The inaugural flight came as a surprise to the passengers... [Archive]

Dream Buster

22nd Jun 2013, 21:49

The single unique aspect of the B787 Dreamliner which no one has mentioned, but all pilots and Boeing have been waiting for is that this aircraft returns to using compressed OUTSIDE air - not BLEED air, which has been used by all jet aircraft since around 1962.

In this photo you will note 2 nostril type air inlets either side in the wing root - this is where the OUTSIDE air is taken in before being electrically compressed.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=628&q=b+787&oq=b+787&gs_l=img.3..0l3j0i10i24l3j0i24j0i10i24j0i24l2.1777.3140.0.38 32.5.5.0.0.0.0.191.637.1j4.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.17.img.knp1Mtj4 Gvg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=xH6wFEcyKG8aNM%3A%3BwTbAs_p14Cca1M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%25 2Favioners.net%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252Fblogger%252F_ja676MG45Zg%252FTCGtLEV 25LI%252FAAAAAAAAD1s%252FoSqtjawMdgU%252Fs1600%252Fb787-dreamliner-noise-2.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Favioners.net%252F2010%252F06%252F boeing-b787-dreamliner-noise-wallpaper.html%252F%3B1600%3B899

Whereas BLEED air travels in the front of the jet engine - is compressed and is then piped unfiltered into the cabin.

Airbus catching up.....slowly.

http://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/documents/flightint-062013.pdf

The Best Kept Secret in Aviation.

ulxima

23rd Jun 2013, 01:04

PaxBoy triggered my curiosity :}
Apart from the Titanic, which inaugural trip went (horribly) wrong?

Phileas Fogg

23rd Jun 2013, 08:42

Apart from the Titanic, which inaugural trip went (horribly) wrong?

The Tu-144 had a problem or few!

Hartington

23rd Jun 2013, 10:19

Safety is relative! Some of us will take risks that others would never contemplate.

When 767s first started crossing the Atlantic non stop I was invited to Kansas City by TWA. The proposed route was via St Louis on the 767. I asked nicely if we could please go via Chicago on the 747 and they kindly said yes; at that point the whole idea of twins over water was far to new for me to accept. Stupid? Possibly. The reason was that, at the time, the whole issue was still being discussed in magazines like Flight International and I wasn't comfortable.

These days I have what I think is a more rounded(?) approach. There are airlines that I will avoid if possible. I will take a non stop over a stop/change if possible (why expose myself to the riskiest parts of a flight more than I have to?). I will fly airlines that I would otherwise avoid if I'm "in country" and the alternative is a bus or car journey where the accident rate is high. I will fly on twins over water. At the moment I would try and avoid booking a 787 because I'm not comfortable that simply containing the batteries is a solution.

(But here is an interesting conundrum I'm currently thinking about going to Madagascar. The tour I've looked at uses Air France to get there. They will sell me the ground arrangements and allow me to book my own flights so Air Madagascar enters the options. Probably not, thank you, even though the tour includes one of their flights internally and I will use that on the basis that it is probably safer than a bus trip. Air France? Not the best safety record in recent years. The other alternative seems to be Kenya Airways and that's probably where I'll go if I decide to take the tour).

So what would I do if presented with a 787 at the gate when I thought I was going to be on something else? I'd like to think that with things like on-line checkin I would actually find out before I go to the airport, at least then I would have time to think about it. But, in the end I think I would board despite my reservations.

Like I said we all have our own ideas of safety and they aren't always rational.

ExXB

23rd Jun 2013, 11:11

Canadian Pacific's delivery flight of their Comet I went horribly wrong*. Not an inaugural, they had to cancel that.

*1st fatalities on a commercial jet aircraft.

Hotel Tango

23rd Jun 2013, 11:14

I'd like to think that I'm relatively rational about safety, yet to be honest I'm not ready to fly an oceanic sector on an B787 just yet. And, although I do so regularly, I'm still not entirely comfortable flying oceanic on any twin for that matter.

Capot

23rd Jun 2013, 14:39

If I found myself boarding a B787 unexpectedly, I would be reassured by the fact that before it was allowed back into service a great many people who understood such things will have made damn sure that the batteries are now safe.

I would be even more reassured by the fact that it is the first large mass-production passenger aircraft (OK, first equal with A350) to have a fully-effective fuel tank inerting system built into it as part of the original design.

PAXboy

23rd Jun 2013, 18:50

One of my key concerns is not the time in the air but the time on the ground. I can be sure that flight crew have a whole lot more info than they had six months ago - but the ground crew?

Are ground crew at small outstations (not normally expecting to ever see the 787) ready? OK, the a/c is not going to be towed long distances, or at all, on such SH ops. Also the fire crews, in Boston they had been given no information about the nature of the battery they were dealing with! These items are all in the cheese. There are other reasons why I prefer to sit this one out for a while.

I agree with Hartington about early big twins and ETOPS. In fact, I can guess that I will never feel comfortable about it - eventhough I will increasinly have little choice. But that is my generation.

I am well aware that all carriers can substitute the equipment at any time and if I refuse to board that will be my financial risk. In the early days, one might hope that Thomson and other carriers would prefer to let me quietly board another flight and not have a public row about it. They have, of course, to get back to where Boeing promised them they would be, before Boeing made such a Horlicks of the production process, leave alone the battery.

Another example. When the A340 started, I waited a bit and was not happy about the A346 until they had sorted the balancing act. The last time I was on one, it still had a small - but obvious - roll for the duration of the cruise.

