Do you think the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is safe to fly in?

I'm not sure if these problems are excessive, or par for the course on a new plane.

Planes are fixed and repaired endlessly. It's the nature of a complex machine. However. My issue with the 787 is that component manufacture was farmed out all over the planet. While you can argue that all they are doing is making a part to exacting specifications and location is irrelevant, I take the words of a recently laid off 3rd generation Boing fabricator to heart. He said "there is more to plane fabrication than meets the eye, there is a lot of innate and trans-generational experience that is used to create a functional and durable part. This type of experience cannot be included in a spec sheet." Remember the Comet?! Square windows! great idea on paper.

GG2141 Planes are fixed and repaired endlessly. It's the nature of a complex machine. However. My issue with the 787 is that component manufacture was farmed out all over the planet. While you can argue that all they are doing is making a part to exacting specifications and location is irrelevant, I take the words of a recently laid off 3rd generation Boing fabricator to heart. He said "there is more to plane fabrication than meets the eye, there is a lot of innate and trans-generational experience that is used to create a functional and durable part. This type of experience cannot be included in a spec sheet." Remember the Comet?! Square windows! great idea on paper.

Those square windows were on the de Havilland DH 106 Comet which was the first production commercial jetliner. The first one flew on July 27, 1949 at a time when COMPUTERS were not used to build airliners. The fuselage including the tail section was pretty much from a propeller airliner and metal fatigue was not an issue up to that point.

The Comet then flying up to 42,000ft introduced a whole new set of parameters to a fuselage from the propeller era where they usually flew below 25,000ft. Expansion and contraction (a flight cycle) took its toll on the square edge windows and rivet bonding technology of the time leading to failures. Just remember they had no computer modeling to see this failure coming let alone know it would occur because it was completely new. Where the parts came from would not have made a difference if they didn't the metal fatigue issue existed.

Fast forward about 50-55 years later and Boeing is pushing the envelope with the 787. After more than three YEARS of delays they finally start rolling them out to the airlines but was that the right choice? At this point it's looking like the answer will be no unless Boeing finds the root cause of all these 'electrical glitches'.

I say 'electrical glitches' because so far ALL FAILURES and INCIDENCES have been due to items connected to the aircraft's wiring grid. With the exception of the Boston fuel leak caused by a valve being open during refueling (may have been electrically controlled but there was no mention of it being either a mechanical or a electrically controlled valve). So far it doesn't seem to matter where the parts are coming from because it's affecting just about anything connected 'electrically' to the 787.

With all the technology available to Boeing back in 2005 to now to build the 787 and all the time spent and time overruns, you'd think they would be on top on the situation. They are not even close and have admitted it in their assessment of the issues. The band-aid solution of putting the batteries in a firebox clearly shows that Boeing doesn't know what the problem is.

As more and more seemingly non-related items fail on the 787 it will surely start to point out that they are 'truly connected' to each other because they are 'wired' into the 787's electrical grid. This is one of those cases where the 'Ghost in the Machine' really should start to scare engineers at Boeing to pull the 'emergency stop cord' and declare a worldwide grounding of the 787 until the problems are found.

If just one person dies from an 'accidental' problem with the 787 before the problems are found, Boeing will feel it.

If an entire 787 with all passengers and crew is lost because of these 'glitches', Boeing will be sued into the ground by all involved.

I for one hope that Boeing does the right thing and grounds all the 787s before somebody gets hurt or loses their life. Otherwise Boeing is gambling with the passengers and crews lives not to mention those below on the ground under the flightpath of one of these flawed 787s. Is the 787 safe to fly in? No.

GG2141... Airbus aircraft are made bringing together components made by various companies - no scare stories about them catching fire. How about Panavia Tornado and other EU combined manufacturing efforts... such as the Eurofighter? You can't blame the 787's woes on outsourcing.

