PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) (https://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner-52/)
-   -   787 "teething troubles" statistics? (https://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/532682-787-teething-troubles-statistics.html)

scudpilot 25th Jan 2014 22:44

787 "teething troubles" statistics?
 
It's obviously widely known that the 787 has had it's had its fair share of teething problems (I know one person who has flown on a 787, and the flight had to turn back after an hour due to technical issues), but I wonder is the aircraft as bad as we are led to believe (that's how it seems to me) or is it a case of the media jumping on every issue, with the aircraft as it is considered newsworthy. Does anyone know of any statistics that may be available to compare the reliability of the 787 against other airliners.

N210KD 25th Jan 2014 23:19


It's obviously widely known that the 787 has had it's had its fair share of teething problems (I know one person who has flown on a 787, and the flight had to turn back after an hour due to technical issues), but I wonder is the aircraft as bad as we are led to believe (that's how it seems to me) or is it a case of the media jumping on every issue, with the aircraft as it is considered newsworthy. Does anyone know of any statistics that may be available to compare the reliability of the 787 against other airliners.
Scud,

I'm not certain the 787 has had any more issues than any other commercial aircraft when first introduced. There's always the 'teething process' in which defects are discovered in virtually any product from automobiles to whatever begins with a Z. Engineers are human and there are bound to be oversights on their part. I've been a small aircraft mechanic for the last thirty years (never wanted to work for the airlines) and have seen far fewer defects than the automotive industry has had in the same period of time.

Also, here in America, we have a dieing news media that will publish almost anything that will scare the people. That surely does not help the situation because they are thriving on pure sensationalism.

Intruder 26th Jan 2014 00:13

Article in the Seattle Times today said the 787 has a 98% reliability rate, similar to the 777 at the beginning. Not any hard data in the article, though.

spottilludrop 26th Jan 2014 12:12

Thompson now stipulate a engineer accompanies every flight as a precaution

BN2A 26th Jan 2014 14:05

Thomson don't, but maybe this 'Thompson' do?? Not to be confused....

;)

PAXboy 26th Jan 2014 14:06

Boeing were late delivering the machine and needed to get it out to work ASAP. Further, they used a new kind of manufacturing and testing process. So more of the problems were discovered at work.

Then, and as N210KD says, the Press want anything - particularly if it might result in DEATH and PAIN. :hmm: The 787 was handed to them on a plate, not least as Boeing had done a very big PR launch tobrand the name, not the number. I have detailed that in other threads so won't bore you with it but it all backfired.

Hotel Tango 26th Jan 2014 18:09


Also, here in America, we have a dieing news media that will publish almost anything that will scare the people.
I think that you will find this a worldwide epidemic!

NWA SLF 26th Jan 2014 19:04

Boeing has said they have improved from 97% to 98% over the past 6 months and are equivalent to the 777 at the same stage, but they are striving to reach the current 777 99.7% readiness. The numbers seem incredible to me - I have not kept track of all the flights I have made when there was a mechanical delay but my estimate would be in the 90% - 95% range. In the 1980's our SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers - also covers aviation) chapter toured the TWA overhaul base in Kansas City. They had a chart listing the reliability rate of each airplane series. Lowest was the 747SP (I wasn't even aware TWA flew the 747SP) at 76% but none were over 95%. Maybe they are different measures - the TWA chart was for plane mechanically ready for an on-time departure.

PAXboy 27th Jan 2014 23:33

NWA SLF

Maybe they are different measures ...
Ya think? :}
In the UK, the politicians have been re-defining statistical base lines for all of my life (and doubtless before it) and commercial companies do the same.

It's like the 'on time departure/arrival' thing and we all remember the 'Worlds favourite airline' campaign which was true - if you followed the line of counting they used. :D

MrSnuggles 28th Jan 2014 01:09

Many of the battery troubles are because of the new bleedless design that affects battery performance (thus requiring "new" technology batteries) and not enough time to test things through really.

The electronical malfunctions I believe are due to the new insulation - teflon - that is very non-stick, but as everyone with a teflon frying pan knows, it is also very prone to minor flaws if handled a bit rough. Teflon can also suffer from so called "creep" which means that it literally creeps together, like a rubberband when tension is released. Both these properties I believe was not fully understood in the early design.

The geographical distribution of these problems is interesting. From a Scandinavian point of view it seems like Norway got the electrical malfunctions and Japan got the battery troubles. Other countries have had various problems, transponders not working correctly (Poland), pieces of plane falling off (India) etc.

It would be interesting to see a more comprehensive geographical view of the problems, compared to the delivery date. I'm just picking trends from my head and trust me, that is not always a very up-to-date place.. ;-D

SloppyJoe 28th Jan 2014 03:43


The numbers seem incredible to me - I have not kept track of all the flights I have made when there was a mechanical delay but my estimate would be in the 90% - 95% range.
You have to know what they base this on. Does readiness mean any defect or only a defect that causes a cancellation. A delay of 10minutes, 20, 60, 120, where is the line drawn. I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not a cut off at the scheduled time of departure or it would be no where near 99.7%. Also many defects are carried for a few days and after a specific time period they would cause the aircraft to be grounded if not fixed. How do they take account of these?

Modern airliners are amazingly reliable considering their sophistication. I often get in one that has been flying for days with only an hour or there abouts on the ground to change passengers and crews every 10 hours. Without a doubt the ones where I work spend far longer in the air than they do on the ground throughout their life.

cheesebag 28th Jan 2014 10:05

I'm booked on a Tom 787 later in the year and rather looking forward to it.

Mike Tee 28th Jan 2014 10:17

Good Luck !!.

bvcu 28th Jan 2014 10:21

For dispatch reliability up to 15 minutes is 'on time'. Bet the railways wish they could use that !

TURIN 29th Jan 2014 09:26


Originally Posted by MrSnuggles
Many of the battery troubles are because of the new bleedless design that affects battery performance (thus requiring "new" technology batteries) and not enough time to test things through really.

Nothing to do with the bleedless design.
All to do with ensuring a backup system that is based on more electrical systems instead of Hydraulic.
Oh, and saving weight.



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

bvcu 29th Jan 2014 10:45

the main issue for electrical back-up power is having electric brakes. i would guess that was the main reason they werent able to revert to a traditional battery when the problems occurred. Dont recall any new type not having problems at the start and especially with new technology ! Well remember lots of issues on 747-400 and 777 when they were new , but both have been very good aircraft for a long time now.

MrSnuggles 29th Jan 2014 13:38

TURIN, bvcu

You are of course correct. There are other features than bleedless engines that requires more battery power - and the wish to decrease weight IS an issue.

One Outsider 29th Jan 2014 15:53


Many of the battery troubles are because of the new bleedless design that affects battery performance
Where do people get this stuff from?

PAXboy 29th Jan 2014 16:22

If i recall correctly, the machine requires changed procedures when being towed? If so, getting the correct information to (and understood by) all those around the world who might be involved? Not a trivial exercise.

joy ride 29th Jan 2014 17:29

For me there is a slight difference between teething troubles and fundamental aspects of the design and specification of a plane. Teething troubles occur, are cured, and the plane is thus improved; windshields and panels can be replaced.

Sadly at present I have continuing concerns about fundamental parts of the 787's design and spec: the exceptionally complex electrical system, including the batteries and charging system, and the possibility of toxic poisoning should there ever be a serious operational fire. I think the 787 is a great airliner but with an Achilles Heel.


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:21.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.