Bealzebub

23rd Jun 2013, 19:36

In the early days, one might hope that Thomson and other carriers would prefer to let me quietly board another flight and not have a public row about it. They won't have a public row about it. You are free to elect not to travel. They have fulfilled their end of the contract, and you have chosen to abandon it. They will be happy to sell you another contract but it will be on exactly the same terms in this respect.

This airliner is certified for public transport operations. If that doesn't allay your fears or concerns, or you wont travel in months without an "R" in them, or your horoscope doesn't mesh with your interpretation, that is all Ok. The A320 you get on instead, might decompress at 35,000ft. The B757 may have a smoke event. The B737 might need to divert with a sick passenger. Who knows?

PAXboy

23rd Jun 2013, 19:48

Eactly Bealzebub. Which is what I indicated in my OP (the :sad: was meant to indicate that I knew the answer!) and am under no illusions. I have no doubt of the outcome whatsoever, I just thought it an interesting topic.

airsmiles

24th Jun 2013, 10:01

This airliner is certified for public transport operations. If that doesn't allay your fears or concerns, or you wont travel in months without an "R" in them,

It was also certified the first time around for public transport operations, but this turned out to be misplaced trust. The fact that Boeing couldn't find the cause of the problems and went for a 'catch-all' patch-up approach doesn't really inspire much confidence to be honest.

While I trust Thomson as a quality airline, I have less regard for Boeing and the regulators about the 787 problems. You only have to see what United are having to deal with to see that introducing the 787 into service is a difficult and frustrating task when there are such a wide array of problems to identify and bed down. I presume BA are aware of this and that's why they decided to introduce the A380 into service first.

Hopefully, in the fullness of time, the 787 will live up to its promises and I truly look forward to that moment.

PAXboy

24th Jun 2013, 11:44

I expect the 787 will settle down - just like the 380 is now doing. We all know that EVERY manufacturer of ANY item now needs to rush the product to market as fast as possible. The development cycle is greatly reduced and competition acute - in the middle of the 2nd Great Depression, the more so.

Dream BusterThe single unique aspect of the B787 Dreamliner which no one has mentioned, but all pilots and Boeing have been waiting for is that this aircraft returns to using compressed OUTSIDE air - not BLEED air, which has been used by all jet aircraft since around 1962.Indeed, and I'm sure that this will be good to have. I am doubtfull that it will do much for jet-lag as Boeing claim. We are authoritatively informed that jet-lay is to do with light, not air, but the air and higher pressure will help many. I am also aware that the cabin has significant lighting design but a crate load of humans are all going to respond differently.
Airbus catching up.....slowly.That's the way humans work, if they all developed at the same time it might be industrial espionage. :suspect:

But equally, when it comes to composites in the airframe: Boeing catching up.....slowly. ;)

One Outsider

24th Jun 2013, 11:57

The simple fact is that you have no idea of how safe or unsafe it is. If I asked you to quantify how safe or unsafe it was/is before and after the battery mod and you came up with a number it would just be something you pulled out of an old hat. This 'I won't fly on it until after at least a couple of years' is an emotional response poorly disguised as a rational one by dressing in up in references to technical issues that you understand even less.

Hotel Tango

24th Jun 2013, 12:16

Well yes of course One Outsider. I can board an aircraft type I consider safe on an airline I consider safe - and still end up a statistic. I think that it's just a case of reducing the odds, at least psychologically.

PAXboy

24th Jun 2013, 12:16

One Outsider Absolutely correct! I don't think I've stated anything else. :)

I am simply one customer taking decisions on my own behalf and with those who might travel with me. Sometimes I purchase items that I think are of lower quality but it suits me at that time. Whether I choose to purchase a ticket on any aircraft with any carrier is my choice. I was simply discussing the variables of life in this thread.

We all know that any of us can die at any time without warning - ask the family of Jams Gandolfini. I am far more likely to die of a heart attack, stroke or cancer than I am in an aircraft prang. I work in the field of bereavement so I do know a thing or two about how people die.

airsmiles

24th Jun 2013, 13:39

The simple fact is that you have no idea of how safe or unsafe it is.

I'd hazard a guess that only the handful of people directly working on the testing and "fix" truly know that. The rest of us are basing our decision on safety on varying degrees of technical knowledge. I claim some inside/technical knowledge but way less than experts (as stated previously).

This 'I won't fly on it until after at least a couple of years' is an emotional response

Of course it is. Isn't that blindingly obvious from past comments! If you're an engineer and your shiny brand new car is recalled and fixed, you'd do the same thing. Try and understand it and judge if it's fixed and safe on the best knowledge you can obtain. No different to users of aircraft.

I apply the same logic to other a/c types that have had problems and certain airlines that have attracted the wrong sort of comments in the aerospace world.

UniFoxOs

25th Jun 2013, 11:37

Apart from the Titanic, which inaugural trip went (horribly) wrong?

Not quite inaugural but close enough - AF296 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296)??

old,not bold

27th Jun 2013, 15:12

Apart from the Titanic, which inaugural trip went (horribly) wrong?An aviation-related disaster was Gulf Air's inaugural flight programme to celebrate the arrival of its - only - BAC 1-11, back in the early 70's.

We decided that it would be a good wheeze to give lots of VIPs a good day out, take them to another State, host a festive lunch party in each State, then take them all back home again.