The importance of that work goes well beyond extending the operating life of consumer electronics. NASA has verified multiple commercial satellite failures it attributes to tin whiskers. Missile systems, nuclear power stations and heart pacemakers also have fallen victim to tin whiskers over the past several decades and they are also considered a suspect in reported brake failures in Toyota vehicles. While manufactures had been able to control some whiskers by mixing small amounts of lead into tin solder, the 2006 European Union ban on lead in most electronic equipment had ignited a debate among scientists about whether whiskers would remain a perpetual problem. Some observers even predict that it's only a matter of time before miniature devices built after the ban start failing en masse.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-doctoral-student-unravels-tin-whisker.html

Guys,

If electronic failures continue, I believe the root problem may be lack of electromagnetic shielding due to the carbon fiber reinforced plastic shell.

From a Seattle Times Article: “And they embedded a thin copper mesh beneath the outer layer of the airplane’s skin to disperse the current from a strike. In the early design, that mesh was to cover the entire airplane structure. To save weight, the wire-mesh coverage was later restricted to the three areas where lightning commonly strikes an airplane: the nose, wings and tail.”

The reason you are usually safe in your car from lightning is that metal shell. I am not so sure for the Dreamliner...

Badsey3 The importance of that work goes well beyond extending the operating life of consumer electronics. NASA has verified multiple commercial satellite failures it attributes to tin whiskers. Missile systems, nuclear power stations and heart pacemakers also have fallen victim to tin whiskers over the past several decades and they are also considered a suspect in reported brake failures in Toyota vehicles. While manufactures had been able to control some whiskers by mixing small amounts of lead into tin solder, the 2006 European Union ban on lead in most electronic equipment had ignited a debate among scientists about whether whiskers would remain a perpetual problem. Some observers even predict that it's only a matter of time before miniature devices built after the ban start failing en masse. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-doctoral-student-unravels-tin-whisker.html

I'm not going to say that tin whiskers don't exist but no one I know in the industry has made any mention of it. I personally still use 60/40 Tin/Lead solder on all my work except when someone demands lead free circuit boards. If they sign the waiver, they get their lead free boards.

This tin whisker phenomenon maybe causing some individual circuit board damage but I don't think it would be responsible for causing aircraft wide systems errors. Then again one control board that is acting erratically could send false control signals into the aircraft's wiring. This could be another thing that will have to be looked into however I doubt these tin whiskers are the problem with the 787 as no other airliner is having these constant failures and random errors.

Plane is new, and so what ? To me it shows that they do not test enough the plane before allowing public commercial activities, in a short, public is becoming the beta testers, no thanks.

someone wrote on JUL. 23, 2013 - 02:46AM JST Guys, If electronic failures continue, I believe the root problem may be lack of electromagnetic shielding due to the carbon fiber reinforced plastic shell. From a Seattle Times Article: "And they embedded a thin copper mesh beneath the outer layer of the airplane's skin to disperse the current from a strike. In the early design, that mesh was to cover the entire airplane structure. To save weight, the wire-mesh coverage was later restricted to the three areas where lightning commonly strikes an airplane: the nose, wings and tail." The reason you are usually safe in your car from lightning is that metal shell. I am not so sure for the Dreamliner...

Um, that's what I've been saying all along that it's the carbon fibre fuselage and its interactions with the electrical circuits and their shielding and isolation or lack there of.

FYI, I wrote the following on here in JT on June 12, 2013

... I have said that the 787 problems lie withing the aircraft's wiring and circuits and may also be an issue with the new frame being made mainly of carbon fibre.

Sure there are plenty of military aircraft that have been made for years out of carbon fibre composites but just remember that they are MADE TO MILITARY SPECS and designed for war to survive a beating. A commercial airliner is designed to make money first. Don't you forget that! Safety is a given factor when you design an airliner so ask yourself how is it that the 787 is still flying if they do not know the root cause of the problem? Alex Trebek, the answer is "what is a commercial airliner design for". That's the "Jeopardy" that has become the 787.

FYI, the management of static build up and discharge and electrical circuit isolation and conduction is far different in an aircraft that isn't all conductive because most of it is now made of carbon fibre. Putting the batteries into "fire boxes" so WHEN they catch fire again they won't burn the aircraft down is Boeing saying to the world "this is the best we can do because we don't know at this moment what the problem really is but we want to continue selling these planes so deal with it".

