outsourced the rudder and various other sub-assemblies. This was repeated all over the aircraft so that delays had enormous knock-on effects; when the Rudder manufacturer was late, so was the company building the Stabiliser and you haven't even told the company building the plan (Boeing) about it yet.

 

What's this got to do with the current problems? Well, to me, the current problems all smack of quality control issues, not design issues. The electrical problems that plagued Qatar Airways' 787s were traced to faulty boards; I wouldn't be surprised to learn the fuel valve problems troubling Japan AirLines' 787 were similar defects. These problems all suggest that isn't necessarily the hardware design that's flawed, but the hardware itself. These problems aren't manifesting themselves on every 787 under the same circumstances. In fact, interestingly it's been the Japanese airlines who've had the greatest trouble and they were all the earliest delivery customers for the 787 in greatest numbers.

 

The serious issue that's directly led to the FAA grounding the type is the battery problem. Before the 787, all aircraft were expressively forbidden from carrying Li-ION batteries larger than very strict limits. As some people will know, these types of batteries are very sensitive to over-charging, shock, and other circumstances which can quickly lead to them overheating and, rarely, combusting. The 787 is the first aircraft to receive a waiver to carry a large battery. To secure this, Boeing had to prove to the FAA in a series of unique tests that their batteries were safe.

 

Now clearly, they passed the FAA's tests. That suggests that the batteries were safe under the conditions tested. Unfortunately, like many of the 787's systems the battery is a new, cutting-edge design. There's no existing aircraft with anything like it and so, whomever devised the original battery test had no precedent to follow. It seems likely that the test was simply too narrow, or like many things in engineering, conditions in the lab simply did not match conditions in the real world, on the aircraft.

 

Plenty of 787s have been flying, and only a handful have suffered a battery problem but one is enough, because the battery (as I said above) was under particular scrutiny.

 

Fire aboard an aircraft is the number one nightmare scenario and any possibility, no matter how remote, that the battery might combust in a situation where it can't be contained or can't be extinguished means there's no taking chances. Still, the Li-ION battery could be replaced almost immediately by any other kind of comparable device; the consequences being a weight penalty for the larger battery.

 

 

Another tidbit the media is focusing on is how quickly the rest of the world has followed the FAA, but that's just good practice. Boeing built the Dreamliner, and they're an American manufacturer therefore when the American aviation authority grounds an American plane and investigates its American manufacturer, it's common sense for the rest of the world to follow suit. If the uncontained engine failure on Quantas Flight 32 had resulted in the grounding of the A380 by EASA, the FAA and the rest of the world would have followed us because a European aviation authority has acted to ground a European plane.

 

Comfort-wise, the 787 is in a class of its own. The all-composite nature of its fuselage means the aircraft can be pressurised to a lower altitude than any other aircraft in operation. If your aeroplane's made out of metal, there's a definite limit to how similar you can make the interior of your cabin before you start encountering issues. Humans don't react well to dry air, for example but water in the air, especially in an all-metal fuselage, promotes corrosion. Composites don't corrode, so you can increase the humidity of the cabin. The bigger issue though is simply a limit to the differential pressure an all-metal tube can withstand. With pressure greater on the outside than in, the air inside the aircraft is constantly pushing on the interior of the structure, trying to escape. Conventional aircraft are pressurised to between 7,500 - 8000ft above sea level. The Dreamliner is pressurised to 6,000ft which vastly increases PAX comfort.

 

The aircraft has windows that are around 45% larger than on other aircraft, and an all-LED lit interior with colours that are much less harsh on the eyes than yellow or white.

 

So to sum up the cabin has: higher humidity (wetter), higher pressure (easier on your ears) bigger windows (better views) and fruity lighting (not sure about this one).

 

There's also a totally redesigned filtration system which should remove the need to smoke in the toilets.

[tightbreeks]

more moving parts and more things to go wrong, that's fine with a new phone.

[Dom Sullivan]

Quite simply, the 787 is a brand-new aircraft and like a lot of sophisticated new pieces of equipment, problems emerge that weren't accounted for during design and didn't show up during testing.

 

 

 

If we delve a little deeper though, it gets a bit more complicated. Firstly, the 787 is the world's first mass-produced commercial airliner to be built from composites as a majority (well, 50% isn't a majority, but close enough) of material. In addition, it's the first of its kind to feature bleedless air systems - every other kind of aircraft takes pressurised air from the engines to provide pressurisation and air conditioning for the cabin, air for pneumatic systems, etc. The 787 uses electrical generators to accomplish this. These two novel features (especially the first one) were heavily scrutinised by the FAA during certification; they were game-changers in the same way that Airbus's "Fly-By-Wire" systems were.

 

This is relevant because these new technologies meant the 787 endured one of the toughest, most comprehensive certification processes in modern aircraft engineering history. The FAA went through this aircraft with a fine-toothed comb, looking for anything out of the ordinary.

 

Believe it or not, rather than suggest the FAA don't know what they're doing, this (at least to me) suggests the problem with the 787 isn't how it was built, but essentially, who built it.

