It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boeing returns to drawing board on portion of 787 wing fix

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

While Boeing continues installation of the 787 wing fix, engineers have returned to the drawing board to redesign a crucial portion of the reinforcement, Flightglobal affiliate FlightBlogger reports.

As a result, sources say the 2009 first flight target could be in jeopardy as engineers work to redesign the fix for four remaining wing stringers.


www.flightglobal.com...


all good news then for the 787 - gee that was a quick fix



taking bets the A350 will fly first......




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Boeing claims that the 787 with fly by the end of the year. Where's the A350?



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by templar8
 


boeing also said the 787 would fly in 2007 , then again in 2008


wheres the 787 other than a hanger queen?



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The Airbus may fly first but based on past history it will probably also suffer the first crash. I haven't really studied the statistics but I do seem to have this perception that quite a few Airbus jets have crashed which have been relatively new planes.

It would lead one to certain conclusions about the process for working all the bugs out of them extending into live service.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ecoparity
The Airbus may fly first but based on past history it will probably also suffer the first crash. I haven't really studied the statistics but I do seem to have this perception that quite a few Airbus jets have crashed which have been relatively new planes.

It would lead one to certain conclusions about the process for working all the bugs out of them extending into live service.


Are you kidding me? Please this forum from the time that I've spent on it demands that claims be backed by substance. That is the most generalized untrue statement I've seen in a while that was backed up by no report or substance of any kind.

PS. Nice to see you again Harlequin



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I would like to see some evidence to back up that bold claim about airbus.

Now we do know lives have been lost in a boeing due to a fault know to both boeing and FAA (FAA allowing to long for the problem to be fixed) the 747 cargo door latch fault



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The Boeing vs. Airbus thread has been done:
Boeing vs Airbus

Finding the exact stats is difficult due to Boeing having at least 3 times as many airplanes in service and the age of Boeing planes vs. a relatively new company.

Since when do people have to "provide sources" to back up a personal opinion? Yes, it's my perception that Airbus has lost a lot of airplanes for being so new, it got to the point where I began changing flights if I saw an Airbus was listed as the designated equipment.

Here's one example (Travelers nervous about Airbus) that I'm not the only one who feels that way. Would you like more of the hundreds of articles stating the same thing?

Here's some stats which calculate in the disparity of numbers by calculating crash rate per million flights per model:

Crash rates chart

It looks like the Airbus A310 is #4 for highest crash rate, far above the rates for all of the Boeing planes.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by ecoparity]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I don't fault you for having a opinion but in a forum like this we tend to want to back-up why we hold such a position.

In order to get a proper stat on accident vs each other rating it would be pretty intensive work. not only would you need the database of info but to sort it and come up with percentages since we can't go off of just pure number count due to time of airframes in service vs each other etc. Also there would be the need to eliminate accidents due to human error since you can't then classify that as airbus's fault.

Its all very interesting but prefer to do leg work and have facts to really pull the weight of my opinion. also I'm not sure I have enough time to devote to really figuring out enough of those facts.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Canada_EH]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 



It looks like the Airbus A310 is #4 for highest crash rate, far above the rates for all of the Boeing planes.


The problem with trying to compare Boeing and Airbus crash statistics is --- they don't tell the whole story.

It is a fact that the great majority of certain Airbus models are operated by some less than reputable companies, with varying standards of training and competence.

It would be very useful (and more relevant) to examine every "crash" event by correlating the Place in the World, the Airline/Operator (and their histories) and also the Airplane's individual history of Lease/Ownership.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I understand, Boeing takes the same hits and worse though given they have planes listed like the DC-9 and count them into the overall rates. We're talking about crashes from the 1950s-60s. There's a huge number of Boeing crashes by regional airlines in Africa, S America and so on. That's where all the retired Boeing planes like the DC-9/10 went after the 1st world airlines wore them out.

I like the way the website calculates the stats though, at least he's trying to allow for the differences in number of planes and age by using per million flights. I do have to say though, it is a bit concerning to see Airbus and a few other popular models having that many crashes with so few flights. When you look at some of the per million totals on the Boeing planes it gets wild.

On the other hand his top rated planes for safety include two Airbus models, slightly more Boeing and a commuter jet. The Airbus A340 had a perfect record going up until two planes in a row went down in short order this past year.

I did find it interesting that the Airbus fly by wire only allows pilot over ride as long as the plane is within the "operating envelope".

