Jump to content

787 Grounded: FAA Orders Airlines To Park Dreamliners Over Safety Conc


Recommended Posts

That is you only deffence and you call me ignorant? No correction? No nothing?

Well I ask you this simple question: If

there are 2 factors in air travel. The plane and the pilot.

Whats an FAA? and why do we need it? And why do we care what it says?

Nice, you can always say how pople are wrong, but never even give an argument. What is next? Call me ignorant again? Make comparisons that don't ad up? Ignoring evry question i ask?

Because its not my job to educate you in an era of having information at the press of a button. If I were to, based on my limited knowledge, say that everyone in Belgium eats nothing but waffles and you refuted that by saying it is fundamentally not so, and I continued to insist because I know so little about Belgium that it was the truth based on my very narrow view-- Would you not consider me ignorant of your great nation?

IF you pointed out my ignorance, how would you even begin to tell me how wrong I am about Belgium? Is it now your job to fully educate me on the people, cuisine, history, and government of the people of belgium? How long would you spend doing this? Or would you tell me I don't know what I am talking about and tell me to read a damn book, get out more, or just use this internet thingy to learn more for myself?

Or another example. What I if I said the 2 main factors in space travel are a rocket and a monkey to shoot into space. Would you consider that a gross oversimplification?

So where do I even begin?

the FAA does not work like that. If you would like to learn more about the FAA then you are welcome, its a government agency there are multiple resources online that talk about its purpose. Even then it is a massive complicated beuaracracy full of regulations and rules, and rules with the regs, and regs within the rules. The claims you are making are like saying "I was hungry for a hamburger so I went to a police man, who got the ingredients from a sky scraper and cooked it on a Television set" ...But where did a police man learn to cook a hamburger??

I have shelves and shelves of FAA regulations.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

All this speculation is just mental masturbation ... :can-of-worms:/>/> :rolleyes:/>/>

Why don't we let the investigation play out ... :hmmm:/>/>

-Gregg

Is speculation of this nature forbidden by the ARC masters? I don't see this crossing into lockdown territory. Threads like this are what makes the General Discussion Forum so awesome.

Otherwise this forum would consist solely of posts about how much snow someone just got or crying that a pet cat passed away.

If someone gets heated by a particular thread, I'm pretty sure they have the option of simply ignoring it. Personally, I would probably pay good money for entertaining content like this.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is some folks seem to be getting awfully upset over stuff we just don't fully know yet ...

Once the causes are known, have at it ... Argue all you want ...

I'm not saying "Shut Up" either ... Sure, discuss but lets keep it gentlemanly ... :salute: Why get a thread locked otherwise ?

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always amazed that some people attribute issues to being either Boeing or Airbus or whatever company. I can't recall any new aircraft that had no problems at all. It's the nature of complex engineering and machinery. Some pilots even say that an aircraft type is not done until one of the doesn't crash...might be too harsh, but they have a point. I'm quite sure that A350 will also have issues like the A380 as well had issues. Given the fact how complex these systems are I'm actually amazed that they are flying!

So keep calm guys and be reasonable :) The more issues they find and fix with any aircraft, the safer we can fly!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always amazed that some people attribute issues to being either Boeing or Airbus or whatever company. I can't recall any new aircraft that had no problems at all. It's the nature of complex engineering and machinery. Some pilots even say that an aircraft type is not done until one of the doesn't crash...might be too harsh, but they have a point. I'm quite sure that A350 will also have issues like the A380 as well had issues. Given the fact how complex these systems are I'm actually amazed that they are flying!

So keep calm guys and be reasonable :)/> The more issues they find and fix with any aircraft, the safer we can fly!

Good point. It seems like the only recent program that did not encounter major problems was the 777. If you push the state of the art, you are going to have issues come up.

Better to find an issue like the battery at ground level than at 38,000 feet over the Pacific.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or another example what I if I said the 2 main factors in space travel are a rocket and a monkey to shoot into space. Would you consider that a gross oversimplification?

No matter what you say, when you are flying a plane you have to factors, the plane and the pilot. Or do you think pilots have constant communication with the FAA when they are in trouble? Ofcourse it takes alot more than that to operate an airline, but when you are flying a plane, and something goes wrong, you have simply a plane and a pilot. Either one can cause the crash. That was the point i was trying to get accross.

Because its not my job to educate you...

