Read the forum code of contact
By: - 10th November 2010 at 01:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hopefully it wasn't a RR powered bird!
By: - 10th November 2010 at 07:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.
By: - 10th November 2010 at 07:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Presumably a speechless comment above. :D
By: - 10th November 2010 at 08:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Discretion became the better part of valour, mate. ;)
By: - 10th November 2010 at 10:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hopefully it wasn't a RR powered bird!
It was!
By: - 10th November 2010 at 10:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was!
Another site says there was a fire in a power distribution board and the aircraft had to use its ram air turbine for electrical power.
By: - 10th November 2010 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another site says there was a fire in a power distribution board and the aircraft had to use its ram air turbine for electrical power.
Oh dear! On an all electric aircraft thats a little embarrassing and it must have been bad to use the slides:eek:
Rgds Cking
By: - 10th November 2010 at 12:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, the test flights are for finding out all the niggles and sorting them out.
By: - 10th November 2010 at 12:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Better on a test flight than over the Pacific with a full load of passengers.
By: - 10th November 2010 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another site says there was a fire in a power distribution board
Ha! that will teach them to buy a British power distribution board!!:rolleyes:
By: - 10th November 2010 at 13:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Steven could have helped them with slide deployment! ;)
By: - 10th November 2010 at 13:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ha! that will teach them to buy a British power distribution board!!:rolleyes:
American components, British components...... all made in Taiwan!
By: - 10th November 2010 at 13:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A fire in a load distribution board on a Boeing?
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S2-2007%20N786UA.pdf
Been there before. Not in flight this one but still nasty.
Rgds Cking
By: - 10th November 2010 at 14:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its not beyond the realm of experience for an airplane to actually crash (with fatalities) during flight testing, and some airplanes go on to sell quite well.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19940630-0
By: - 10th November 2010 at 16:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Geez, they'll never get to delivering this thing to customers. I thought the A380 delays were bad but Boeing is trying to be #1 in aircraft sales, delays and cancelled orders all in one shot.
By: - 10th November 2010 at 16:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suppose it's an indicator of the complexity of modern aircraft designs, structures and systems, if nothing else.
By: - 10th November 2010 at 17:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
specially on the 787 I guess. Better to have it completely tried and tested before letting passengers on it.
By: - 10th November 2010 at 17:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's especially perplexing because Boeing ran such a model program on the 777. It was on time, reliable, and safe (in the face of vociferious objections over extending ETOPS at the time). It made and continues to make money for Boeing and the customers seem to like it. In short, its a REAL commercial airplane program that is successful on multiple levels.
I wonder what happened at Boeing between the early 90's and now to make them such an underperforming organization, or if you don't accept that, at least an organization that is unable to meet their original goals?
By: - 10th November 2010 at 17:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's especially perplexing because Boeing ran such a model program on the 777. It was on time, reliable, and safe (in the face of vociferious objections over extending ETOPS at the time). It made and continues to make money for Boeing and the customers seem to like it. In short, its a REAL commercial airplane program that is successful on multiple levels.
Yes but the composites used on the 777 were not completely different, which is the case on the 787.
Posts: 7,536
By: KabirT - 10th November 2010 at 01:16
(Reuters) - A Boeing 787 test flight made an emergency landing on Tuesday in Texas with smoke in the cabin, a high-profile incident that puts additional scrutiny on the company's jetliner of the future.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said the two-engine Dreamliner was on final approach to the Laredo airport and landed safely. Those aboard exited via emergency chutes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A900120101110