So, starting from Bahrain in the morning , we flew 70+ VIPs to Doha, where we picked up 70+ Qatar VIPs whom we took to Abu Dhabi, where we picked up 70+ Abu Dhabi VIPs and took them to Dubai, where we picked up 70+ VIPs who went to Muscat, where we picked up 70+ VIPs whom we took to Kuwait, where, guess what, we picked up 70+ VIPs to go to Bahrain.

The idea, of course, was to unravel the whole thing after lunch by going round the opposite way to take everyone home again. Simple, well-planned, a PR triumph.

420 of the Gulf region's most important movers and shakers, Rulers, Sheikhs and business leaders, military brass, a few bankers even, well-entertained and happy, in an orgy of intra-Gulf friendship and mutual co-operation.

The morning flights went like clockwork, BAC 1-11 much admired. At the lunches, the orange juice flowed like wine, many lambs gave their all, perhaps even a baby camel or two was sacrificed to the Great God of PR.

After lunch, everyone settled down to wait to be taken back home...........

...............................and waited...............

The BAC 1-11 had gone irretrievably u/s in Bahrain.

In those days telephone calls were booked hours in advance; the airline teleprinter network (what was it called?) was the main/only form of communication between Gulf States.

It took nearly 2 days to sort out the mess and get everyone back to where they started, many in a DC3. And hotel rooms were quite a scarce commodity in those days.

angels

28th Jun 2013, 09:33

Excellent tale Mr old.

That headline blaming speed for a plane running off the runway reminds me of the one I saw on the Dow Jones newswire many moons back.

"Crashed plane was flying too close to ground" :ugh:

Phileas Fogg

30th Jun 2013, 14:07

A few years back when flying with Swiss (BAe146) BHX/ZRH we boarded thru an airbridge and I took my seat ready for departure. Minutes later, looking out of the window, I observed that the wing was below me and without any engine(s) attached to it, "WTF" I thought and only upon checking the emergency card did I realise I was actually on board a Helvetic F100.

Another day I was supposedly travelling BHX/CDG on an AF/Cityjet BAe146, upon checking the emergency card I found myself on board a Blueline MD80 series.

Then, two years ago, booked on CX HKG/CEB on an A340, "great" I thought, nothing like 4 engines across water, upon taking my seat I took a look out of the window to count engines only to realise it was actually an A330.

But ... for my return trip CEB/HKG last year, which was actually supposed to be an A330, I was ready for them ... or so I thought, took a look out of the window and this, supposed, A330 had two engines on each wing. :)

The moral is that half the time the travelling public have no idea what they're flying on and tell them it's a B707 or a B787, many will just stare with a blank expression because it's merely numbers and all the same to them.

One Outsider

5th Jul 2013, 20:59

It seems one or two people conveniently missed the point, which was the pretense that is so often is present here and in other forums.

Leftofcentre2009

8th Jul 2013, 11:30

i just thought id throw in some statistics here, just for the sake of it like -

B737. As of April 2012, 159 hull losses, a total of 4236 fatalities, 106 hijackings out of 10,700 hulls delivered, 3,138 on order. This includes all variants.

B767. 14 hull losses, a total of 569 fatalities. 1052 hulls delivered of which 838 remain in service.

B757. 8 hull losses, a total of 575 fatalities. 1049 hulls delivered of which 860 remain in service.

B747. 49 hull losses, a total of 2,852 fatalities. 1464 hulls delivered.

A320. 23 hull losses, a total of 789 fatalities. 9649 hulls delivered.

UK Roads 2012. 23,039 reported serious accidents, a total of 1754 fatalities.

B787. 0 hull losses, a total of 0 fatalities. 930 hulls orders, 66 delivered.

A little perspective?

PAXboy

8th Jul 2013, 12:24

Thanks Leftofcentre2009 for half the story. Now we need route miles flown for all the hulls and distance travelled for all the cars.

Yes, I know the car will still be the greater killer - but if we are going to quote stats they need to be full.

Yes, I know the 787 is going to prove reliable but I don't use the first release of PC software either and for that I'm sitting on the ground!

Simple example, when the A346 started, they had reports of the long fuselage 'wagging' and some calling it a Dutch Roll. they tweaked the software and pax stopped feeling sick.

radeng

8th Jul 2013, 13:06

I'd avoid these big things when possible because customs/immigration in most places aren't able to handle the influx in a reasonable time. Especially LHR T5. The chaos at ORD when you get 3 744s and pair of 777s arriving at about the same time - 55 minutes in line for immigration, and that is not too bad there.

RevMan2

8th Jul 2013, 15:39

@ leftofcentre2009

A little perspective?

Statistically useful with the addition of minor factors such as average number of cycles per type or total operatinal hours per type?

SLF3

8th Jul 2013, 18:54

It is in no way irrational to prefer a plane with an established track record over a new one, or to prefer (on safety grounds at least) an airline like Ryanair over (say) Air France or Korean Airlines.

Whether it is irrational to refuse to fly on a new plane (or with a particular airline) is a harder call, because statistically the chance of dying on a flight are vanishingly small.

Anyone who has doubts about Boeings design ethos should look at the pictures of BA038 and the Asiana plane in San Francisco. That the fuselages of both stayed substantially intact is a huge tribute to the designers.

Leftofcentre2009

9th Jul 2013, 09:52

Route miles and cycles? We could go on and on..... And i'm too busy LIVING my life to go into so much research over what i believe to be rather irrational thoughts. No offence meant to anybody in my saying that of course.

