Thanks, Ian.
You say,
It would appear that you have your information mixed. My understanding was that the aircraft was powered on stand A14 and the crew received a lot of EICAS warnings and shut down.
I admit that I cannot find this information anywhere easily (though my time for in-depth research has been a bit short over the last couple of days. However, it doesn't detract from my basic thesis - more information would be better, not worse. It is being regarded as a cover-up, which isn't good.
Later, you say,
... perhaps you could elucidate on why the FAA should ground the 787 again?
This is something I most definitely haven't said, on this thread or anywhere else. I am not a Boeing-hater: I actually prefer Boeing to Airbus, since they seem much better "screwed together". I was looking forward to my first flight on a 787, and still am, but now only after a couple of years smoke-free. However, there are some serious questions about whether Boeing have done too much too soon with this aircraft, and the fact that the Japanese have found problems with the wiring on some of their fleet doesn't help. More information, not less, is the way to deal with this. I have a lot of experience in the health service, and I know that covering things up, or merely seeming to, is the way to get a bad name that will come and bite you on the a
e.
I would think that Boeing is more concerned about satisfying its customers - who are still ordering and staying with orders for the 787, than they are concerned about uninformed members of the peanut gallery like us,
Maybe, but *we* are the customers too - just a bit further down the line. It would take no effort to release some information that clarifies the situation. As you also said in your very kind post, there is no certainty as to what happened, or where, under what circumstances. But hell, what does passenger confidence matter?
It seems that some aircraft are given a bad name by pundits and critics which can be extremely hard to shake off.
First of all, a plane that keeps showing smoke is *always* going to get a bad name. There is a problem. Look, I can cope with engines letting go - it is something that airframes are designed to cope with. They are not, and cannot, be made to cope with fire. An engine loss in flight is, depending on exactly where it happens, survivable with few or no injuries. A fire in flight is never going to have that result due at least to the toxic by-products - the best result will be smoke-inhalation injuries. In a frame made of material that will burn at a temperature obtainable by a good oven, that concern is magnified. However, one of the ways to "shake off" a bad name is openness on the part of all concerned. It may be getting to the point where it is too late - the 787 may always be tarred with this brush. All it needs is for someone to come up with a catchy nick-name (and I haven't seen one yet), and its future may be sewn up.