Seeing how you make comparisons and how you can always disagree with a person without making any argument or even make statements in my name without ever being able to quote me or have the abbility to answer one direct question, it is indead not in you ability to educate me, let alone your job.

Edited by streetstream
Link to post
Share on other sites
No matter what you say, when you are flying a plane you have to factors, the plane and the pilot. Or do you think pilots have constant communication with the FAA when they are in trouble?

I know what science fiction universe would have such a thing!?

Control Towers and flight control centers are run by the FAA. remember earlier when I said you should read up on this stuff? So yes, as long as the aircraft has a radio, they can and do call the FAA. The aircraft is also constantly monitored and directed(unless its a small airport, with different rules) by the FAA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_emergency_frequency

See also:

Airband

Air-ground radiotelephone service

Call for help

Distress radiobeacon

Mayday (distress signal)

Transponder code

but when you are flying a plane, and something goes wrong, you have simply a plane and a pilot. Either one can cause the crash. That was the point i was trying to get accross.

What is weather? Can Ground control not fly you into a mountain or a mid air? in which case the pilot and the plane are not to blame? Or an emergency that happens so rapidly that neither pilot nor plane can react? Can there be outside forces at work?

it is indead not in you ability to educate me,

I agree, I am a very poor teacher. This Forum would have fired me a long time ago if it wasn't for the Internet Teachers Forum Union I am always paying dues for.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what science fiction universe would have such a thing!?

Control Towers and flight control centers are run by the FAA. remember earlier when I said you should read up on this stuff? So yes, as long as the aircraft has a radio, they can and do call the FAA. The aircraft is also constantly monitored and directed(unless its a small airport, with different rules) by the FAA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_emergency_frequency

See also:

Airband

Air-ground radiotelephone service

Call for help

Distress radiobeacon

Mayday (distress signal)

Transponder code

What is weather? Can Ground control not fly you into a mountain or a mid air? in which case the pilot and the plane are not to blame? Or an emergency that happens so rapidly that neither pilot nor plane can react? Can there be outside forces at work?

I agree, I am a very poor teacher. This Forum would have fired me a long time ago if it wasn't for the Internet Teachers Forum Union I am always paying dues for.

Ye I never said nobody else can cause a plane to crash, but no matter what you say, when in flight the only factors that matter are a plane and it's pilot and how they act. Jesus, how can you not understand that. Or do i have to mention Al qaida tpo as a factor in airl travel because they can hijack planes and crash them in the WTC?

My example was on the performance of a plane and if a pilot can still fly the plane after a certain parts failure or not. In the DC 10 case, the plane in about 30 of the time couldn't be safed no matter what. in the A330's case, if the pilot knew what he was supposed to do (like the captain of the Air france flight did, unfortunatly he arrived in the cockpit too late) he can still fly the plane. So the Pilot and plane are the only relevant factors in my examples (happy now, or do i have to explain every simple thing for you?).

I'm actually glad you agree that you are a poor teacher.

Now, how about those quotes? Found them yet? Or affraid to admit that you were BS-ing?

And let me try and ask this question again in hopes you will at some point answer it (i doubt it): Giving all you stated about teething problems, why isn't the DC 10 cargo door incidents a teething problem?

And now tii summarise: You believe the problem in the 787 is just a case of swapping batteries, i don't. And if you just keep on stating that i'm wrong without ever producing an argument to back your statements and by simply calling me ignorant, keep making rediculous comparisons that don't make sense and by fasly claiming i said this that you never seemed to be able to quote me on.

So if that is your stradegy, keep at it. But don't think you'll convince me or anyone else for that matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or do you think pilots have constant communication with the FAA when they are in trouble?

affraid to admit that you were BS-ing?

:whistle:

So if that is your stradegy, keep at it. But don't think you'll convince me or anyone else for that matter.

I will survive somehow, besides why confuse you with facts when your mind is already made up?

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bertling-ec225-grounding-biggest-issue-in-eurocopter-history-379866/

Here is an example of another grounding, the only difference being that in the case of the 787, the grounding was proactive. In this case, it occurred after multiple incidents, including a fatal accident.

Although this is an article from December, these helos still remain grounded at this time.

Just an example that any aircraft can have issues. Prior to this, the EC225 had a very good reputation (and the sales record to back that up). I'm sure that once they find and fix this problem, it will continue it's previous record of safe operation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bertling-ec225-grounding-biggest-issue-in-eurocopter-history-379866/

Here is an example of another grounding, the only difference being that in the case of the 787, the grounding was proactive. In this case, it occurred after multiple incidents, including a fatal accident.

