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

[streetstream]

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.

[vince14]

You may be surprised to learn that aircraft have been built on this basis for at least thirty years, including having parts made overseas and sent to the final assembly line to be married up with other parts made in all sorts of other places. Sometimes there have been problems; sometimes not. It's jumping the gun a bit - no, quite a lot - to assume that this is a new problem or that this method is inherently more likely to create problems. If anything, the scope for error has diminished, as computerised techniques enable tighter control over design and greater adherence to tolerances.

In fact it's even longer than that. Mass produced aircraft have had components outsourced since the beginning of World War One.

Vince

[TaiidanTomcat]

The fact that all the planes are grounded.

Teething problems are hard to fix while airborne. (Not that I will ever give up my dream of flying mechanics.)

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.

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. not only that but I don't recall anyone saying that what happened to the DC-10 was a teething problem. I think someone used DC10 as an example of a serious problem, rather than a teething problem in fact...

You know who else cam from Austria? Hitler. Thus all Austrians are Hitlers. see how this logic doesn't track?

Edited January 18, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[streetstream]

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?

Edited January 18, 2013 by streetstream

[huntermountain]

Actually, depending on what part of the plane has 'a teething problem', they may or may not decide to ground the plane. They would indeed not ground the planes because there's a problem reclining the seats. But if they do ground the plane, it only indicates that there's a risk involved in keeping the planes air born. That doesn't mean it's a fundamental design or production error, nor is it certain that it's a teething problem. Only thing that's certain, is that they deem it to risky to keep flying the 787.

Let's be glad they took that decision, instead of crossing their fingers, hoping nothing bad would happen. There's more than enough examples of how fast that can go pear shaped, and not only in the aircraft industry.

Edited January 18, 2013 by huntermountain

[streetstream]

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.

[TaiidanTomcat]

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?

It depends on the type of problems doesn't it?

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?

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.

Edited January 18, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[streetstream]

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?

[11bee]

For whatever it's worth, this grounding still should be seen as a good thing. It is a proactive measure to address potential safety issues. As mentioned, there are only 50 787's in service and (assuming the issues are corrected in a timely manner), the only real impact will be to BA's stockholders (myself included). Within a few months after returning them to service and assuming no re-occurrence, all of this will be forgotten.

Other aircraft have had major safety issues but were never grounded. The A330 had a problem with it's pitot tubes. It was known for some time but a corrective action was never mandated until one of these planes ended up in the South Atlantic.

I'd rather see BA (or Airbus, Embraer, etc,) go through the pain of a grounding rather than have a problem lead to a fatal accident. The 787 never should have had these issues make it this far without being caught. BA definitely dropped the ball. Regardless, they are now being addressed and no one died as a result of these defects.

In the long run, it's all good....

[TaiidanTomcat]

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?

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!!

You would almost think that the 787 should be judged alone, without guessing problems and drawing parallels that don't fit...

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?

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.

Edited January 18, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[streetstream]

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.

Edited January 18, 2013 by streetstream

[TaiidanTomcat]

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.

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.

BTW, the reason that the A330 didn't get grounded is becuase if the pitot tubes fail, your plane still can fly.

You may want to do some research there.

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.

not true, as a recovery was made after a door failure.

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?

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)

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?

You would almost think that different problems require different solutions. :rolleyes:/>/>

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.

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 work in avaition and we try to throw water onto fires, not gasoline. We try to operate on logic and calculation not panic. We try not to read into situations because it can cause false reactions that lead to imagined problems that then lead to actual problems. So stop jumping to conclusions. I hope you never have to see behind the scenes of real life aviation.

Once again the 787 being grounded does not make it the same in any way shape or form like the DC-10 with the exception that they were grounded. Stop trying to equate the two because it is false. Plenty of aircraft have crashed without fleet wide groundings as well.

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.

Edited January 18, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

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.

With regard to the A330, yes the plane can fly even if the pitot tubes fail (except in one case). Granted the cause of the crash also involved pilot error but the pitot's were a significant contributory factor to this crash. It doesn't take something as catastrophic as a cargo door detaching from an aircraft to start a chain of events that leads to a major accident.

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. Instead, they continued to fly in revenue service, while AB implemented a gradual inspection program and repair program. Some could argue that the FAA made the correct decision grounding the 787's, while in other cases, regulators cut a particular aircraft some "slack" for whatever reason. I don't think the ongoing problems can be minimized but I do think that other aircraft have had problems early on which probably should have resulted in similar action being taken.

[streetstream]

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'?

[TaiidanTomcat]

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'?

Define "more dangerous"

[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.

[streetstream]

Define "more dangerous"

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?

Edited January 22, 2013 by streetstream

[11bee]

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'?

Maybe the FAA isn't "hating" on BA, maybe because the systems involved are so revolutionary, they felt it was prudent to order the grounding so that the issue(s) could be thoroughly understood. Not because there was an imminent threat that the plane was about to crash.

Airworthiness Directives get issued all the time, to every airliner out there. Just because an AD goes out for a particular aircraft, doesn't mean that the plane is "more dangerous" than another jet.

I could make an argument that maybe the A-planes mentioned above should have been grounded but due to politics, this never happened. The Air France pilots' union seemed to think the A330 was the cause of the crash mentioned above, not crew error. Should this plane have not been grounded as a precautionary measure or was it deemed to be only a "little bit" dangerous and as such, it was ok to keep it flying?

How do you measure the safety of an aircraft? By number of groundings? By hours flown without an incident, by bodycount? Lots of metrics out there to pick and choose from. Using the latter, I could make a case that the A330 is 228 times more dangerous than the 787.

[TaiidanTomcat]

How do you measure the safety of an aircraft? By number of groundings? By hours flown without an incident, by bodycount? Lots of metrics out there to pick and choose from. Using the latter, I could make a case that the A330 is 228 times more dangerous than the 787.