Indeed i used to have a real phobia of flight myself and am well rehearsed in that feeling of proper fear when one is tossed around in the sky like a cork in the ocean during turbulence and what not. I overcome my fears though by going down the rather expensive route of gaining my PPL. When one is in a little aircraft, a few bumps in an airliner feels rather trivial. So i may have spent a fortune (to me) to allay my fears, but on the upside, i now get to enjoy travelling without being a nervous wreck on fear of death but actually enjoying life a bit more than before. Anyway, i digress.

I would never refuse to travel on a Western Airline over their choice of vehicle. A lot of airlines use 3rd party facilities for maintenance anyway so the name printed on the side of the aircraft likely has little bearing on the standards of mechanical reliability. I'd like to think certain airlines are more reliable and have newer and better maintained airframes than others. That said it all means nothing when they forget to fasten the engine cowls though does it :O

If you want more statistics -
B737 Next Generation. Since 2005, 9 hull losses, 527 fatals in less than 10 years.

I still think it shows a bit of perspective and that the media for some reason latched onto the 787 issues.

Just to contradict what i said above hahaha - ive just remembered a trip i had with my family aboard a Package Airline last year when heading for the Caribbean.

We were waiting by the gate in T2 at Manchester when this aircraft gets towed up G-OOBK. So showing a bit of interest in aviation i then proceed to input the reg into google.

To my horror, i discovered that this aircraft, a Boeing 767-300 had in fact been involved in a hard landing and suffered creases and tearing to the fuselage crown whilst landing in Bristol 2010. Further more, the same airframe had had a hard landing in its previous life with Vietnam Airlines during 2000 and had been repaired.

Needless to say my family and i were NOT impressed. Repaired twice!?

Could hardly refuse boarding though could we?! But ah look, here i am alive and kicking writing this post. That same airframe has probably flown to the Caribbean and back 2 or 3 times a week since we returned from hols. Not crashed though has it.

I dont know how to post images so do a search on google for G-OOBK and click Images on the top tool bar.

PAXboy

9th Jul 2013, 16:28

I sympathise with you Leftofcentre2009 on discovering you were about to travel on G-OOBK. A couple of months ago, I friend of mine was on Air Transat, LGW~YYZ. Flight Radar 24 showed the flight progress and there was something familiar about it's reg: C-GITS. Yes it was AT236 that glided into the Azores in 2001. Obviously all went well as the machine has been plying it's trade all the while. I didn't bother to tell her afterwards!

slight thread divergence
Leftofcentre2009I still think it shows a bit of perspective and that the media for some reason latched onto the 787 issues.I think it's because Boeing made such a successful publicity launch. They were so keen to make a splash because the A380 took lots of limelight and got dubbed 'Super Jumbo' by the press. 'Jumbo' had been a Boeing 'word'.

To fight back on the corporate front, they created the name 'Dreamliner' to differentiate and started pushing the computer image of the machine aloft in the Boeing 'wavy line' paint job to make it look interesting. Actually, it's just another large twin, but with some different technology some of which may make a more pleasant flight but it's waaaay too early to tell.

The Boeing press office people pushed out every little detail during manufacture, they ensured that documentaries got made and stuffed things down Your Tube (or UP the tube as you wish ;)) and made sure that everyone knew that Boeing were doing something different to the A380.

Then they had problems and the wide publicity came back and bit them on the butt because everyone KNEW about the B787. Airbus were lucky in that the nature of the 380 gave them publicity on a plate, Boeing had to make it. My guess is that neither Boeing nor Airbus will hype a new machine in this way ever again.

Not least because - 99% of pax don't know what the machine is and don't care. It was corporate PR eating itself - nothing new there. In my opinion, they should have said nothing at all. they wasted their money because anyone who wanted to know about the machine - would know. But corporates get a real buzz from seeing their name up in lights.

Leftofcentre2009

10th Jul 2013, 08:04

And of course there's the UK Package company that has used the 787 as a huge marketing machine because they are the first British company to operate it.

In fact on that flight previously mentioned on G-OOBK, they (the airline) were constantly showing videos of how much better it would be on their new Dreamliner. Its plastered all over their website and all over their brochures and all over the inflight magazine.

I also believe they charge a supplement of £40 per passenger for the privilege too. WHY? Madness.

So when all this negative hype came to light, one could say it urinated on their fire so to speak :uhoh:

ExXB

10th Jul 2013, 09:58

Here's (http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/travel/thomsons-boeing-787-dreamliner-verdict-2040517?) a review of Thompson's first long-haul flight.

You can ignore the pictures of the pretty young lady, or not.

PAXboy

10th Jul 2013, 11:37

... a review of Thompson's first long-haul flight. Wow. Did "Our man in the sky, Nigel Thompson" get paid for rehashing the Boeing and Tompson sales pitch??? :yuk:

... revolutionary jetlag busting passenger plane ...We don't know, largely because jet lag affects everyone differently. It also depends how tired you are when you start the journey work/food/sleep etc. from the previous couple of days and what you have to get over - as well as the jet lag. Lastly, it depends what you do in the first 24/48 hours when you may be in jet lag. :hmm:

Just in case you didn't pick up on it, a couple of paragraphs later:
Physical differences between the jetlag busting Dreamliner cabin...

Actually, I'm not sure what else he has to say:
Dreamliners are the only way to fly in economy. Jetlag – you're busted.

He makes no truly personal observation, only states what the PR peeps have being saying for months
There is no word of criticism
Links to Boeing YT about building the thing

But since the web 'front page' of the Mirror has no news stories at all, only tittle tattle and adverts, there is no suprise that there is no news elsewhere. :rolleyes:

Since he does not mention his own jetlag or the return flight - did he actually travel on it?

PAXboy

12th Jul 2013, 17:50

As I was saying ... Pax used to know two words 'Jumbo' and 'Super Jumbo' now they know 'Dreamliner'.

It does not matter that the issue is on the ground - pax don't like this kind of news. The precautinary early returns are all going to get counted too.

Boeing made more than one mistake with this machine.

nimsu1987

30th Jul 2013, 21:43

How pompous. You know nothing about this plane except some reports of battery problems. Read the aviation herald.

Every day planes have problems, albeit fires are serious and it's been fixed; but if you want to change, pay yourself. I doubt there is anything in the contract in relation to aircraft type. Since I'm pretty sure the airline doesn't rank their own planes' reliability scores

Skipness One Echo

31st Jul 2013, 00:17

How pompous. You know nothing about this plane except some reports of battery problems. Read the aviation herald.

Every day planes have problems, albeit fires are serious and it's been fixed
Get off your soap box and read some reports. Try starting with the Convair built DC10 cargo door that was "fixed" and went on to kill hundreds more. The B747 cargo door that was "fixed" after the Pan Am incident then opened over the ocean on a United aircraft causing someone to be sucked into an engine.
Or how about the Concorde tyres that were "fixed" after the 1981 fuel tank puncture departing Dulles.
The B787 has recurrent problems with fire and smoke, with billions riding on it, I'll reserve judgement on when to decide that it's "fixed".

PAXboy

31st Jul 2013, 01:32

nimsu1987... but if you want to change, pay yourself. I doubt there is anything in the contract in relation to aircraft type.Of course I would have to pay if I wanted to change!!!! That was made clear within the first five messages of the thread. But perhaps you didn't have time to read that far ...

Many people in the world choose not to use the 'Mk.I' of anything - be it software or hardware. I choose my carriers and their aircraft with care as, doubtless, do you,

SpringHeeledJack

31st Jul 2013, 20:07

I would say that in general terms if one is a very frequent flyer and for their sins knows more than the majority of the passengers about technical aspects of a company and it's aircraft, then you can make informed decisions about which airlines/routes/airports to use and those NOT to use. The 787 is a fantastic aircraft, billions invested and tested, new systems, new materials and on and on. It experienced problems earlier in it's development, was delayed a few times and finally brought into service. However, since then there have been way too many incidents, both major and minor covering different airframes and airlines. If there were not SO much riding on it's continuing introduction to service it might well have been wise to complete further intensive testing.

I have the feeling that some of the agitated posters are working for airlines that have the 787 in their fleet. If PAXboy feels with his extensive travelling experience that he'd prefer to not travel on a 787 until the recent faults are remedied then that's his choice. It's not personal against Boeing/engineers/pilots/crew/et al, but it IS a personal decision, and not without merit.

Nervous SLF

1st Aug 2013, 01:59

Re the 787 the main concern for me is how well they can be repaired. Taking China Airlines 611 as an example, there are others.
That aircraft was damaged 22 years before it crashed but at the time of the first accident it was not repaired correctly even though
the damage was very clear.As I understand it the composite hull of the 787 might not easily show damage, damage which could cause
a major crash in a few years time. Now that is the reason why I don't wish to fly on a 787 not the battery issue.
In spite of my very original PPRuNe post moaning ( over the top on reflection 2 years on :O:O ) I like Air NZ. Snag is now however that
they are buying several 787's so I might have to fly with another non 787 airline.

FlightlessParrot

2nd Aug 2013, 08:26

It's really interesting that a hypothetical question is asked, and professionals leap in to tell passengers (or "customers" as we are now called by too many airlines) have no right to make choices, or that preferences are irrational, as if that meant anything. On the one hand we are invited to make choices about airlines, and presumably about aircraft too, if the makers' publicity campaigns are anything to go by, but then told we're a bunch of :mad: if we do so. Sometimes I get worried by the contempt for passengers that some pilots feel; not so much that it affects me, but that sort of personality could be a problem on the flight deck.

PAXboy

2nd Aug 2013, 10:41

I think it's much the same in any industry. Those that are in it for a long time know the risks and benefits so well that they become desensitised.

Many people work in different lines and so get a new perspective. For example, whilst I worked in telecommunications for 27 years, I was in small companies, local govt, retail, financial, cargo etc. I also worked in different countries and was a freelance consultant so I met numerous clients and situations - which helped me to continue to think about the end user.

Pilots, mostly, have only ever worked in the piloting business and many stay with one company for extended periods of time. Thus they can easily get distanced from the those in 56B.

I now work in a field where customers are usually first time purchasers. A few are second or third but most do not purchase more than three times in their lives. Conversely, many have worked in the business all their lives - so I see some of the 'old hands' getting casual. I was discussing this just yesterday with one of the best in the business that I have met in 22 years.

I'm now off to work with clients who are first time purchasers ...

ps I'm not that old, my two careers overlapped!

peakcrew

5th Aug 2013, 23:38

There seem to be a lot of people using the "trust X, they know what they are doing" argument, despite the fact that many incidents are caused by people that "know what they are doing". Train crash in Spain - caused by someone who "knew what he was doing", Comet hull losses - caused by people who "knew what they were doing", battery problems on 787 - the same people.

There isn't much that would get me on a 787 at the moment, especially for an over-water flight. There is too much that has gone wrong with one essential subsystem - the electrics. There *is* a time element to this - once a couple of years have gone past without an electrical fire, it may be safe to assume the problem is understood and sorted. Until then, I don't want to be a paying guinea-pig, thanks very much.

TightSlot

6th Aug 2013, 09:41

There seem to be a lot of people using the "trust X, they know what they are doing" argument, despite the fact that many incidents are caused by people that "know what they are doing". Train crash in Spain - caused by someone who "knew what he was doing", Comet hull losses - caused by people who "knew what they were doing", battery problems on 787 - the same people.

You seem to have put your finger on the source of the problem - We simply can't (and shouldn't) trust people who know what they are doing. In my experience, it is always better to trust people that don't know what they are doing.

Hipennine

6th Aug 2013, 10:27

Unfortunately, aviation history is littered with fatal examples of people who knew what they were doing, but carried on regardless:

The DC10 had a known weakness, established before it flew, with regard to the impact of an explosive decompression on the floor, and therefore on control lines. But nothing was done, and the aircraft was certified. In service, a problem emerged with the cargo-door latching mechanism, but nothing was done and the aircraft continued to fly. An American Airlines DC10 suffered explosive decompression over Windsor, from a faulty cargo-door blowing off, but the pilot brilliantly saved the day, and still the aircraft remained certified. It wasn't until the THY crash out of Paris with the loss of all souls, that those who knew what they were doing acted. A lot of the current actions being played out over the Dreamliner problems looks suspiciously similar to what happened with the DC10.

And also on the DC10, presumably the AA engineers that re-attached an engine using a fork-lift truck rather than the approved cradle also knew what they were doing.

Sunnyjohn

6th Aug 2013, 11:19

it is always better to trust people that don't know what they are doing. because then you expect things to go wrong and can prepare accordingly . . .

SeenItAll

6th Aug 2013, 12:59

People's willingness to ignore statistical inference demonstrating the safety of flight on all types of modern equipment, developed by entities incomprehensibly more knowledgeable than themselves, in preference for personal superstitions and conspiracy theories knows no bounds.

If you are personally uncomfortable, don't fly on it. Just don't claim that your basis for doing this is because you possess superior knowledge about its safety.

Agaricus bisporus

6th Aug 2013, 13:12

Hear! Hear!

fenland787

6th Aug 2013, 15:10

We simply can't (and shouldn't) trust people who know what they are doing. In my experience, it is always better to trust people that don't know what they are doing. How true these words are, even today.

I hope you never will, but should you ever need any urgent brain surgery just PM me I'll pop over and do it, and I promise I will absolutely not know what I'm doing.

As a much wiser person than me once said, "If you think education is expensive - try ignorance."

peakcrew

6th Aug 2013, 20:14

My, my, there are some smart alecs on here, aren't there. I am educated to PhD level, I work in universities, and I've worked with experts in several fields, including engineering, medicine, and law. From them I know that very few true experts will say "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" when it is something new, especially when something unexpected has happened, and *especially* when it has happened more than once. I know very few people who would say, with the current level of mishap affecting the electrical systems on the 787, "trust me, I know what I'm doing" - they would have significantly more humility than that, unlike some moderators and others here who *do* claim to have better knowledge than others, when in actual fact, they are as in the dark as the rest of us.

Yes, as I've posted elsewhere, I know that the overall risk from flying is very small, but presumably those folks killed on Comets thought the same. Call it superstition or whatever you like, but I'll stick with my plan to wait until a couple of years problem-free before flying on a 787. (Though, to be fair, I tend to wait at least a couple of years before buying/using anything new - I want enough information to evaluate it first. I did fly Heathrow to Paris and back on an A380 a couple of years back when Air France first got their's - at £10 each way (I think), it was something I wasn't going to miss!!)

SeenItAll

7th Aug 2013, 14:16

Peak:

No one is being a smart alec. I, too, have academic and work credentials that I am quite sure are at least equal to your own. But like yours, mine are not in aeronautical engineering. Boeing, Airbus, the NTSB, the AAIB, the JAA, the FAA and the major airlines have a degree of understanding of these issues that simply does not compare with mine -- and their track record seems to indicate a very strong rate of success in their judgments. While this rate is not 100%, I am quite sure that adding my own technical knowledge to their knowledge will not push this rate to above what it is.

I, too, have quirks and superstitions (we all do). And while I may act on these (and other) things, I do this because they make me feel better (which is the purpose of life), not because I have performed a serious analysis that allows a dispassionate conclusion that the real situation has now been improved.

peakcrew

7th Aug 2013, 17:20

Thank you, SeenItAll. I wasn't intending to suggest that I am especially gifted - one of the problems with doing the enjoyable things in life (such as reading PPRuNE) late in the evening is that posts are inadequately proofed. I'm actually surprised that the mods let the post through - I visited at this time to try and post the same ideas in a better way!

My point was that I am an intelligent person with what I consider to be a good grasp of risk:benefit. I sit on a research ethics committee, which means I have to consider whether the actions of others would adversely affect the lives of other people. If someone came to my REC with a proposal that involved a repeating problem that no-one fully understood and claimed that there solution involved what I consider to be a bodge of Series LandRover enthusiast proportions ("put the battery in a box: the same thing might happen again, but at least we'll keep going"), without any extra information as to the root-cause, it wouldn't get passed by me or anyone else on the committee. The risk to the passengers and crew is too high for the benefit (which isn't to the passengers - they can fly on anything) to the share-holders.

