On Friday, July 12, 2013 11:07:12 AM UTC-7, harryagain wrote:
As far as I know they never did find the problem with the battery fires or if they did they never disclosed it, and NOBODY is taking them to task on it because all the idiots are too busy watching the Zimmerman trial on the news.
Should be name Nightmareliner. I'm not ready to fly on one just yet.
Nor am I ready for the A380. I have a vision of something
catastrophic happening to one of them. Like just falling apart from
Boeing stock fell a whopping 6% as a result of the Heathrow fire. It's
becoming abundantly clear that there's something about lithium battery
technology that's new here and yet to be discovered. And, until it is,
Boeing 787's with their lithium batteries for auxialliary power are
going to be very very scary planes to own, and fly on.
On Saturday, July 13, 2013 1:29:44 AM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
It's abundantly clear that you're jumping to conclusions. Nothing
in any of the reports I've seen say this latest fire was related
to the lithium batteries. AFAIK, those batteries are not located
anywhere near the location of this new fire. Plus, they were
re-designed into a fireproof enclosure.
And, until it is,
I've been tracking the lithium battery problem and one thing that's very
disturbing is that they have not actually discovered the cause of the two
battery fires and apparently may never know. They've just armored-up the
battery enclosures and made some changes to the monitoring system to better
detect fires that they seem to feel might still erupt.
A number of avionics experts on the sites I've visited are advising that
safety-concious people avoid flying on the Dreamliner until it has built up
a better track record. Even if this last fire isn't battery related, it's
still helping to chip away at confidence in the new airliner. If I still
flew, I'd avoid the Dreamliner. The DeHavilland Comet is proof that new
materials may not perform as expected under real world conditions. A lot of
people are making the comparison:
Even if, as some of the experts have surmised, it was a galley stove left on
accidentally, that still implies that there are some serious problems still
lurking. Ironically, the "auto shut-off stove" from another thread may
apply to the Dreamliner. You would think that they would have designed an
automated shutdown feature since a fire on a multi-million dollar plane can
do a lot of damage, both to the plane and the builder's reputation.
As I recall the 777 and many other new models went through similar periods
of "settling in." Like other complex human endeavors, many problems only
reveal themselves well after the design phase has ended.
What I would like to know is how a broke-assed country like Ethiopia is
doing with a Dreamliner? Is Boeing making $0 down, 0% loans to risky
borrowers? I'd hate to see the US aircraft industry follow in the footsteps
On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 2:06:42 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
Good grief. The Comet broke apart at altitude from major structural
design flaws. Scores were killed in 3 major accidents. Only a loon
would compare this to the Dreamliner. It's not unusual for a new airliner
to have some problems. How about the A380 wing cracks for example?
Is that a Comet too?
So now, which is it? Settling in or a Comet catastrophe?
Like other complex human endeavors, many problems only
They might if idiots like Obama keep screwing around with them.
Remember what he did to them with the Dreamliner plant in SC?
In fact, maybe it's his fault for the problems.
On Saturday, July 13, 2013 4:22:22 AM UTC-7, email@example.com wrote:
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this artic
le with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See ou
r Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email firstname.lastname@example.org
to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fd54e6d6-efb2-11e2-a237
But as well as recommending the disabling of the transmitters on all Dreaml
iners, the AAIB said the FAA and other regulatory authorities should conduc
t a safety review of these devices where they are powered by lithium batter
<stuff snipped - even though they told me not to!>
<But as well as recommending the disabling of the transmitters on all
Dreamliners, the AAIB said the FAA and other regulatory authorities should
conduct a safety review of these devices where they are powered by lithium
Anyone else getting the feeling that lithium batteries aren't playing well
with modern aircraft and may not be "ready for prime time?" Who's in charge
of safety at the FAA?
"Well, we don't know WHY the batteries burned, we'll just box 'em up better
and vent the smoke and flames outside and pray the new containers don't
somehow pressurize and explode!" Sure it will be dangerous to fly a "fly by
wire" without backup power but it's been just too hard to figure out the
cause of the problem."
"Disconnect all the safety transponders for safety reasons." Kafka would be
Boeing's going to have to rename them "The Bad Dreams Liner."
On Saturday, July 20, 2013 1:44:21 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
As if the batteries were the only backup power source
available. These planes have two independent engines capable
of powering the essential flight controls, an APU, and
an air driven generator that drops out into the air stream
in the event it's necessary.
The most common source of commercial air disasters is human
error, not mechanical failure. Witness what just happened
On 7/18/2013 9:47 AM, email@example.com wrote:
I was making a dig at The Chinese since a lot of batteries and solar
panels manufactured in China are failing at a very high rate and causing
a lot of grief for the alternative energy La La Land crowd.
I still haven't been given a solar cell and windmill powered vehicle. ^_^
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.