 

The 787 might be well-known for being revolutionary technologically speaking, but it's also well-known in industry as being the most outsourced aircraft ever built. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that Boeing has never had as little to do with its own aircraft as the Dreamliner Project. Entire subsections of the aircraft were contracted out to companies all over the world. It's also well-known that this attempt at lowering costs and spreading risk - as well as (hopefully) speeding up the project actually led to enormous delays as various contractors and subcontractors hit deadlines without having solutions.

 

For example, the Vertical Stabiliser of the 787 was outsourced to a company that then outsourced the rudder and various other sub-assemblies. This was repeated all over the aircraft so that delays had enormous knock-on effects; when the Rudder manufacturer was late, so was the company building the Stabiliser and you haven't even told the company building the plan (Boeing) about it yet.

 

What's this got to do with the current problems? Well, to me, the current problems all smack of quality control issues, not design issues. The electrical problems that plagued Qatar Airways' 787s were traced to faulty boards; I wouldn't be surprised to learn the fuel valve problems troubling Japan AirLines' 787 were similar defects. These problems all suggest that isn't necessarily the hardware design that's flawed, but the hardware itself. These problems aren't manifesting themselves on every 787 under the same circumstances. In fact, interestingly it's been the Japanese airlines who've had the greatest trouble and they were all the earliest delivery customers for the 787 in greatest numbers.

 

The serious issue that's directly led to the FAA grounding the type is the battery problem. Before the 787, all aircraft were expressively forbidden from carrying Li-ION batteries larger than very strict limits. As some people will know, these types of batteries are very sensitive to over-charging, shock, and other circumstances which can quickly lead to them overheating and, rarely, combusting. The 787 is the first aircraft to receive a waiver to carry a large battery. To secure this, Boeing had to prove to the FAA in a series of unique tests that their batteries were safe.

 

Now clearly, they passed the FAA's tests. That suggests that the batteries were safe under the conditions tested. Unfortunately, like many of the 787's systems the battery is a new, cutting-edge design. There's no existing aircraft with anything like it and so, whomever devised the original battery test had no precedent to follow. It seems likely that the test was simply too narrow, or like many things in engineering, conditions in the lab simply did not match conditions in the real world, on the aircraft.

 

Plenty of 787s have been flying, and only a handful have suffered a battery problem but one is enough, because the battery (as I said above) was under particular scrutiny.

 

Fire aboard an aircraft is the number one nightmare scenario and any possibility, no matter how remote, that the battery might combust in a situation where it can't be contained or can't be extinguished means there's no taking chances. Still, the Li-ION battery could be replaced almost immediately by any other kind of comparable device; the consequences being a weight penalty for the larger battery.

 

 

Another tidbit the media is focusing on is how quickly the rest of the world has followed the FAA, but that's just good practice. Boeing built the Dreamliner, and they're an American manufacturer therefore when the American aviation authority grounds an American plane and investigates its American manufacturer, it's common sense for the rest of the world to follow suit. If the uncontained engine failure on Quantas Flight 32 had resulted in the grounding of the A380 by EASA, the FAA and the rest of the world would have followed us because a European aviation authority has acted to ground a European plane.

 

Comfort-wise, the 787 is in a class of its own. The all-composite nature of its fuselage means the aircraft can be pressurised to a lower altitude than any other aircraft in operation. If your aeroplane's made out of metal, there's a definite limit to how similar you can make the interior of your cabin before you start encountering issues. Humans don't react well to dry air, for example but water in the air, especially in an all-metal fuselage, promotes corrosion. Composites don't corrode, so you can increase the humidity of the cabin. The bigger issue though is simply a limit to the differential pressure an all-metal tube can withstand. With pressure greater on the outside than in, the air inside the aircraft is constantly pushing on the interior of the structure, trying to escape. Conventional aircraft are pressurised to between 7,500 - 8000ft above sea level. The Dreamliner is pressurised to 6,000ft which vastly increases PAX comfort.

 

The aircraft has windows that are around 45% larger than on other aircraft, and an all-LED lit interior with colours that are much less harsh on the eyes than yellow or white.

 

So to sum up the cabin has: higher humidity (wetter), higher pressure (easier on your ears) bigger windows (better views) and fruity lighting (not sure about this one).

 

There's also a totally redesigned filtration system which should remove the need to smoke in the toilets.

So, you'd still be relaxed and happy about flying in one?

[Ohjimmyjimmy]

I need to bang down Valium and booze before you can get me on a plane. I'm absolutely terrified of flying, and regardless how often I fly I don't hate it any less.

 

From what I can gather a battery went out on the Dreamliner? I hadn't realised these planes run on batteries, but it must take a fuckload of AAs to get one of them big hoors airborne.

 

Worst I've ever experienced was Aeroflot's Tupolev TU134 bombers, which they claim were designed for passengers... my arse they were. I shrieked like a girl any time I flew in one of those things, Valium or not. Entire fleet was retired last year. No loss to aviation imo.

