Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Boeing Dreamliner catches fire. This is not a repeat from 2012 or 2010   (cnn.com) divider line 70
    More: Scary, Dreamliner, Japan Airlines, prompt corner, jal  
•       •       •

8569 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2013 at 3:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 11:44:42 PM  
Well, at least they managed to deliver this one to a real, paying customer before it burned.

/would still fly on a 787 over an A380 any day.
 
2013-01-07 11:59:35 PM  
The Dreamliner is everyone's problem. That's because every time it goes up in the air, it's unsafe. I don't like it because it's dangerous.
 
2013-01-08 12:45:55 AM  

Rapmaster2000: The Dreamliner is everyone's problem. That's because every time it goes up in the air, it's unsafe. I don't like it because it's dangerous.


That's right, Rap... master2000. It is dangerous.
 
2013-01-08 03:33:32 AM  
Things burn, donnay, Colonel?
 
2013-01-08 03:36:22 AM  

pizen: Rapmaster2000: The Dreamliner is everyone's problem. That's because every time it goes up in the air, it's unsafe. I don't like it because it's dangerous.

That's right, Rap... master2000. It is dangerous.


*aggressive bite*
 
2013-01-08 03:39:55 AM  
Airbus/scraebus or Airplane! quotes? Let's see how this thread devolves.
 
2013-01-08 03:40:03 AM  
It's good the FAA is on top of these things:

FAA to loosen fuel-tank safety rules, benefiting Boeing's 787
 
2013-01-08 03:42:00 AM  
If there's a choice between any composite WonderPlane and the 747 I will take the queen of the skies every time.
 
2013-01-08 03:58:58 AM  

Cheese eating surrender monkey: Airbus/scraebus or Airplane! quotes? Let's see how this thread devolves.


If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going to post such quotes
 
2013-01-08 04:02:29 AM  
I guess I picked the wrong week to... ahhh, sod it.
 
2013-01-08 04:08:29 AM  
They BROUGHT their tickets!
They KNEW what they were getting in to!
I say......... LET 'em die!
 
2013-01-08 04:24:18 AM  
static.neatoshop.com
 
2013-01-08 04:34:49 AM  
Where is your 'scarebus' now, O Devotees of Boeing-Boing?
 
2013-01-08 04:34:51 AM  
The A380 isn't exciting, but it will get you from A to B without catching on fire.
 
2013-01-08 04:39:19 AM  
The 787 was an engineers nightmare. The people who started the program (yes, I'm looking at you Mr former Mcdonnell-Douglas executives) were doing everything they could to bypass the Union and farm out as much of the manufacturing as they could to save a few bucks to put in their own pockets. They sold the manufacturing of one section to the Japanese, one to the Chinese, one to the Indonesians, a whole bunch of the avionics and flight control stuff to a couple German, Italian and French firms and then built these huge fancy cargo aircraft to ship the goods back to Everett for assembly.

What they got, was misaligned holes, fuselage sections that varied in size by as much as two inches, delaminated sections that couldn't even be used and had to be scrapped, alloy parts that were the wrong alloy or flat-out counterfeited, and untraceable inspection stamps that didn't seem to belong to anyone.

This plane has yet to seriously come back and bite Boeing in the ass, but it will. It's the DeHaviland Comet all over again.
 
2013-01-08 04:49:44 AM  
"We found a fire condition about midship in the avionics compartment underneath.

Disentangling the bureaucratese and considering the plane was on the ground being readied for flight (and even given that the Dreamliner has been fraught with bugs from the git-go), why do I have this suspicion that the REAL problem here is "maintenance crew smoking in a non-smoking area" and they just don't want to admit it?
 
2013-01-08 04:51:46 AM  

swingerofbirches: It's good the FAA is on top of these things:

FAA to loosen fuel-tank safety rules, benefiting Boeing's 787


It is a good thing it wasn't the fuel tanks that caught fire!
 
2013-01-08 04:53:16 AM  

Deathfrogg: This plane has yet to seriously come back and bite Boeing in the ass, but it will. It's the DeHaviland Comet all over again.


