Boeing 787 news

[Streetstream]

Battery problem for a JAL 787:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-0 ... -says.html

But because it's a 787 and especially because it's somehow related to the batteries, it's in the press all over the world again (also in Belgium).

Can't really blame the press for that, can you?

[RoMax]

Can't really blame the press for that, can you?

I do blame them if they try to make something sensational of it while they don't even have a clue what they are talking about. Not just with the 787, same with the A380 some years ago.

[Streetstream]

Can't really blame the press for that, can you?

I do blame them if they try to make something sensational of it while they don't even have a clue what they are talking about. Not just with the 787, same with the A380 some years ago.

Ok, you can blame them for not researching their subject, but you can't blame them for reporting it. Of course, if they blow it out of proportion, they are at fault. But, if i remember correctly, Boeing also tried to downplay the battery problems. Both are wrong, and in the end, you choose the middle to get to the truth.

[Passenger]

Quote from the Bloomberg article : "Japan Airlines said the sensor showed a difference in air pressure between the outside and inside of the battery container during a safety check before the departure of Flight 21 from Tokyo’s Haneda airport, the news network reported..."

This looks very factual and objective, so there's no press to blame here.

[RoMax]

This looks very factual and objective, so there's no press to blame here.

I wasn't talking about Bloomberg (a very neutral article, nothing wrong with it). My statement was more regarding the simple way of saying "Battery problem" in your post...no it wasn't a battery problem, it was a problem with the container (someone forgot to pull off a piece of tape, resulting in the difference in air pressure, the problem wasn't even the sensor itself). About the rest of that post, Bloomberg is neutral, but I've seen other articles...

Ok, you can blame them for not researching their subject, but you can't blame them for reporting it. Of course, if they blow it out of proportion, they are at fault. But, if i remember correctly, Boeing also tried to downplay the battery problems. Both are wrong, and in the end, you choose the middle to get to the truth.

Here we agree on.

[earthman]

I would say the press can always be blamed whenever they report on something without investigating it. Their role in being the first to report on something is being taken over by social media. Instead of trying to fight it and puking out reports without investigating, they should find their reason for existence exactly in producing more in-depth, well-researched reports.

Otherwise they may just as well post tweeter feeds. Oh wait, that's what they already do.

[quixoticguide]

Norwegian to Start Intra-Europe Boeing 787 Service from July 2013

As per 05JUN13 GDS timetable/inventory display, Norwegian has loaded planned Boeing 787 Intra-European operation for the month of July 2013. Per latest plan, the airline plans to inaugurate Boeing 787 aircraft on Oslo – Malaga on 04JUL13, followed by Oslo – London Gatwick.
Planned Boeing 787 operation for the month of July 2013 as follow.
Oslo – Malaga 04JUL13 – 04AUG13 DY1800/1801 Day x156
Oslo – London Gatwick 04JUL13 – 04AUG13 DY1310/1311 Day 47
Oslo – Alicante 05JUL13 – 02AUG13 DY1790/1791 Day 15
Oslo – Barcelona 05JUL13 – 02AUG13 DY1742/1743 Day 15
Oslo – Nice 06JUL13 – 03AUG13 DY1402/1403 Day 6 / DY1406/1407 Day 23
Planned Boeing 787 operational routes, dates and days remain subject to change.

[Passenger]

This looks very factual and objective, so there's no press to blame here.

I wasn't talking about Bloomberg (a very neutral article, nothing wrong with it). My statement was more regarding the simple way of saying "Battery problem" in your post...no it wasn't a battery problem, it was a problem with the container (someone forgot to pull off a piece of tape, resulting in the difference in air pressure, the problem wasn't even the sensor itself). About the rest of that post, Bloomberg is neutral, but I've seen other articles...]

It was not a problem with one or other container. It was the battery container, part of the solution the FAA brought up for the problems that caused two major inflight incidents resulting in the grounding for months. The battery container is part of the battery, hence it was a battery problem.

The 787 is a superb aircraft and the way Boeing managed to find an alternative for the bleed air makes it worth to choose it above others. But Luchtzak.be is not the Boeing press service, so we don't need to minimalize or deny it. Fact is that it forced JAL to ground a 787.

[earthman]

Perhaps Boeing forgot to make the to-be-removed piece of tape bright orange?

Also, may I recall aeroperu 603, a 757 that crashed into the ocean at night because someone forgot to remove a piece of tape? (which covered the static ports, so all the instruments were showing whatever they felt like showing...)

