Aeroflot001 From Argentina, joined Oct 2009, 430 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 22900 times:
Some here on airliners have said that boeing may be putting to much pressure on the 787 and that she should not fly in 2009 to make sure that she is ready. A horrible thought crossed my mind. What if "something" happened to the plane with a loss of the airframe and the crew aboard. Surely Boeing would receive a raping from the media but what interests me more is how would the airlines react to this? An over the top investigation would be heavily demanded by all who have ordered and who may plan on ordering. With todays technology I highly doubt that this would happen but with almost everything in life there is always room for error.
JHCRJ700 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 22862 times:
I was thinking about this earlier. I think Boeing's reputation would be scared for years to come. There has been so much press about this project, both good and bad, and should that happen I don't know if they would ever be able to fully recover from it.
MogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 22827 times:
Didn't the A330 crash during one of its test flights? And didn't it go on to dominate the entire 230-280 seat market for 15 years ?
Granted, it was during one of its test flights not the maiden voyage. Can't imagine how bad the press would be if that happened.
To make things much much worse, since Boeing is taking a huge gamble by making the whole plane composites, a maiden-voyage-crash will embolden all the anti-composite groups to force Boeing and Airbus back to the heavy-but-proven aluminum.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 33664 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 22712 times:
Quoting MogandoCI (Reply 5): To make things much much worse, since Boeing is taking a huge gamble by making the whole plane composites, a maiden-voyage-crash will embolden all the anti-composite groups to force Boeing and Airbus back to the heavy-but-proven aluminum.
But only if it's proven that it was the use of CFRP and not Al that caused the hull loss.
Bwest From Belgium, joined Jul 2006, 1415 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 22498 times:
And still the A330 went on to become an extremely successful plane. Boeings image will probably take a severe beating, but the 787 program would still continue and in a few years, people will have forgotten all about the crash.
KITH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 379 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 22426 times:
In the words of Liz Lemon....shut it down (30 rock fans)
It would be bad PR, nay, horrible PR but the plane would fly if its airframe 002 that does the tests. Its called a test flight for a reason, that is why it isn't doing SEA-NRT for ANA on its maiden flight. -Matt in KITH
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 9712 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 22254 times:
Quoting KITH (Reply 12): It would be bad PR, nay, horrible PR but the plane would fly if its airframe 002 that does the tests. Its called a test flight for a reason, that is why it isn't doing SEA-NRT for ANA on its maiden flight. -Matt in KITH
That would all depend on the cause of the crash and how much it would take to fix the problem. Nevertheless, I think the 787 program is at such a crossroads that it would not take such a catastrophic failure for us to see more cancelations. More uncovered problems leading to another 6-12 month delay would be enough to lead to a bunch of cancelations.
1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 22053 times:
If the 787 crashed on the very first flight then it would create enormous problems for the programme given that it does not yet have any certification. The A320 crash at Mulhouse in 1988 and the A330 crash at Toulouse in 1994 happened just after the aircraft entered service and had received their certifications. Both accidents were also blamed on pilot error (actually might have to check up on the A330 one, but the A320 pilot received a prison sentence sometime around 1990)
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7041 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 21696 times:
Testing new planes for certification is, and will always be, a very dangerous business. And really bad chrashes have happened up to modern time. VFW-614, BAe 1-11 and A330 are noteable examples.
But it can't happen on a first flight, and God forbid that it ever happens again.
The dangerous parts come later in the test program when the failure modes and the whole range of operation safety margins are tested. Stalls, engine out scenarioes, out of range center of gravity positions, overweight, simulated system outage, and combinations of all those bad things.
Also flutter tests way beyond MMO is no joke. I remember very well that the A380 test crew didn't sleep too well the night before they had to take that bird up to Mach 0.96 in a power dive. And they wanted to make very sure that they did not accidentally reach anywhere near Mach 0.97.
The first several flights will be for validating flight and systems function with all parameters in the center, and with all redundant systems functioning. Nothing really bad can happen during those flights even if the 787 still hides some really nasty grimlins for Boeing, which it hopefully doesn't.