Speaking of which, have you seen the Comet restoration project at Paine Field? One of my former teachers has been working on it for the past few years. It looks quite beautiful these days.

/still wouldn't fly the damn thing.
 
2013-01-08 05:03:38 AM  
So, the planes was empty when it started but there were 183 people on board when it happened? WTF? Which is it? Damn.
 
2013-01-08 05:04:02 AM  

Miss Stein: Deathfrogg: This plane has yet to seriously come back and bite Boeing in the ass, but it will. It's the DeHaviland Comet all over again.

Speaking of which, have you seen the Comet restoration project at Paine Field? One of my former teachers has been working on it for the past few years. It looks quite beautiful these days.

/still wouldn't fly the damn thing.


Once they figured out to put radii in the corners of the windows and make them smaller, DeHaviland got the Comet to be a pretty reliable aircraft. That wasn't the only issue, but Boeing became a success simply because DeHaviland screwed the pooch on their initial design and lost the market.

No, I haven't been down to the Kite Factory in a few years. I didn't realize they were actually working on that project yet.
 
2013-01-08 05:04:21 AM  
plane, damn autofark.
 
2013-01-08 05:04:27 AM  

Deathfrogg: The 787 was an engineers nightmare. The people who started the program (yes, I'm looking at you Mr former Mcdonnell-Douglas executives) were doing everything they could to bypass the Union and farm out as much of the manufacturing as they could to save a few bucks to put in their own pockets. They sold the manufacturing of one section to the Japanese, one to the Chinese, one to the Indonesians, a whole bunch of the avionics and flight control stuff to a couple German, Italian and French firms and then built these huge fancy cargo aircraft to ship the goods back to Everett for assembly.

What they got, was misaligned holes, fuselage sections that varied in size by as much as two inches, delaminated sections that couldn't even be used and had to be scrapped, alloy parts that were the wrong alloy or flat-out counterfeited, and untraceable inspection stamps that didn't seem to belong to anyone.

This plane has yet to seriously come back and bite Boeing in the ass, but it will. It's the DeHaviland Comet all over again.


They have experience with fires on planes: MD-11 crash in 1998
 
2013-01-08 05:09:29 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: So, the planes was empty when it started but there were 183 people on board when it happened? WTF? Which is it? Damn.


In-air boarding is the future, today.
 
2013-01-08 05:10:43 AM  
Farking Screamliner.

I'll say it again, SCREAMLINER. The farking Lada of the skies.
 
2013-01-08 05:10:46 AM  
Heck, the prospect of a civil airliner going up in a ball of flames is pretty terrifying and I don't care if you pro Boeing or Airbus...it's all the same. Until these composite and new engine laden aircraft have racked up a good few hours incident free, give me a 747 anyday
 
2013-01-08 05:13:40 AM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: So, the planes was empty when it started but there were 183 people on board when it happened? WTF? Which is it? Damn.


I had to reread that section, too. The plane was empty and the part about the crew and passengers was completely irrelevant.
 
2013-01-08 05:29:15 AM  
How long before the press dubs it the "Nightmareliner"?

It's inevitable, isn't it? Might as well get it over with...
 
2013-01-08 05:43:05 AM  
Did Morton-Thiokol make the o-rings for the engine seals?
 
2013-01-08 05:45:09 AM  

Deathfrogg: The 787 was an engineers nightmare. The people who started the program (yes, I'm looking at you Mr former Mcdonnell-Douglas executives) were doing everything they could to bypass the Union and farm out as much of the manufacturing as they could to save a few bucks to put in their own pockets. They sold the manufacturing of one section to the Japanese, one to the Chinese, one to the Indonesians, a whole bunch of the avionics and flight control stuff to a couple German, Italian and French firms and then built these huge fancy cargo aircraft to ship the goods back to Everett for assembly.

What they got, was misaligned holes, fuselage sections that varied in size by as much as two inches, delaminated sections that couldn't even be used and had to be scrapped, alloy parts that were the wrong alloy or flat-out counterfeited, and untraceable inspection stamps that didn't seem to belong to anyone.

