reply to post by dampnickers
I'd hop on a Dreamliner right now if I could. I have absolutely no fears about the aircraft. As Boeing has said, these are normal teething
problems, all caused by human error in assembly.
The aircraft currently has a dispatch rate similar to what the 777 had when it first entered service, and that is now one of the most successful,
safest planes flying (only one hard landing when they suffered a power rollback on landing after part of the fuel system iced). It has a higher
dispatch rate than some other aircraft that Boeing introduced prior to the Triple-7.
With the Dreamliner, they have found at least three control boards in the aft power compartment that were part of a batch of 16 that were bad. Two
were on the United aircraft that had problems, the third on the Qatar bird that had problems. The problem then becomes, do you send out an AD based
on three bad boards, out of over 50 aircraft in service, and 200,000 testing hours with no problems? Or do you gamble that the other 13 in the batch
are going to be ok? They gambled, and while they may not have won, they certainly didn't lose either, as it appears to date that the other boards
have been ok (although it's possible that the ANA flight has one of the other 13).
They have also found where at least one (possibly two or more) wiring harnesses were assembled incorrectly, which led to electrical problems, and may
have contributed to the JAL fire. The lithium ion battery system was tested for about 100,000 hours without a single failure like what happened with
the JAL flight. They had cell failures, and the battery overheated, but not once did it catch fire, or even start to appear to catch fire.
The fuel leaks have been caused by improperly assembled connectors in the fuel lines. From the video, it appears that the first fuel leak the JAL
flight had, the day after the fire, was from the vents used to dump fuel. I've seen that happen plenty of times over the years. We even had an F-15
that would run on the ground for over an hour, and not vent a drop, but as soon as it tried to refuel in flight, it would leak fuel like a sieve out
the vent and have to return after declaring an emergency. Happened three times before they figured out the external fuel tank was bad. There could
be anything from a one off overpressure causing it to vent, to debris in the system causing it (I've seen that too, it's amazing what sticks and
leaves can do). The bigger problem is the fittings leaking, which appears to be what leaked when that aircraft reached Japan.
The point is that this aircraft is more advanced than anything else flying, and is more tested than any other aircraft ever built. They may find some
things to change, like the Li batteries, but when you only have 50 or so aircraft flying, and the problems start to occur it seems like the sky is
falling when it isn't.