streetstream
-
Content Count
590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by streetstream
-
-
Ok, let me try and explain my viewpoint once more.
No actually, I define a teething problem as unforeseen usually fixable problems early in an aircraft's long life span. the FAA exercised its authority to ground the aircraft. It doesn't mean it some kind of widow maker now.
So you say it is a fixable problem early in the lifespan. The cargodoorproblem of the DC 10 happend early in its lifespan and it got fixed. Than why isn't it a teething problem in you book?
You may want to do some research there.
Actually, that would apply to you. A plane can fly without pitot tubes. The accident clearly stated that the pilots took wrong action and by the time the captain got back to the cockpit, the plane had not enough time to recover even with the captain taking the right actions.
not true, as a recovery was made after a door failure.
Try saying that to the people on the Turkish Airlines flight. Having a one in about 3 chance of not crashing no matter what you do (correct actions or not) vs. a 100 percent chance if you take the correct actions.
Did you even bother to read the article posted by the OP or did you just fly into panic mode? I'm guessing the reason Boeing isn't saying much is because of reactions like this. All aircraft problems have the potential to be fatal (like the A330s pitot tubes)
Are you actually saying that Boeing isn't saying anything in order too calm people? And you can say something so ridiculous with a straight face? Anybody knows that if you react immediately and calmly you can do alot of damage control.
You would almost think that different problems require different solutions. :rolleyes:/>/>/>
Ypu don't say. But let us compare. The first 3 smoke incidents were caused by faulty powerboards and they were replaced. Now you claim without prove that these next incidents are caused by the batteries, but switching them is suddenly not the solution. What is it? A simple problem with a simple solution, or a serious problem that isn't an easy fix. And don't claim that the FAA needs to investigate it anyway, because if that was the case, the 787 would have been grounded with the powerboards incidents as well.
Whoa what I said was these are teething troubles, the article says batteries. the FAA will lift the grounding when the batteries can be proven safe or other batteries are installed. You implied that the aircraft is grounded for some unforeseen cause that no one is hinting at and it could be a major problem that is being covered up by Boeing. You are reading into things with this grounding, just because it is rare. You then take a single example and draw parrellels that the problems are as severe. Now I am not saying that the aircraft is safe. What I am saying is in aviation we often get a myriad of problems that are sometimes fixed by a single solution. Every problem is different though, which is why taking this aircraft, with problems you know nothing about and then grabbing the nearest example of a completely different aircraft from 40 years ago and linking the too is absolutely foolish. even the nature of the problems is different.
I never even hinted at a cover up. If i did, please quote me, because you won't win an argument with me by making false accusations. And i draw parrallels only in the severity of the incidents. I never said that the problem is the same. No matter what you say, just switching the batteries as you proclaim isn't the answer, othewise they would have done it by now. One thing they may be able to do is to find another manufacterer of batteries and replacing the batteries with a new type, not just batteries from another batch.
And seeing a plane grounded and not reading something into it isn't possible. The planes get grounded for a reason and no matter how you turn it, they can't just swap the batteries for a new batch because they would have done it by now. How long did it take to swap the powerboards?
Hitler was an austrian and a dicatator. so all austrians are hitlers and all hitlers are dicatators. No Hitler had a family and he was the only dicatator, Not all dictators are austrian, and not all austrians are hitlers.
Or your example:
787 and DC-10 were both grounded. the DC-10 crashed. Thus the 787 is unsafe. the A330 has never been grounded, thus it is safe. False: the A330 and DC-10 have both crashed but only one was grounded, and the 787 has never crashed but it was grounded.
No, our comparison goes like this. A terrorist is lockep up at guantanamo. Now a second person gets send there. I than state that that person is probably a terrorist and is up to no good. You on the other hand claim he was caught jaywalking.
And for our DC 10, A330 and 787 triangle here.
- The DC 10 has a fault. If this fault occurs that pilots have a 30 percent (estimate) chance of crashing no matter what they do. Let's ground the plane.
- The A330 has a problem with its pitot tubes. Can the plane still be flown when they fail? Yes. Okay, don't ground it, but let the replace the pitot tubes (which they were doing at the time). BTW, the accident report states that the pilots ignored 54 seconds of stall warnings and didn't follow the proper checklist for unriliable speedreadings.