This plane has yet to seriously come back and bite Boeing in the ass, but it will. It's the DeHaviland Comet all over again.


Remember when the US led manufacturing ad innovation and employed the middle-class?

But then someone figured out that interferes with management compensation.
 
2013-01-08 06:23:14 AM  

KrispyKritter: Feral_and_Preposterous: So, the planes was empty when it started but there were 183 people on board when it happened? WTF? Which is it? Damn.

In-air boarding is the future, today.


FTA: "A smoky fire broke out aboard an empty Japan Airlines 787 Dreamliner in Boston on Monday"

and

"Japan Airlines confirmed the cause of the fire in a news release. It said 172 passengers and 11 crew members had been on the plane. Everyone had disembarked when the fire was discovered, the airline said."

My bad. I guess those were the passengers from the previous leg. I'm always second-guessing articles because of the shabby state of modern journalism. I assumed they were saying that the plane was evacuated because someone noticed smoke or something. I guess my snark projector is broken... Probably has something to do with getting canned yesterday.
 
2013-01-08 06:36:05 AM  

Deathfrogg: The 787 was an engineers nightmare. The people who started the program (yes, I'm looking at you Mr former Mcdonnell-Douglas executives) were doing everything they could to bypass the Union and farm out as much of the manufacturing as they could to save a few bucks to put in their own pockets. They sold the manufacturing of one section to the Japanese, one to the Chinese, one to the Indonesians, a whole bunch of the avionics and flight control stuff to a couple German, Italian and French firms and then built these huge fancy cargo aircraft to ship the goods back to Everett for assembly.

What they got, was misaligned holes, fuselage sections that varied in size by as much as two inches, delaminated sections that couldn't even be used and had to be scrapped, alloy parts that were the wrong alloy or flat-out counterfeited, and untraceable inspection stamps that didn't seem to belong to anyone.

This plane has yet to seriously come back and bite Boeing in the ass, but it will. It's the DeHaviland Comet all over again.


In all fairness, the original Comet design was deeply flawed and quickly taken out of service...but not quickly enough. Since it was the first commercial jetliner they had few prior lessons to learn from. The intensive investigation into its flaws greatly benefited the entire industry. Later Comet versions served with distinction for over 30 years. In it's Nimrod reincarnation it served the British military until 2011.
 
2013-01-08 06:38:42 AM  

Mike_1962: Deathfrogg: The 787 was an engineers nightmare. The people who started the program (yes, I'm looking at you Mr former Mcdonnell-Douglas executives) were doing everything they could to bypass the Union and farm out as much of the manufacturing as they could to save a few bucks to put in their own pockets. They sold the manufacturing of one section to the Japanese, one to the Chinese, one to the Indonesians, a whole bunch of the avionics and flight control stuff to a couple German, Italian and French firms and then built these huge fancy cargo aircraft to ship the goods back to Everett for assembly.

What they got, was misaligned holes, fuselage sections that varied in size by as much as two inches, delaminated sections that couldn't even be used and had to be scrapped, alloy parts that were the wrong alloy or flat-out counterfeited, and untraceable inspection stamps that didn't seem to belong to anyone.

This plane has yet to seriously come back and bite Boeing in the ass, but it will. It's the DeHaviland Comet all over again.

In all fairness, the original Comet design was deeply flawed and quickly taken out of service...but not quickly enough. Since it was the first commercial jetliner they had few prior lessons to learn from. The intensive investigation into its flaws greatly benefited the entire industry. Later Comet versions served with distinction for over 30 years. In it's Nimrod reincarnation it served the British military until 2011.


Oops. Its.
 
2013-01-08 07:03:01 AM  
Dreamliner, screamliner...
 
2013-01-08 07:03:47 AM  
If this happened in a Scarebus, the entire airport would have exploded.
 
2013-01-08 07:19:04 AM  

Deathfrogg:
This plane has yet to seriously come back and bite Boeing in the ass, but it will. It's the DeHaviland Comet all over again.


It's karma for Boeing using the NSA's echelon spying facilities to undercut Airbus' price quotes in the 90's and generally screw them over.
 
