noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Apr 12, 2013 14:26:33 GMT 1
The current B787 battery problems and the recent A380 wing-rib bracket cracks has put the world's 2 major aircraft manufacturers in the safety spotlight,
These are 2 significant aircraft, the result of a great deal of investment.
The original designs were tested to pass the scrutinies of the various Air Safety agencies. Not least because modern aircraft are introducing new technologies, in a bid to meet their potential customers requirements.
My concern is proving that 'post certification' problems, do not negate the original certification.
The B787 has introduced a 'containment' solution to their battery problem. An admission that Boeing are willing to accept unsafe batteries on their Dream machine.
I wonder if Rolls Royce would have been able to resolve the A380 'uncontained explosion' by proposing fitting a stronger cowling?
Are Airbus and Boeing becoming exempt from proper Air Safety standards, by virtue of being who they are?
How did the US military change their decision about the A330 tanker? Boeing and 'political sway', don't appear to be far apart.
|
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Apr 19, 2013 2:13:46 GMT 1
So, it appears that the FAA are likely to treat the containment solution as an acceptable response to the likelihood of battery fires on the B787.
The question of ETOPS is a logical next step.
What is a safe duration for a plane, twin-engined or not, to fly with a fire, or an indication of a fire, before landing?
If it was a 4-engined plane, presumably the battery containment solution would be the end of the story.
Raises the interesting question:
Is it safe for a 4-engined plane to fly an unlimited mileage with a 'contained' battery fire, not safe for a twin-engined plane?
Umm
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jun 1, 2014 23:14:16 GMT 1
I'll put this in here, since it is about aviation safety more or less. news.yahoo.com/airlines-meet-doha-under-shadow-mh370-disappearance-035536214.htmlWhat I'd like to take out of this is that it's nice to know that at least one airline has followed through with some of the recommendations after AF447. Indeed, it happens to be Air France. It's unfortunate that we are now dealing with something much worse with MH370 as a result of a lack of strict enforcement. Hopefully, something does change for the better now on. |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jul 6, 2014 23:47:55 GMT 1
Incredible video of a near disaster!  |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 8, 2014 0:31:03 GMT 1
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jul 29, 2014 18:49:51 GMT 1
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jul 29, 2014 19:27:00 GMT 1
If this, if that. It's a hypothesis, nothing more.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 30, 2014 0:26:47 GMT 1
A degree of fear can be an enjoyable feeling ...
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Aug 29, 2014 0:45:35 GMT 1
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Oct 8, 2014 3:56:42 GMT 1
Airbus and Boeing seem to be at odds with regards to installing deployable black boxes. news.yahoo.com/boeing-airbus-odds-deployable-black-191830912.htmlI'm siding with Airbus on this one. With the future belonging to more and more over water flights far from land, you have to either develop new real time tracking systems or equip those aircraft that carry out such missions with deployable black boxes that can be found quickly and easily. I'm not sure of the relevance of Boeing's historic data as the future of flying is not going be the same as I said above. I can see where Boeing's getting at in terms of risks to safety. IIRC, ELTs are not mandatory equipment but ended up lighting up a 787. But still, if installed correctly with adequate safety measures, I see no reason for it to pose a risk as with the several other equipment installed on board an aircraft (hint hint: batteries).  And... On what basis did he calculate such a failure rate and what risk does it pose to normal flight operation? And the first line seems to be quite a poor view of flight safety investigations - one (unsolved accident) is just one too many IMO! |
|