 

Anyway, Dreamliners... they just look like the sort of aircraft you would get in a 1970s disaster movie. I hope never to set foot inside one.

 

I flew in the replacement for the TU-134, the Yakovlev YAK-42 from Kiev to Dnipropetrovsk with a handful of other dandies. Bizarre just doesn't come close to describing that particular flying experience.

 

 

[Ohjimmyjimmy]

Double

[Terrorfex]

So, you'd still be relaxed and happy about flying in one?

 

Absolutely. The "incident" that led to an emergency landing was a warning from the EICAS (Engine Indication & Crew Alert System) of a battery fault. This was combined with an "unusual odour" (Which some news agencies have said was smoke, and others haven't identified). The flight crew followed emergency procedures to the letter, and the aircraft landed safely. In truth, there are any number of situations where procedures call for an emergency landing which some people might not think very serious. Quite simply, the aim of the game is don't take risks.

 

All of these "faults" with the Dreamliner just confirm how safe modern aircraft are. The incidents involving electrical problems and fuel leaks were detected and the aircraft - and more importantly - passengers were never put at undue risk. Even the battery incident didn't result in material damage to the aircraft or endangerment of passengers. A secondary system malfunctioned, and the safest solution, to land, was implemented.

[Ke1t]

I flew in the replacement for the TU-134, the Yakovlev YAK-42 from Kiev to Dnipropetrovsk with a handful of other dandies. Bizarre just doesn't come close to describing that particular flying experience.

 

 

 

Now that pEDIT:Lane has an odd engine configuration... reminds me of the V2s the Germans chucked at London.

[Terrorfex]

Now that pane has an odd engine configuration... reminds me of the V2s the Germans chucked at London.

 

It's a poor man's 727.

 

[Ohjimmyjimmy]

Funnily enough I seem to remember the word doodlebug was mentioned at the time. Not only for the look if the thing, but the sound - doesnt sound like a RR Trent! I also remember that the seats folded, kind of like the padded eens in the RDS.

[Ke1t]

Funnily enough I seem to remember the word doodlebug was mentioned at the time. Not only for the look if the thing, but the sound - doesnt sound like a RR Trent! I also remember that the seats folded, kind of like the padded eens in the RDS.

 

It didnae hae the words, 'Fur Der Fuhrer' clumsily scrawled along the fuselage in engine oil, did it..... ah... fucking centipede!

[barassie_afc]

Knee jerk, or something more serious ? To me , as a non airplane expert, looks like they have been put together on the "cheap", the fuel line was poorly assembled, the battery is shite. That being said as sure a lot of people have flown with Jet2, their airplanes are 20 years + old, as are a lot of the 737's BA use........

[Dynamo]

It'll be the safest plane there is after they're back up there. They be double checked and triple checked for everything.

 

Anyway, I don't mind flying at all. Once you're strapped in and on your way there's pretty much fuck all you can do about it if something were to go wrong anyway, what will be, will be.

[barassie_afc]

It'll be the safest plane there is after they're back up there. They be double checked and triple checked for everything.

 

Anyway, I don't mind flying at all. Once you're strapped in and on your way there's pretty much fuck all you can do about it if something were to go wrong anyway, what will be, will be.

 

Agree disnae mean you cannot get the fear once up there....turbulence fkn hate it

[Bluto10]

I fly a lot but always been a nervous flyer.

 

i wish i was a nervous flyer.

at least then id have an excuse for gettin gassed up in airports and planes all the time.

[Terrorfex]

If nothing else, these teething issues have successfully totally distracted the flying public from their concerns of flying on a "plastic aeroplane".

[ferlaytio]

I flew in the replacement for the TU-134, the Yakovlev YAK-42 from Kiev to Dnipropetrovsk with a handful of other dandies. Bizarre just doesn't come close to describing that particular flying experience.

 

 

 

I just Googled the YAK-42 to see if that was the same plane used when I flew Kiev to Dnipropetrovsk. It's not, I was on some ancient prop plane that must have been at least 35 years old. I fly loads with work all over the world and in some real shithole locations. I'd put that Ukraine flight as one of the most bizarre (the most scary was an internal flight in Gabon during a severe thunderstorm where people were actually screaming and the air hostess was petrified. Was weird how calm I was). That Dnipro flight also had folding wooden seats. Anyone know what plane it was? There were a few Glasgow Dandies on that flight - Nespa etc. Possibly a Antonov 24???

[Terrorfex]

I just Googled the YAK-42 to see if that was the same plane used when I flew Kiev to Dnipropetrovsk. It's not, I was on some ancient prop plane that must have been at least 35 years old. I fly loads with work all over the world and in some real shithole locations. I'd put that Ukraine flight as one of the most bizarre (the most scary was an internal flight in Gabon during a severe thunderstorm where people were actually screaming and the air hostess was petrified. Was weird how calm I was). That Dnipro flight also had folding wooden seats. Anyone know what plane it was? There were a few Glasgow Dandies on that flight - Nespa etc. Possibly a Antonov 24???

 

This one?