AVHerald reports yet another incident of battery overheating. That is after the aircraft has been grounded and parts of the battery system redesigned.
AVHerald also reports yet another incident of a cracked windshield. A cracked windshield typically results in declaring an emergency (there have ...
Just as safe as any certified airworthy aircraft. If you are not a journalist, you must be a very good engineer, very well informed, to challenge the work of Boeing, FAA, EASA, CASA...
@mins now that's condescending. Don't you find it strange, that both issues occur regularly? That both are ongoing? That comparable aircraft don't have these issues? The cracked windshields happen during starts and landing, so in the most vunerable phase?
Many airplanes have ongoing issues. The A380's engines have a tendency to catastrophic failures, and airbus had a long known problem with air data sensors icing up that ultimately caused the crash of Air France 447. I'd suggest you do a bit more research.
How do we quantify "safe" here? Something like number of fatalities vs hours flown? My gut feel is that the answer is going to be "Just about as safe as every other modern commercial airliner - which is very".
So, there have been ~29 instances of cracked windscreens in the Airbus 320 over the same time period. It occurs across all makes and models, probably at approximately similar rates.
"Boeing declined to give a full list of all incidents. That sounds like they have something to hide." Or it sounds like they didn't want to do the reporter's work for them. Anyone can find out this information by looking at the accident investigators' bulletins.
@DanHulme Note that these windshield incidents were deemed non-reportable, so they are not required to report them anywhere. So unless AVHerold is tipped off, nobody will know about it.
If they're not reportable, they're not "incidents". It still sounds like the reporter being lazy and trying to make things look bad for the sake of the story.
"now that's condescending": fair enough, but when not sure, it's better to ask for explanations than to build a theory. You'll receive good support here. That's a pity AVHerald starts writing this way. Concorde was an unsafe airplane, but who could have said it without being inside the industry?
Delivering a big unreliable airliner makes not sense. It not only damages reputation but calls for sales cancellations. Airlines will avoid you like the plague and it will effectively bring bankruptcy. Also take many years after introduction to actually make some profity Bototm line is safety is on best interests for everybody (why do you think comercial aviation is so safe? Altruism?)
@Jamiec Seeing as the battery incidents cause fumes, see the linked report, and the windshield incidents cause a diversion, I would call safe "without incident".
@mike by that measure, your car is (very) unsafe, as is a bus, a bicycle - heck even walking down the street. I disagree that something must be "without incident" to be objectively safe to use.
You suggest that the 787 windshield issues are somehow more serious than when it happens to other aircraft, and the only source you cite is Av Herald, which you admit is not comprehensive, and does not really support your conclusions.
That documentary is just scary. No plane has bigger batteries. During the engineering phase an engineering building burned down, when one of these batteries exploded....
@jjack. I have absolutely no idea, and that information is extremely unlikely to be on the internet. (Hence I said "probably".) My point was, and yours might be the same, you can't cherry pick statistics, and get an accurate overall assessment.
Discussion on question by mike: How s…
Discussion on question by mike: How s…