On May 18, 2013 I also wrote pretty much the same thing and on April 22, 2013 and January 26, 2013.

By realistic viewpoints no airplane is safe flying in! If you think about the physical forces they need to withstand at high speed, they're all a whimsical joke.

After all th issues it had had amazed that people think it is safe. Who knows what other gremlins are lurking in the dreamliner.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-16/issue-10/news/trends/lead-free-solder-a-train-wreck-in-the-making.html

http://www.sigcon.com/Pubs/news/10_01.htm (best explanation)

Most popular Tin Whisker issue is the PlayStation 3. Maybe the Toyota runaway acceleration issue -> not proven.

http://pressroom.toyota.com/releases/tin+whiskers+other+discredited+unintended+acceleration+theories.htm Toyota says no, but if there are their system would diagnose the malfunction and the car limps home anyway.

'badsey3' like I said, I work with 60/40 tin/lead solder and would have someone sign a waiver if they want me to use lead free solder. I have my reasons for not working with lead free solder and I guess I can now add 'tin whiskers' to the other reasons for avoiding lead free solder.

Hmmmm, eco-terrorists causing deaths by trying to make things safer? Who would have thunk it?

Still, 'tin whiskers' are NOT causing the 787's problems because 737s, 747s, 767s and 777s have been coming off the production line since the 787 were rolling out and we just don't hear about the problems with those models and just think of the sheer volume of all the other four models combined versus just the 787.

The B737 had one of the worst accidents records when it was first introduced...now its one of the safest....teething pains

Mirai HayashiJUL. 24, 2013 - 04:10PM JST The B737 had one of the worst accidents records when it was first introduced...now its one of the safest....teething pains

Really, could you share that with us.

The first 737 flew in 1967 and the first crash that I'm aware of happen some five years later. Pilot error, bad weather, ground collisions and hijackings are not the fault of the aircraft manufacturer.

How long has the 787 been in service and how many problems have not been due to manufacturing?

There have been 316 B737 related incidents:

source: http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Type=103

How long has the 787 been in service and how many problems have not been due to manufacturing?

Boeing got a lot of bad press over the burning battery incidents, but the reality is, Boeing doesn't make batteries, and they didn't make this one. The focus should have really been around Yuasa batteries for not following specs.

'Mirai Hayashi' you must have just arrived at this story of 787 and assumed that it was the batteries but Boeing has not blamed the batteries because they themselves don't know what caused the batteries to catch fire hence their bandaid solution of a 'fire box'.

Mirai you would make a LOUSY Lawyer. Do you check your facts before you post and when someone corrects you, do you even bother to read what they said? Maybe I should ask, can you read and understand English?

FYI your link states...

The first four 737 'events' were 'highjackings' no deaths or damage to aircraft. HOW THE HELL IS THAT BOEING's fault?!?

The 5th 737 incident was a single engine (JT8D-7B) failure which the pilot mistook for both failing and aborted the takeoff thus writing off the aircraft. FYI, those engines where on 727s and DC-9s flying at the same time and worked fine. Engine failures happen.

The 6th 737 incident was a pilot error midair crash with a private plane. How was that Boeing's fault?

The 7th to 15th 737 incidents were all hijackings. Really, how is this Boeing fault? Get your facts straight!!!

The 16th and 17th 737 incidents were due to pilot error.

The 18th to 24th 737 incidents were, surprise, surprise... HIJACKINGS!!!

The 25th, well yet another pilot error.

Yeah, your proof that the 737 had the worst crash record has only proven that it might have had a lot of problems but they were due to hijackings and pilot error and NOT teething pains for the new aircraft type.

The pilots, cabin crew members and the airlines flying them seem to think it's safe.

Oh no, more glitches. Two HOURS to reboot the on board computers! Imagine that in flight, yeah that would be safe.

How modern can a plane be if it takes TWO FREAKING HOURS to reboot the computers?!?

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1375878162.html