- The 787 gets grounded? Serious problem? You tell me.
-
When the A380 had issues with wing cracks, I recall reading at the time multiple opinions that the regulators should have grounded the A380 fleet immediately after the first indication of the problem.
So the A330 never got grounded. The A380 never got grounded and now the 787 does get grounded for what you would say is a teething problem? What does that tell you? Does the FAA hate on Boeing or is there a chance that the problem in the 787 is more dangerous than those on the Airbus'?
-
I never said what happened to the DC-10 was a teething problem, and airplanes crash throughout their careers for various reasons. in fact the DC-10 was used by 11bee as example of "not" teething problems. Keep trying to link them though. I think you are on to something here. the A330 was never grounded fleet wide either and yet it crashed... hmm what are we to make of this then? The Dc-10 and A330 both had major crashes and yet only one was grounded, while the 787 has been grounded and has never crashed?
What a tangled web!!
So you say the DC 10 is not a teething problem, but also that the severity of a problem does not decide if it's a teething problem. So what is you criteria for a teething problem. Let me guess. If it's not Boeing it's a major problem.
BTW, the reason that the A330 didn't get grounded is becuase if the pitot tubes fail, your plane still can fly. In the DC10, when the door failed, the plane crashed no matter what you do. So don't even begin to compare those to as equals.
You would almost think that the 787 should be judged alone, without guessing problems and drawing parallels that don't fit...
Because conspiracy!!! :rolleyes:/>/>/> the article says it was the batteries, but it must be something more severe!
If you want to believe that this fleetwide grounding means the 787 is dangerous thats your problem, I'm not going to talk you out of it. I just don't think your logic tracks, and even you admit you don't have any details. The entire grounding for safety purposes could be on the suspicion of a safety issue too, but don't let a lack of information stop you from forming an opinion. It looks like as far as the FAA is concerned fix the batteries, and the aircraft is safe again. Magic.
You think that fires on board a plane aren't dangerous. Smoke in the cockpit isn't dangerous. And if it is just the batteries, how come they don't jsut switch them? When it was the electrical boards that caught fire, did they ground the fleet? No, the just took new boards and installed them. But hey, that was because there wasn't a design fault with the boards and just a production fault. Now why doesn't that apply with the batteries? Maybe because they don't know why they catch fire?
BTW, about the opinion part, i can't make an opinion that the plane is unsafe because it is grounded (first time in almost 40 years that that happend), but you with just the same information can claim that the plane is safe. Hypocrite much.
-
It depends on the type of problems doesn't it?
Because their teething problems were different? All aircraft encounter teething problems but not all the problems are the same and believe it or not, a teething problem is a teething problem regardless of severity. So for example a leaky full tank or a cracked windshield are problems and safety issues, but they are still teething problems. Examine the tanks, and make some fixes. examine the windshield and make some fixes. Its not the end of the world. work the problem find a solution
Another reason why this dramatic "fleet wide grounding" you are are in hysterics over happened is probably thanks to the fact that only about 50 of these aircraft have been built thus its not hurting businesses and passenger services as bad as say a fleet wide 737 grounding would hurt. in the cases of major fleets they tend to only look at certain versions, or certain aircraft built in a particular series. A tiny fleet in its first year encounters problems? its teething.
Let me be perfectly clear: Even a teething problem with safety implications is still a teething problem. That may sound harsh, but its true. Lets say for example the teething problem was the seat belts not being able to buckle. Its a simple fix, but being a safety issue warrants a grounding because you can't fly within the regs without seat belts.
Well i don't agree with your way of thinking, but let us try something here. If, like you claim, the severity of the problem is no indication of it being a theeting problem, than why was the problem in the DC 10 not a teething problem? It was sever and it caused a crash, but it was at the beginning of its career, so it has to be a teething problem, right?
And if like you say, it can be a small problem like a seatbelt that is malfunctioning, than why isn't Boeing saying what the 'little' problem is so they can reassure their customers and the general public?
-
Actually, depending on what part of the plane has 'a teething problem', they may or may not decide to ground the plane.