[RoMax]

Also, may I recall aeroperu 603, a 757 that crashed into the ocean at night because someone forgot to remove a piece of tape? (which covered the static ports, so all the instruments were showing whatever they felt like showing...)

Not all pieces of tape are that dangerous, but still they have to be removed for the air pressure in the container, therefore there is a sensor to indicate when there's something wrong..

[tolipanebas]

The 787 is a superb aircraft and the way Boeing managed to find an alternative for the bleed air makes it worth to choose it above others.

Not to put the 787 down, but the bleedless engines are not THAT revolutionary either, you know?

The AVRO engines don't use bleed air to start up either and there have been several bleedless cabin pressurisation systems used on other British planes in the past too, so in fact the bleedlessnes of the 787 engines is one of the many over-hyped aspects of this plane.

[Streetstream]

Perhaps Boeing forgot to make the to-be-removed piece of tape bright orange?

Also, may I recall aeroperu 603, a 757 that crashed into the ocean at night because someone forgot to remove a piece of tape? (which covered the static ports, so all the instruments were showing whatever they felt like showing...)

A bit (okay, alot) off topic, but one thing i didn't understand about the Aero Peru crash. How does a piece of tape on the static ports have any effect on the speed indication which works via Pitot tubes?

[tolipanebas]

one thing i didn't understand about the Aero Peru crash. How does a piece of tape on the static ports have any effect on the speed indication which works via Pitot tubes?

Because to derive air speed from air pressure, you not only need total air pressure (from the pitot), but also static air pressure (from the static ports): the difference between the 2 is called dynamic air pressure and is a measure of air speed.

[Desert Rat]

The 320 who rammed in the mediteranean a couple of years ago. ...with a german crew close to Perpignan...same story....tape on the statics port.

[earthman]

One would almost recommend having a system that can clean out the static ports then..

[andorra-airport]

The 320 who rammed in the mediteranean a couple of years ago. ...with a german crew close to Perpignan...same story....tape on the statics port.

You mean that Air New Zealand test flight? I thought it was a lack of protection on the sensors during a water-rinsing, resulting in ice / blockage during the flight.

[bollox]

I dont understand how a sensor could be taped over and the plane could take off. Surely pre-flight checks should have shown a sensor anomaly. Was the plane just handed over to JAL? I would have thought Boeing (or subcontractor) must have made a handover test. How and why was the sensor taped over?

[RoMax]

I dont understand how a sensor could be taped over and the plane could take off. Surely pre-flight checks should have shown a sensor anomaly. Was the plane just handed over to JAL? I would have thought Boeing (or subcontractor) must have made a handover test. How and why was the sensor taped over?

Two things are getting mixed up here. There was no sensor taped over. It was an air venting hole in one of the battery containers that was taped over (probably to protect it during transport/instalation) and that wasn't removed, as a result the sensor noticed a difference in air pressure.
I don't know if it was Boeing that made the mistake by not removing the tape or if it was JAL itself.

The above discussion is about how dangerous it can be to forget a piece of tape when it's on a critical part of the aircraft, that was not the case with this 787 and the sensor did it's job resulting in JAL finding out they had a piece of tape where it shouldn't be.

[RoMax]

Jetstar gave some more information about their 787-plans, they will receive its first 787 in September and put it in domestic commercial service in November and later on (in December/January) operating international services.
As Jetstar will be the first 787-user in Australia, they'll work with the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority to certify the aircraft before starting commercial services.

The Dreamliners featuring a Panasonic Ex2 IFE system will replace Jetstar's 10 Airbus A330-200's. By 2015 all A330's will have left the fleet. They have 14 787-8's on order, which will have 21 business class seats (2-3-2) and 314 economy seats (3-3-3).
Qantas, Jetstar's mother company, will take over the A330's to replace their older 767's. Qanas previously also had 787's on order themself, but they cancelled the order (in 2012 or 2011, not sure) and instead placed new options for the same amount but with later delivery dates.

[bollox]

RoMax, I dont think you understood what I was saying fully.Normally such a box should have a self test mode after installatiom. The installation engineer should have checked the unit for correct functioning before he left. At start up of the bird, the crew should have had a no-go from the battery/battery box. Did the JAL get off the ground?
If it did of this theres something wrong in the procedures or Boeing missed out something in self test