Although this is an article from December, these helos still remain grounded at this time.

Just an example that any aircraft can have issues. Prior to this, the EC225 had a very good reputation (and the sales record to back that up). I'm sure that once they find and fix this problem, it will continue it's previous record of safe operation.

Not all of the N.Sea Super Pumas are grounded, it only affects one particular model of the type.

----------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys... the most dangerous risk on an airliner is fire. Li-Ion batteries of the 787 caught fire... fortunately on the ground while passengers were disembarking.

I know about the window cracking, the fuel leaks, and also about the brakes problems. These I think can be considered normal teething problems.

But Li-Ion batteries on fire in an aircraft that is flying at FL350 are really really dangerous. The FAA did it right.. The Marvelous 787 has to be grounded.. no questions about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys... the most dangerous risk on an airliner is fire.

I know about the window cracking, the fuel leaks, and also about the brakes problems. These I think can be considered normal teething problems.

Totally agree :salute:

Streetstream, unless you're working - or anybody else - for the company that produces the 787 (Boeing), you should never expect from the evening news to find out the truth about why an aircraft was grounded. Even expert magazines that publish news and articles on their monthly issues are not to be trusted 100%.

Sernak

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Quick correction here. The DC-10 wasn't grounded after the two cargo door incidents. There was an airworthiness directive issued in 1974 that fixed the problem, but the planes were not grounded. It was grounded in 1979 after American Airlines Flight 191 crashed on takeoff from O'Hare 5 miles from my parents house. That was a hydraulic failure in the left wing after the left engine ripped off. The engine took out both hydraulic systems in the wing since they ran together through the leading edge of the wing causing a stall which caused the crash. That grounded the DC-10's for almost a month while they made a bunch of fixes to the hydraulic systems, wing slats, and stall warning systems.

Edited by muswp1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick correction here. The DC-10 wasn't grounded after the two cargo door incidents. There was an airworthiness directive issued in 1974 that fixed the problem, but the planes were not grounded. It was grounded in 1979 after American Airlines Flight 191 crashed on takeoff from O'Hare 5 miles from my parents house. That was a hydraulic failure in the left wing after the left engine ripped off. The engine took out both hydraulic systems in the wing since they ran together through the leading edge of the wing causing a stall which caused the crash. That grounded the DC-10's for almost a month while they made a bunch of fixes to the hydraulic systems, wing slats, and stall warning systems.

Agreed but Streetstream shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I thought the root cause of the O'Hare incident was pre-existing damage to the left engine, which finally gave way during that take off, with fatal results.

Regardless, I always had a bit of dread when flying a DC-10, despite it being (IMHO) the prettiest airline from that era. Between O'Hare, the Turkish Airlines incident and Souix City, the -10 definitely had a checkered past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys... the most dangerous risk on an airliner is fire. Li-Ion batteries of the 787 caught fire... fortunately on the ground while passengers were disembarking.

I know about the window cracking, the fuel leaks, and also about the brakes problems. These I think can be considered normal teething problems.

But Li-Ion batteries on fire in an aircraft that is flying at FL350 are really really dangerous. The FAA did it right.. The Marvelous 787 has to be grounded.. no questions about that.

now isn't there some kind of battery regulation that you have to be aware of when packing your bags for flying? ironic?

that being said, wasn't the entire 737 fleet grounded in the 80's when there was there was the crash caused by the rudder hydraulic pump in

verting the rudders input?

it was a manufacturer issue and all of the units had to be replaced if memory serves me correct.

Edited by zerosystem
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed but Streetstream shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I thought the root cause of the O'Hare incident was pre-existing damage to the left engine, which finally gave way during that take off, with fatal results.

Regardless, I always had a bit of dread when flying a DC-10, despite it being (IMHO) the prettiest airline from that era. Between O'Hare, the Turkish Airlines incident and Souix City, the -10 definitely had a checkered past.

It was bad maintenance during an engine change that caused the engine to rip off, but safety concerns about the hydraulic lines running together with no independent backup (see the Sioux Falls crash 10 years later, same thing happened there), not having a lock on the slat actuators to prevent an uncommanded retraction, and a lack of redundant stall warning, all of which were main causes of the crash, caused the grounding. If it was only the engine pylon failure and any hydraulic pressure had been left in the left wing, the plane probably could have landed safely on the two remaining engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...