ETA: Looking over the stats I do have to admit the problem with Airbus is mostly "perceptual" though the numbers do add up in Boeing's favor. I think it's one of those things like "Don't fly Delta out of DFW" - they probably had a decent safety record from a national or even global standpoint but they had a strangely high number of incidents at DFW, one of them extremely grisly. I think that video of the Airbus flying into the forest at the airshow might impact people kind of like the Delta thing did (especially if you flew through DFW often enough).

I once spent a summer flying on a certain Phoenix based carrier twice per week on nothing but Airbus jets and I have to say, the quality was not impressive. A value carrier might have more maintenance issues than most but almost every flight was delayed for mechanical problems and the interior of the planes was trashed. For all that the airline had a perfect safety record at that time though so once again - perception has an effect.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by ecoparity]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
The Boeing 777 has never had passenger fatalities. While the A320, A330, 737NG, A380, and A340 have been doing extremely well. We are a generation beyond them aircraft, therefore, I don't see the 787, or A350 going down, for a long, long time. Honestly, aircraft crashes seem to be based on much luck and are also highly dependent on factors that have nothing to do with the aircraft themselves.

[edit on 18/10/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
The 787 is pretty damn sick.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
I don't see the 787, or A350 going down, for a long, long time.


It'll be a long time before I (and an awful lot of fellow aero engs. I know) get on either.



Take from that what you will.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 



It looks like the Airbus A310 is #4 for highest crash rate, far above the rates for all of the Boeing planes



and if you look at the causes you`ll see 50% of the accidents are pilot error - like allowing a child to fly the aircraft , or flying into a maountain , or flying into the sea after misreading the ILS



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
It'll be a long time before I (and an awful lot of fellow aero engs. I know) get on either.


With Boeing's current record of anticipating design problems early in the process and before delaying the introduction of the aircraft I'd say that that Aero engineers aren't the only people who won't be riding on the 787 for quite some time.


And, I honestly expect Airbus to run into the same problems with the A350 as Boeing has on the 787, so I can happily lump them into the same pile.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
i think airbus are really looking at the entire design process and trying not to make this mistake tbh - they arn`t actually using the same sort of processes



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by ecoparity
 



It looks like the Airbus A310 is #4 for highest crash rate, far above the rates for all of the Boeing planes



and if you look at the causes you`ll see 50% of the accidents are pilot error - like allowing a child to fly the aircraft , or flying into a maountain , or flying into the sea after misreading the ILS


The cases you refer to were all actually mostly cases of the pilots not being familiar with some aspect of the new "fly by wire" systems. In the Russian crash where the kid was at the controls the pilots didn't know the auto pilot has disengaged when the flight controls were moved, if I remember right it was a silent disengage (which is one of the stupidest features I can think of if that is indeed the case). I'd split the responsibility right in the middle between the training program and Airbus on that one.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


The one thing that bothers me about the Airbus plane is that when one does go down (and one will, sooner or later) the loss of life is just going to be horrendous. Can the company and the aircraft really make it past such an event?

I know it comes down to costs but why can't we build recovery systems into planes such as a parachute recovery system? After we lose 5 or 6 aircraft isn't the cost justifiable?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 



The one thing that bothers me about the Airbus plane is that when one does go down (and one will, sooner or later) the loss of life is just going to be horrendous.


eco, could we focus on the POINT of this OP???

Else, you are discussing an unconnected bunch of Airbus vs/ Boeing crashes, without knowing WHY each airplane crashed.....

This thread is about a STRUCTURAL component (actually, from what I understand, that isn't even correct....I believe it's about a FAIRING (that is usually not a structural component) and possible liability for continued maintence issues, IF the finished product is sold "AS IS".

(It's like....you build a car that is considered a "lemon", because of poor fit and finish issues, but you STILL, as the manufacturer, have to provide all warranty -- and in the case of FAA -- follow-on in near perpituity repairs, at our expense...)

Please someone correct me if this is in error...

We have YET to ascertain ANY Airbus or Boeing airplane that crashed do solely to construction-related structural failures.

(We can factor out, in that statement, ALL pilot-induced failures, and sub-contracter-supplied component failures...although, even IF sub-contracted, the manufacturer is partly responsible...)



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ecoparity
 


except that the A310 was a totally MANUAL system and had nothing to do with fly by wire.

which makes your entire post a mute point.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join