Actually i do agree that it doesn't mean their is a design is flawed, but if you see that it is been from the days they developed the DC 10 that this occured and as you pointed out that it is a problem that invalves risks for passengers, than i don't call that teething problems anymore. I understand why Boeing would call it that, because which manufacturer would say that it is a huge problem. I just don't think we should downplay this by calling this grounding a part of 'teething problems'. I hope we will soon get news on what the problem is and let's hope it isn't a major design fault.
-
Teething problems are hard to fix while airborne. (Not that I will ever give up my dream of flying mechanics.)
Did you actually just write that? You actually think they ground planes to fix theeting problems? The 777 had teething problems, it never got grounded. Did they fix those while they are flying? The A330 had teething problems, it never got grounded. Seriously, do you not see how ridiculous your comment is?
Because a fleet wide grounding after a crash is totally the same thing as what we are seeing now with the 787 :rolleyes:/>/>
Your logic is: 787 grounded. Last aircraft grounded DC-10 after crash. Thus the 787 is on the verge of a massive crash.
No, my logic is, since the DC 10, no airplane ever got grounded, yet every plane has teething problems. Now the 787 has teething problems and suddenly they get grounded and their design plans get re-examend. What does this mean to you? Standart teething problems? Or something more? And if you like to believe it is standart teething problems, than why did no other airliners since the DC 10 ever get grounded?
-
When did they cross the line between "teething problems" and ...whatever they are now. what is the criteria?
The fact that all the planes are grounded.
Can you think of an airliner that has been grounded world wide? The last time (stated in this topic before) was the DC 10 and if you think a plane that losses its cargo door and crashes is a teething problem, than indeed there is no line.
-
The 787 engine failure was apparently due to a problem with the coatings on one of the fan stages. From what I have read, this was limited to a small number of GE engines and was easily fixed.
The A380's engine problems were only on the RR engines and they are fixed.
The bottom line is that any aircraft that pushes the state of the art (and this includes the A380) is going to have teething problems.
Indeed, every new airliner is going to have theeting problems, but as i stated before, what is happening now on the 787 aren't theeting problems anymore. No airliner, as far as i know, is ever been grounded over theeting problems.
Now like i also stated on other forums, let us all hope that Boeing gets their act together and fix the 787 because it is too good and too beautiful to stand on the ground.
-
How would all these compared to the Airbus A380's wing bracket cracking? Or the A380's RR engine caught fire in midair? Those are more like basic design inadequancy by Airbus.
Indeed there was an engine failure on an A380 once, but the 787 also had an engine fail while taxiïng this was because a fan shaft fractured which isn't just a small problem in my eyes.
-
Pardon me for having an opinion, this is why I DON'T usually post on such things! :bandhead2:/>
Everybody can have an opinion, no problem with that, but continuing to say that these are theeting problems after this grounding is like seeing your house ablaze and still trying to convince people your just having a barbecue.
-
I have NEVER seen a new aircraft yet that did not have teething problems.
And when have you ever heard of a plane being grounded over theething problems? So people on the internet try to play it of as if the FAA bowed to media pressure, but that is just the most severe BS ever. Grounding a plane for media pressure?
Look; Boeing F'd up. I'm telling this for the start, Boeing is rushing their production way to hard and they seem to be paying the price (thank god it isn't via the hardest lesson i.e. a crash)
Now, Boeing, stop messing around and fix it. The 787 is to good and beautiful to be f'd up like this.
-
I welcome andy questions and / or comments
Damn, my name isn't Andy.
But all kidding aside, this build s just too much to take in. The level of detail and the ingenuity is just amazing. take that bandaid for instance. I would have never even thought of that.
Keep up the good work.
-
Come on guys, you have to admit that he has a point. There are alot of VF-103's out there. I too would like to see more diversity in the range. But then again, people build what they like to build. So in conclusion, he has a point, but you can't do anything about it or even should try to.
BTW, are you really a sca-pilot or is it just a name?
-
BUT, he’s no criminal, he never stole anyone’s money.
He cheated so he could win and recieve money. If he didn't cheat, he wouldn't have won and someone else would have gotten the money.
Now, tell me how this is not stealing?