Precisely.

[TaiidanTomcat]

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

A gross oversimplification bordering on pure ignorance. The statement above is one of the statements that shows me you have no idea what you are talking about, and to me shows you have no logical source for opinion on the matter. There is reason I don't comment in ARC hockey threads, or threads about chemistry, or threads about medical issues. I don't know much about the subjects so I don't say much, what little I know is so limited to the point that I don't form opinions on the matter. Its ok to say nothing or to try and learn from those who know better without saying sweeping things that show how little you know about things. The difference is I know what I don't know about. You are so wrong with the above statement you don't even know how beyond your depth you really are. You are ignorant of your ignorance.

Edit: I am removing all the other more detailed information that followed this, as it is a waste of time to talk about the details with someone who can not grasp core concepts, let alone the details.

I will leave you to ponder why the above statement gave away how little you know.

Edited January 22, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[streetstream]

Maybe the FAA isn't "hating" on BA, maybe because the systems involved are so revolutionary, they felt it was prudent to order the grounding so that the issue(s) could be thoroughly understood. Not because there was an imminent threat that the plane was about to crash.

All system on a plane have to be approved by the FAA before the plane gets cirtified. So whay your saying is that the FAA first claims that the systems onboard are in order, than make an announcement that the batteries in the plane did more than enough testtime on the bench and are satisfied by them and all of a sudden would ground them because it is a new system?

And in making that statement you are acting in a way that you accuse me of doing, namemy making assumptions. You are assuming that the FAA is biased over new technology even when they tested it over and over again and were satisfied with it. So why would they change their minds? What will it be? Is the FAA biased over new technology or did the FAA approve equipment that they weren't satisfied with?

[streetstream]

Maybe the FAA isn't "hating" on BA, maybe because the systems involved are so revolutionary, they felt it was prudent to order the

How do you measure the safety of an aircraft? By number of groundings? By hours flown without an incident, by bodycount? Lots of metrics out there to pick and choose from. Using the latter, I could make a case that the A330 is 228 times more dangerous than the 787.

And where did i say the 787 is less safe than the A330.

[TaiidanTomcat]

All system on a plane have to be approved by the FAA before the plane gets cirtified. So whay your saying is that the FAA first claims that the systems onboard are in order, than make an announcement that the batteries in the plane did more than enough testtime on the bench and are satisfied by them and all of a sudden would ground them because it is a new system?

And in making that statement you are acting in a way that you accuse me of doing, namemy making assumptions. You are assuming that the FAA is biased over new technology even when they tested it over and over again and were satisfied with it. So why would they change their minds? What will it be? Is the FAA biased over new technology or did the FAA approve equipment that they weren't satisfied with?

Thats not how the FAA works. Fine guess though.

[streetstream]

A gross oversimplification bordering on pure ignorance. The statement above is one of the statements that shows me you have no idea what you are talking about, and to me shows you have no logical source for opinion on the matter. There is reason I don't comment in ARC hockey threads, or threads about chemistry, or threads about medical issues. I don't know much about the subjects so I don't say much, what little I know is so limited to the point that I don't form opinions on the matter. Its ok to say nothing or to try and learn from those who know better without saying sweeping things that show how little you know about things. The difference is I know what I don't know about. You are so wrong with the above statement you don't even know how beyond your depth you really are. You are ignorant of your ignorance.

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

No its not-- the Pitot feed information to the Fly by wire computer. They are not simply a speedometer. The data collected by the sensors is used to help fly and control the aircraft. Much like how your ears don't just hear sounds, they are critical to balance and spatial awareness. I am not saying that it did or did not contribute to the crash, just that Pitot tubes carry vital information to the flight computer.

The pitot only sends information to the fly by wire computer to make autopilot possible. That's why the autopilot on the Air France jet disconnected. In manuel flight it only acts as a speedo.

Here is the problem in every aircraft ever built-- there are margins that will result 100 percent in a crash. However if the chance of that happening is for example 0.0004 percent then that is acceptable. If you want an aircraft that is 100 percent safe, you can fold up a paper airplane and cut off its sharp nose using safety scissors, while wearing gloves to avoid paper cuts. DC-10s are flying today, in fact right now while the 787 is not (wrap your ahead around that one). If we ground every aircraft forever that ever crashed (or in the 787's case, worried it theoretically might) nothing would ever fly.

So you agree that if there is a factor that can make the plane crash with 100 certainty and that factor can happen regualary, the plane is unsafe and should be grounded and the problem fixed. That is what happend with the DC 10. it had a factor that made it crash and it could occur at any time. Now the Boeing is grounded? Why is that? Because there is a dangerous factor that can occur at any time?

If you feel that an aircraft that has an issue that contributes to pilot error and results in a crash that kills hundreds is far better than an aircraft that crashes beyond pilot control and kills hundreds is markedly better, well that's your problem. but I wouldn't deem either of them a victory for airline safety.

The issue in the A330 didn't contribute to pilot error. Where in the hell did you get that. Where did i say anything like that. You keep making up stuff as if i said it, without ever qouting me. Did you find my Boeing cover up quote yet?

The A330 had a fault that in combination with gross pilot error leads to a crash. No a fault that results i pilot error.

How do you know what actions Boeing is or isn't taking?

I'm not saying they aren't taking actions. Again, quote me. You keep saying that they just will switch the batteries and the problem will be solved ( i can quote you on that). If that is the case, and you see how fast they switch the faulty powerboards when they were creating 'smoke incidents', why aren't the batteries switched like you claim is the simple solution? And for once, try answering directly on a question and before you try and call me ignorant again, start work on quoting me on the matters you falsely accuse me of?

[streetstream]

Thats not how the FAA works. Fine guess though.

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?