After each test flight tonnes of data is carefully analyzed and validated before moving step by step to the more dangerous tests. Therefore a rushed test program, as has been proposed a few times for the 787, will always be adding an additional risk to the program.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
Kaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 796 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 21637 times:
Nothing terrible will happen. The 787 is delayed partly because Boeing (or any other manufacturer) will not compromise the safety of an aircraft just to get it flying.
Worst thing that can happen on a first flight is something along the lines of a faulty flap drive or a gear door not closing. The wings will not break, the engines won't fall off and the fuselage will not explode.
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 24315 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 21526 times:
A catastrophic failure on the first flight is probably less likely than at any time in history. The same was true when the 380 first flew, and the same will be true when the C-Series or the MRJ or whatever commercial aircraft comes next first flies.
Why? Computers. The Wright Brothers probably had very little idea what would happen at Kitty Hawk, and the designers of the DC-3 and the like were little better. We've come a long way since that time and can now predict far more.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 23025 posts, RR: 61
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21266 times:
Quoting A380900 (Reply 25):
I'm not sure what you describe is a healthy reaction to terrorism.
I didn't say it was. But then again, our last reaction to terrorism wasn't terribly healthy, either.
Quoting A380900 (Reply 25):
No the FED will bailout Boeing and Boeing will eventually put out a good aircraft.
If, just for the sake of argument, Boeing made an error such that the 787 was fundamentally incapable of flight, and didn't catch that error in any of their testing and analysis, I think the feds would have a hard time justifying such a move.
BTW, another crash during test flights was the MD-90 (or -80?) that had its entire fuselage aft of the engines fall off during a hard landing test. I don't think there were any fatalities, but I think having your entire empennage depart the aircraft qualifies as a crash.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4971 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21762 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): If the 787 breaks apart in mid-air on her maiden flight, it would be serious bad press, but until the actual cause was found, I don't think you'd see most airlines cancel their orders the next day.
It'd be extremely bad PR, and I think the program would be severely damaged to the point where it might not recover. Considering the slow feed of endless problems so far, if it also had the unthinkable happen, that'd be the nail in the coffin for it, I think. Passengers would be nervous about flying on it (if it entered service afterwards), and I do think that airlines might hve doubts about flying it. It'd probably also be the end for Boeing as we know it.
That said, it won't crash. Highly unlikely anyway.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 9074 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 21249 times:
The 787 is a "unique" airplane, just as the 380 is. A major crash of either would, I believe, have a significant impact on the flying public - at least for a while. The 380 is at greater risk on the PR side simply because of the pax count.
As with any major event for a plane it will be up to investigators and engineers to determine what caused the problem and what needs to be done to fix the problem.
Either way, I trust both sufficiently to fly either when I get a chance.
Manfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 21034 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26): but I think having your entire empennage depart the aircraft qualifies as a crash.
This is an interesting one because we all knew it would happen, but just how hard a landing it would take wasn't known....certainly was an expensive way to find out.
The experiment was to land at a 16fps decent rate (normal being around 3-6) Needless to say an aircraft carrier style landing cannot be done with an MD80. Still one of the best aircraft out there IMO.
This is quite a crude thread. I've had fun speculating about 787 over the past few years but I think there is a difinitive line that has been crossed: one that abandons education value for rampant speculation.
We've discovered something important: 3 years is the maximum delay we can handle before we run out of informative and interesting things to say about a new aircraft.
..........787 is ready to fly, if you can't feel it in your heart, you may be lacking one...............
GeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1082 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 20464 times:
My crystal ball, which probably sees into the future just as accurately as anyone else's shows a very different tale. Somehow, I see this aircraft taking off, whispering into the stratosphere, NOT falling apart in the sky, and low and behold, it winds up EXCEEDING all of Boeing's wildest expectations! Now wouldn't that be a hoot?
Ladies and gentlemen, it is a machine. A very complex machine, built very differently from its predecessors, but none the less, a machine. It will be flown when ready. And it will fly like any other aircraft flies. Only more efficiently. Let's not worry about the take off date or time, or the what ifs... The technology of the 21st century, the corrected mistakes, the lessons learned will keep the wings on and the engines running. I just hope Delta actually buys a few of them.
"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero