Qatar 787 smoke
Dog Tired
Thread Starter
Qatar 787 smoke
Stangeways is reporting in the ME forum:
QR B787 Smoke Incident
It appears that there has just been an 'incident' on a QR B787 in Doha (A7-BCB).
Unconfirmed reports say smoke from the rear equipment bay. APU battery issue again?
QR B787 Smoke Incident
It appears that there has just been an 'incident' on a QR B787 in Doha (A7-BCB).
Unconfirmed reports say smoke from the rear equipment bay. APU battery issue again?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough with the 787 incidents.
Poor Boeing.
Its a great aircraft!
Poor Boeing.
Its a great aircraft!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you want all boeing 787 incidents involving smoke/fire etc., censored? On
what do you base your judgement that it's a great aircraft? I'm just curious
I have never participated in the B vs A debate, I am a bizjet driver, however I will be avoiding this one for a while until we have a few hundred flying and about a year with no smoke.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid we have to brace yourself for every single maintenance issue on 787 being reported due to 'smoke'. Do I even believe in this 'QR smoke incident', hell now 
. From now on this is going to be... we had to replace part XYZ because there was a smoke 
. From now on this is going to be... we had to replace part XYZ because there was a smoke
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if we're collecting these things - a JAL 787 went a bit wonky earlier today.
"JAL's Boeing 787 Flight Signals Problem with Flap
Tokyo, July 22 (Jiji Press)--A Japan Airlines <9201> Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet bound for Japan from Boston has signaled that one of its wing flaps was not working properly while in the air, the airline said Monday.
The plane, with 159 passengers and crew members, was about 2,000 kilometers north of Vancouver when a system signaled a malfunction of a main wing flap at around 6:30 a.m. Japan time (9:30 p.m. Sunday GMT).
The flight continued and the plane landed at Narita International Airport near Tokyo at around 3 p.m. No one was injured.
The company is investigating whether the flap itself had a problem or the alert system worked improperly. "
One of those things. I'm sure it happens to all sorts of aircraft, all the time - just another warning that means you have to land assuming that system's not working. But I hope someone's keeping the stats.
"JAL's Boeing 787 Flight Signals Problem with Flap
Tokyo, July 22 (Jiji Press)--A Japan Airlines <9201> Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet bound for Japan from Boston has signaled that one of its wing flaps was not working properly while in the air, the airline said Monday.
The plane, with 159 passengers and crew members, was about 2,000 kilometers north of Vancouver when a system signaled a malfunction of a main wing flap at around 6:30 a.m. Japan time (9:30 p.m. Sunday GMT).
The flight continued and the plane landed at Narita International Airport near Tokyo at around 3 p.m. No one was injured.
The company is investigating whether the flap itself had a problem or the alert system worked improperly. "
One of those things. I'm sure it happens to all sorts of aircraft, all the time - just another warning that means you have to land assuming that system's not working. But I hope someone's keeping the stats.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two mentalities equally correct:
1) B787 is getting over-exposed and modern planes do have issues all the time no matter what model you're flying.
2) At the same time, we're talking about hundreds if not thousands of planes flying for other models. B787, with only 60+ flying so far, seems to average an incident every few days. Also, the incidents are not all just trivial issues like warning lights malfunction or flap not working properly. Fire and smoke are the worst things that can happen to a plane, and it seems to happen with *regularity* with the B787, that is a cause for concern.
During a test flight the electric wires on-board started to caught fire, the root cause for that was never found either. Boeing simply redesigned the wire positioning, installed a *software upgrade*, and called it *fixed.* Just like they called the battery issue *fixed* when they have no idea what caused the fire. Now smoke and burns are coming out of the plane's rare. This is not good.
1) B787 is getting over-exposed and modern planes do have issues all the time no matter what model you're flying.
2) At the same time, we're talking about hundreds if not thousands of planes flying for other models. B787, with only 60+ flying so far, seems to average an incident every few days. Also, the incidents are not all just trivial issues like warning lights malfunction or flap not working properly. Fire and smoke are the worst things that can happen to a plane, and it seems to happen with *regularity* with the B787, that is a cause for concern.
During a test flight the electric wires on-board started to caught fire, the root cause for that was never found either. Boeing simply redesigned the wire positioning, installed a *software upgrade*, and called it *fixed.* Just like they called the battery issue *fixed* when they have no idea what caused the fire. Now smoke and burns are coming out of the plane's rare. This is not good.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of JAL, the Fryliner which diverted back to BOS on the 18th remains at BOS and has not operated since; a suggestiion that it was perhaps more than the 'precautionary' return reported at the time..?
From the perspective of PR., I'd expect Boeing to have been all over this aircraft to have it back in the air a.s.a.p., yet 5 days on, she's still on the ground @ BOS.
From the perspective of PR., I'd expect Boeing to have been all over this aircraft to have it back in the air a.s.a.p., yet 5 days on, she's still on the ground @ BOS.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. But I hope someone's keeping the stats.
About a month ago there was an article on the 787 in Aviation Week and they mentioned that with all these hickups 787 has about 30% fewer problems per frame than A380 did during the first 18 months of service.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, if the report was a month ago, in the ensuing month to date, there have been been 3 additional diversions, United has had numerous cancellations, Ethiopian had their onboard fire and now smoke on the Qatar example.
The stats ain't improving.
The stats ain't improving.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversions, cancellations happened before, Qatar smoke is a forum BS, whether Ethiopian accident changed stats that much I doubt it, if it did negatively maybe it got closer to A380 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: EPWA
Age: 65
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@olasek
to believe in statistics require more detailed knowledge what they are counting and how these incidents are gruoped.
As people here say: smoke/fire is more important than bulb/CB and sometimes all are counted equally.
I would love to see some more detailed statistics but most of all securely and surely flying planes.
to believe in statistics require more detailed knowledge what they are counting and how these incidents are gruoped.
As people here say: smoke/fire is more important than bulb/CB and sometimes all are counted equally.
I would love to see some more detailed statistics but most of all securely and surely flying planes.