Throughout my life I have looked to the airline principle of "zero harm" (now being touted by the NHS leadership) to help guide my decisions. I do not consider that the decisions regarding the 787 meet these criteria. My point about experts was that they can only be expert with full information. This cannot be the case here since they cannot point to a root-cause, i.e. they don't have the information to be make any reliable action. They cannot, therefore, credibly say "Trust me". There is a poster on other threads here (a chap called "amicus"), who makes a very compelling case that the Dreamliner is an accident waiting to happen - I choose to believe him, who has no obvious axe to grind, than those who stand to benefit financially.

Of course, I accept that others may do a different cost:benefit analysis, and choose to believe other people, though I could wish they wouldn't - the fewer people that express reservations about the 787, the more all manufacturers are going to regard us SLF as accepting of anything. Since the regulatory authorities seem to be failing (as I said, a REC wouldn't pass this, so why are they) it is up to passenger-power to try to get some balance here.

I hope that is a better posting :)

cockney steve

8th Aug 2013, 10:17

@ Peakcrew a very rational and reasoned post with which i fully concur.

It seems that the current ethos makes absolute safety a secondary consideration. The beancounters calculate the compensation-cost of failure and compare it with the cost of eliminating / mitigating that potential failure.

Still, we get the old saw, "if you think safety's expensive, try having an accident" Yet that's exactly how the insurance industry makes a profit and how big business has altered it's ethical and moral stance.......or has it?

Ralph Nader is the man who started the whole consumer protection movement, His book, "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED" gives a real insight into Corporate greed and cynicism. Chevrolet knowingly built a fundamentally unsafe and flawed design purely because the buying public would (they thought! ) not uncover the accident statistics. They had calculated that "hush-money" and compensation would be cheaper than building something safer.

We, as paying punters, have a right to distrust businesses who have been less than honest and transparent.
We have a choice, take our coin elsewhere until the customer-provider balance is restored.

peakcrew

8th Aug 2013, 13:37

Thanks, Steve. However, going back to the original post in the thread - what would you do if the plane you thought you were going to be on was substituted for a 787? I'm awkward enough individually to say "I'm not getting on that!", take the financial hit, and then start a legal case to find out the extent to which we, as passengers, can be given the stark choice of boarding a certain plane when there is credible evidence that there are significant safety issues, or lose time and money. Essentially, it would be a challenge to discover when it is that the contractual conditions presented by the airline are unreasonable.

However, if I'm with my wife, that option would not be available ... if you know what I mean :hmm:

SeenItAll

8th Aug 2013, 19:15

I, too, believe I follow exquisitely reasoned decision analysis, but at the end of the day, I make a decision that is informed by my gut as well as by my head. For example, I believe the statistics generally suggest (but are not absolutely conclusive) that major North American and Western European (and, not being British, I include the UK with Europe := ) air carriers are safer than other carriers. Thus, unless the price difference is alarming, I will prefer to ride with the former. But if, say, I am in Asia and the only in-country choice is a local carrier, I will happily take that carrier even if I would decline it for an international flight. And note, too, the statistics suggest that carriers in the second group are far safer for their international flights than they are for their home-country domestic flights.

But so much for airlines. Let's talk about jet transports. Since the 1950s Comet, there have been no transports introduced that have had glaring design flaws that have significantly impinged on safety. And for those of you who say, what about the Turkish DC-10 or Habsheim A320, the answer for the former was not that the cargo door was intrinsically unsafe, it was just that verifying its full closure was not failsafe, and for the latter, it was poor pilot decision-making coupled with unfamiliarity with how quickly the plane would begin to climb in a GA. That is not to say that all of these modern jets have been perfect from the get-go -- just that the entities that design and build these planes have become so good at what they do, that your incremental increase in safety by choosing to avoid a particular new model (in preference for taking a possibly poorly maintained older model) will be vanishingly small relative to all of the risks you face over the course of year.

fenland787

8th Aug 2013, 19:27

("put the battery in a box: the same thing might happen again, but at least we'll keep going"), without any extra information as to the root-cause, it wouldn't get passed by me or anyone else Well that is an interesting point. This either means your Ethics Committee is making an engineering judgment in which case I presume it would have access to suitable acknowledged, independent experts in the relevant fields who would point out where the fix was wrong or it is making a judgement as to competence, honesty and integrity of the - in this case - company that builds the aircraft and the body(ies) that certify it.

If the former, I'm interested to understand what you feel is lacking for the following reasons: (sorry if a bit long-winded)

In the example you are using, the 787 battery, Boeing and the FAA and everyone else has said, publicly, that they do not know the root cause. So the solution has had to be to build, and I presume test, a solution that will protect the airplane in the event of every single cell going into thermal runaway. In addition the solution will prevent a single cell causing a cascade failure of the others. On top of that there is much enhanced monitoring and control of the battery environment.

As an engineer I'm not happy that the root cause was not found, but as an engineer I know that very occasionally that will be the case, especially when the evidence is well and truly fried! So in that situation you do what Boeing have done, assume the 'nuclear' failure could occur and design for it.

If the latter, what possible reason would the two bodies have for knowingly and 'with malice a forethought' allow the thing to keep flying until a known risk of a catastrophic event occurred? Such an event, in today's world could, and most likely would, destroy both organizations.

I'm not being antagonistic, just trying to follow the logic.