-
Don't be blinded by the media... In my eyes, he is INNOCENT! But then again, as guilty as all the other proffesional bicyclists. Like it or not, all of the pro bikers use additives, such or another. Take a look at the Tour de France for example - without drugs, they couldn't be each year faster and racing with such speeds after several thousands of kilometers. It's humanly impossible without the "help". I'm sure he was doping tested during all those years and always came back clean. I don't wanna even think what else might be found in blood and urine of other winners, yet noone thinks of that. It's all just a sick farce to me (and no, I'm not his fan; I'm not even interested in road cycling - MTB runs through my veins).
I have to agree with you. No cyclist is 'clean' in the Tour de France. But even without this, he still should have been granted only 6 victories because at one edition he (and most of the other cyclists) came in too late and should have been disqualified, but they didn't do that because than they would have to disqualify the majority of that years cyclists.
-
IFunny how he confesses, or party confesses to Ms. Oprah....
They had a party for his confession?
I suppose the statue of limitation on this thing must have passed and he feels safe to confess..
Actually, they already took his 7 victories and the money that comes with it. I'm guessing he want to get some of that money back and wants to confess instead of a long trial full of lies.
-
What a nice seaking we have. To bad they have to go. I hope they will make an appearance on Sanicole this year.
Now about the statue, man that is F-en ugly. Sorry for the 'artist'.
-
Well, was wondering (maybe somebody else already did) if it would be a good idea to do a specific post on all kits. What i mean is the following.
A person starts a post about a kit he would like to build. He titles the post with scale, manufacterer, kitname and maybe even kitnumber. Than other people can reply by pointing out stuff that are wrong with the kit or that should be replaced and the original poster edits those tips in his original posts. That way, after some time, if someone else wants to build that kit, he can look it up and immediately gets an idea on what he should fix and what to look out for.
I know that the original poster has the job of maintaining his post, so that's why i suggest that he/she only makes posts about kits he/she is actually building so not to have to keep track of dozens of posts in a short time period.
So actually it is a bit like a kit review, but than made by several people and one that can be updated at any time.
Now how about the idea? Good or bad?
-
OK, on 'luchtzak.be' i found my answer. I was looking for the documentary 'dream jets' from 2004.
-
So, as the title states, i'm looking for a documentary where they outfit a 767 and a 757 for VIP transport. Also they show other people experiencing privat jets including carly simons (from the song 'you're so vain'). Does anybody know where i can find this one?
-
Is it solely for military planes or are civil aircraft allowed?
-
What a great sound. I have the M2 version in my stash and hope to one day get the M3 version as well.
-
I too made a guess and i live in Europ. I didn't do it for the kit which i knew i could never get, but for the fun of trying to guess it right. Sorry to hear it went that way. Hope that you reconsider after some time has gone over it and if not, that others (maybe me) will follow your lead and still organize one.
-
Yesterday i was working on a 1/72 il 28 when i lost a pair of tweezers. I knew i had them because i had been using them all the time, but somehow i couldn't find them anymore. I even asked my girlfriend to help look to know i wasn't going insane. Than i realized i openend another kit to test the fit of the pilot figure and when reboxing that kit i accidentally packed my tweezers inside. Man, did i feel stupid with my girlfriend looking over my shoulder.
787 Grounded: FAA Orders Airlines To Park Dreamliners Over Safety Conc
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by streetstream
Ok, i'll explain.
First of, there are 2 factors in air travel. The plane and the pilot.
Let us take the A330 pitot problem. The pitot's only job is to tell the pilots how fast they are flying. They don't directly contribute to the planes ability to fly. Now, if the pilots of air france kept the plane at a certain altitude with a certain amount of trust and a certain angle of attack, the plane would fly no problem and could divert. (I know i'm making it sound simple, but it is possible for trained pilots). the pilots were a factor in this crash.
Now, let us take the DC 10 problem. The door fails and in one occation the control cables got severed. The plane can't be flow anymore. The plane crashes, no matter what the pilot's do. The pilots were no factor in this crash.
Which one of these problems is more severe in your opinion? Now which of the 2 aircraft should be grounded?
Now, what does something like that tell you about the Boeing 787.
And now one direct question that i'd like you to answer. Why isn't Boeing just switching the batteries if that is the simple solution to this problem?