Is the 787 a failure ?

"Keith W" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Mr. B1ack" wrote in message
...

Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....

Better to fall into the South Atlantic because the Airbust didn't
inform the pilots that it had stalled.

Actually it did, they simply chose to disregard the stall warning
that sounded continuously for 54 seconds and the stick shaker.

Keith

It sounded for 54 seconds, then it stopped a little after 2h 11m 42s
when they were at 35,000 feet, 40 degrees pitch and falling at 10,000
feet/minute. See pages 22 & 23.
http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flig...t.final.en.php

At 2h 12m ~15s the Pilot Flying made a pitch-down input that brought
their forward speed above the stall warning's lower limit of 60 Kts
and it sounded again, confusing them.

Page 44 of the final report:
" If the CAS measurements for
the three ADR are lower than 60 kt, the angle of attack values of the
three ADR are
invalid and the stall warning is then inoperative."

My real point is to remind Bill Black that he lives in a glass house
and shouldn't throw stones at Boeing.
jsw

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:39:07 -0000, "Keith W"
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Mr. B1ack" wrote in message
...

Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....

Better to fall into the South Atlantic because the Airbust didn't
inform the pilots that it had stalled.

Actually it did, they simply chose to disregard the stall warning
that sounded continuously for 54 seconds and the stick shaker.

Keith


Because they believed the air speed indicator that was lying through
it's teeth.

On Mar 22, 2:55*am, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.









Sherman) wrote:
Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
|
| Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
| out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
| (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
| Board spokesman said.
|
| Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
| Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
| within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
| said today in response to questions about the issue.
| ...
| Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
| the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
| flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
| indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
| battery failure.
|
| A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
| inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
| battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
| temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
| preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
| ...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-c....

* *--bks

* *Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/

* *Yes, the 787 is a failure.

* *Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
*NEVER fly on one - ever.

I would. Almost every other model airplane has crashed except the
787. Technically, its one of the safest.

And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.

Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....

You won't keep shareholders happy that way !!

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:55:46 -0400, Mr. B1ack
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
|
| Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
| out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
| (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
| Board spokesman said.
|
| Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
| Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
| within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
| said today in response to questions about the issue.
| ...
| Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
| the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
| flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
| indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
| battery failure.
|
| A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
| inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
| battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
| temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
| preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
| ...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery

--bks

Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/

Yes, the 787 is a failure.

Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
NEVER fly on one - ever.

And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.

Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
How about driving in a ford?

On 3/22/2013 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:55:46 -0400, Mr. B1ack
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 03:00:07 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

Who are you gonna believe, Boeing or your own lying eyes?
|
| Boeing Co. (BA)'s assertion that U.S. investigators ruled
| out a fire within the battery case of a Japan Airlines Co.
| (9201) 787 is premature, a National Transportation Safety
| Board spokesman said.
|
| Investigators examining the Jan. 7 fire aboard the
| Dreamliner in Boston haven't ruled out that flames erupted
| within the lithium-ion battery container, Peter Knudson
| said today in response to questions about the issue.
| ...
| Michael Sinnett, Boeing's chief project engineer, said in
| the briefing that investigators hadn't found evidence of
| flames within the Boston battery's container box, an
| indication it worked as designed to limit damage from a
| battery failure.
|
| A witness who tried to fight the Jan. 7 fire said he saw 3-
| inch (7.6-centimeter) flames outside the lithium-ion
| battery, and the NTSB has found evidence of high
| temperatures within battery cells that failed, according to
| preliminary safety-board documents released March 7.
| ...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-15/ntsb-contradicts-boeing-claim-of-no-fire-in-787-battery

--bks

Gawd ... is THIS thread still going on ???????????/

Yes, the 787 is a failure.

Put it this way ... after hearing about its problems *I* will
NEVER fly on one - ever.

And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.

Not interested in burning to death over the Pacific ....
How about driving in a ford?


Hey, watch it. I owned a 65 Mustang and my exwife owned a pinto.
Never could get her to back into anything during the divorce.

Daryl

| ...
| The letter from the NTSB signals tension between the agency
| and Boeing. This is not good for Boeing, as it tries to
| mitigate damage to the image of its high-efficiency 787 --
| that is, once officials clear the plane to fly.
|
| The main complaint from the agency appears to be that
| Boeing representatives provided "their own analysis and
| conclusions regarding an ongoing NTSB investigation,"
| according to Kelly Nantel, a safety board representative.
|
| Boeing representative Marc Birtel, meanwhile, responded to
| the NTSB criticism -- saying the company officials
| "received the correspondence, and remain fully committed to
| support the NTSB and other regulatory authorities in their
| investigations into the cause of the 787 battery incidents."
|
| In a related story from Reuters, Japan's Civil Aviation
| Bureau said on Friday that, despite optimistic predictions
| by Boeing, no test flight of the grounded 787 Dreamliner
| has been scheduled yet.
| ...
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=78e5846c-37f3-4e7f-a6d0-e07cdf584ce1

--bks

"Regulators on Friday approved a revamped battery system for Boeing Co's
787 Dreamliner, a crucial step in returning the high-tech jet to service
after it was grounded in January because the plane's lithium-ion
batteries overheated.

The Federal Aviation Administration said it had approved a package of
detailed design changes, a move that allows Boeing to issue a service
bulletin and make repairs to the fleet of 50 planes owned by eight
airlines around the world. Other global regulators also must approve
Boeing's new design but were expected to act quickly once the FAA gave
its blessing.

The FAA action all but ends a grounding that has cost Boeing an
estimated $600 million, halted deliveries and forced some airlines to
lease alternative aircraft."

Entire article at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93I11C20130419

Vaughn