Hipennine

9th Aug 2013, 08:43

Seenitall - the flaw in the DC10 was not the cargo door (although that was a known problem, as evidenced by the Windsor (Ont) incident, and others before the THY crash), but the impact on control of the aircraft following any explosive decompression. The DC10 had far less redundancy than other contemporary wide bodies, and the control lines ran together through the non-reinforced non-vented floor. Any floor damage was therefore a significant risk. One of McDonnel's sub-contractors (IIRC Convair), had discovered the flaw in hull tests long before the aircraft first flew. The massive decompression associated with a cargo door blowing out, guaranteed loss of control of the aircraft.

However, those in the know, for whatever reason, chose not to take any action until after the THY crash. Contemporary studies in the aftermath described the FAA's approach during the DC10 development and certification as "fat, dumb and happy".

I would recommend getting hold of a copy of "Destination Disaster", which describes in great detail the DC10 development history, as essential reading for those in the "trust in those who know what they are doing" camp.

PAXboy

9th Aug 2013, 14:50

Good point Hipennine. A number of aircraft prangs are ascribed to 'must land itis' and similar terms to indicate that the schedule set down by mgmt MUST be adhered to.

In almost every big man-made disaster, it is usually not long before it emerges that someone (or some people) were warning of the danger a fair time beforehand. Two examples:

The Shuttle Challenger failure on 28 January 1986 found:

NASA managers had known contractor Morton Thiokol's design of the SRBs contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977, but failed to address it properly. They also disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning and had failed in adequately reporting these technical concerns to their superiors.

In London the Kings Cross station escalator fire of 18 November 1987 had been warned of by engineers in WRITING. No action had been taken.

London Underground were strongly criticised in the report for their attitude to fires underground, underestimating the hazard because no one had died in a fire. Staff were expected to send for the Fire Brigade only if the fire was out of control, dealing with it themselves if possible. Fires were called smouldering and staff had little or no training to deal with fires or evacuation.Each can person must take their own decisions and live with them. I recall a personal conversation with Sir Hermann Bondi, KCB, FRS, an Austrian mathematician. Having experienced Nazism and got out in time, he said, "I come from a culture where no govt statement is believed - until it is categorically denied."

I prefer to let time be the judge of the 787, which will mature and be fine. One day.

peakcrew

9th Aug 2013, 19:40

Thanks, fenland, for your comments.

Any REC has a mixture of experts and lay members (as you may know), and we'll call in additional experts if needed, especially if there is something controversial or exceptionally difficult. Of course, we don't have to second-guess any other bodies, since any REC has the power to allow/deny any proposal as long as sufficient reasons are given. There is also an appeals process available to the researchers.

Now, with the issue here, we have one group of people (Boeing and airlines) that stand to lose/gain considerably depending on the decisions made. We also have a safety regulatory body which relies heavily on the information given by at least one of the parties (Boeing). On the other hand, we have a body of opinion from people who do not [seem to] have any advantage from decisions made, but which seems to have some reliability. Some of that opinion questions the use of lithium batteries at all, other sources question the use of the actual packs - this seems to have been borne out in incidents that have occurred, in which the separation of the cells seems to have been insufficient to control thermal runaway. Despite this, the solution which has been accepted by the safety authority can be phrased as, "Well, neither the interested parties nor we can find any actual reason for why this incident with novel technology (in this type of environment) has happened more than once, nor state reliably what might happen if it occurred whilst in flight. However, we accept the solution is to put the troublesome technology in a box that we hope will prevent any further incidents turning into catastrophes, and we'll hope for the best." To stick with aviation history, to my mind this is as if the safety body at the time of the Comet said, "Ah well, we don't know what the problem is, but let's put four-point harnesses on every seat and add an oxygen mask for each passenger. That should stop the effects of explosive decompression, and we'll hope for the best." This is unacceptable to my mind, and to several other posting on here.

I know that with any mechanical device, and even more so with electro-mechanical devices (that may not be quite the right phrase, but it seems to describe the new electricity-dependent planes well enough), there are going to be "unknown unknowns" - the things that could not really be anticipated, but for which the cause might seem obvious afterwards - and crash investigations often find these after the event. However, what we have with the 787 is at least one "known unknown", and on a plane capable of carrying 300+ people - and that has to be remembered here: the passengers and crew are *people*, not "self-loading freight" or whatever dehumanising term is in vogue at the moment - it is not acceptable to run on the equivalent of a rally driver sticking some gaffer tape and cable-ties around a broken bit to get to the end of the event (yes, I've done that. You might also infer from previous posts that I've had a lot to do with old Land-Rovers!) And this, to me seems to be where an REC would depart from the air-safety regulator here. Since there is no advantage to the passengers from letting the 787 fly with its "known unknown" battery problem - airlines have other planes with no "known unknowns" which can fulfil the needs of the people to get safely from A to B - we wouldn't let it through.

I am aware that, as a newbie here, I am coming across as a Boeing-hater. This isn't the case. I actually prefer Boeing to Airbus (Boeings seem better screwed together than Airbus'), and I would hate to see Boeing take a hit on this. However, I cannot see how it benefits anyone - Boeing, airlines, safety bodies, or the people that fly on them - to have this plane flying with a huge question-mark over it. I hope that I am wrong in my fears, and that in two or three years I will happily come on here and say so, and that I've just enjoyed my first flight on one. But if there is a loss in flight, and hundreds killed, as a result of a battery issue will reduce passenger - and investor - confidence so much that Boeing may well become just another old name.

Sorry for the long post.