2013-01-08 07:19:18 AM  

RacySmurff: KrispyKritter: Feral_and_Preposterous: So, the planes was empty when it started but there were 183 people on board when it happened? WTF? Which is it? Damn.

In-air boarding is the future, today.

FTA: "A smoky fire broke out aboard an empty Japan Airlines 787 Dreamliner in Boston on Monday"

and

"Japan Airlines confirmed the cause of the fire in a news release. It said 172 passengers and 11 crew members had been on the plane. Everyone had disembarked when the fire was discovered, the airline said."

My bad. I guess those were the passengers from the previous leg. I'm always second-guessing articles because of the shabby state of modern journalism. I assumed they were saying that the plane was evacuated because someone noticed smoke or something. I guess my snark projector is broken... Probably has something to do with getting canned yesterday.


You're right though, you could read it to mean that the passengers and crew disembarked after the fire was discovered...

172 passengers? Hardly a full flight...
 
2013-01-08 07:43:41 AM  

Deathfrogg: The 787 was an engineers nightmare. The people who started the program (yes, I'm looking at you Mr former Mcdonnell-Douglas executives) were doing everything they could to bypass the Union and farm out as much of the manufacturing as they could to save a few bucks to put in their own pockets. They sold the manufacturing of one section to the Japanese, one to the Chinese, one to the Indonesians, a whole bunch of the avionics and flight control stuff to a couple German, Italian and French firms and then built these huge fancy cargo aircraft to ship the goods back to Everett for assembly.


Couldn't they have saved the money and just built the 787 on the spot then? If you're going to have to build a plane to transport its parts, you obviously know how to build a big, reliable plane.
 
2013-01-08 08:00:04 AM  
Welp, was planning on taking this flight the next time I went to Japan (nonstop Boston-Tokyo- fark yeah!), but the type of aircraft they use for the flight is making me reconsider based on this and the evidence posted in this thread....
 
2013-01-08 08:08:05 AM  

narkor: The A380 isn't exciting, but it will get you from A to B without catching on fire.


It's exiting when it knocks over other planes in the airport! :)
 
2013-01-08 08:15:08 AM  

vincentfox: If there's a choice between any composite WonderPlane and the 747 I will take the queen of the skies every time.


Except the 747 is now also a composite WonderPlane.  Have you not met the 747-8i?  I'll be flying on one of these soon.  Lufthansa's fancy 747-8i launch partner page here.
 
2013-01-08 08:17:32 AM  
Holy geez, are these planes made out of electric cars, or something?
 
2013-01-08 08:18:23 AM  

3rdtimearound: Deathfrogg: The 787 was an engineers nightmare. The people who started the program (yes, I'm looking at you Mr former Mcdonnell-Douglas executives) were doing everything they could to bypass the Union and farm out as much of the manufacturing as they could to save a few bucks to put in their own pockets. They sold the manufacturing of one section to the Japanese, one to the Chinese, one to the Indonesians, a whole bunch of the avionics and flight control stuff to a couple German, Italian and French firms and then built these huge fancy cargo aircraft to ship the goods back to Everett for assembly.

Couldn't they have saved the money and just built the 787 on the spot then? If you're going to have to build a plane to transport its parts, you obviously know how to build a big, reliable plane.



You can farm out manufacturing to these "sweatshop" facilities and the costs are a fraction of what you would pay here, even with shipping. As long as you don't ask any questions about what you get back, everything is OK.

/ Decision makers in suits don't understand engineering specs until they have the universal translation symbol put in front of them.
// "$"
///Has seen some frightening materials come back from farmed out stuff.
 
2013-01-08 08:22:41 AM  

finnished: RacySmurff: KrispyKritter: Feral_and_Preposterous: So, the planes was empty when it started but there were 183 people on board when it happened? WTF? Which is it? Damn.

In-air boarding is the future, today.

FTA: "A smoky fire broke out aboard an empty Japan Airlines 787 Dreamliner in Boston on Monday"

and

"Japan Airlines confirmed the cause of the fire in a news release. It said 172 passengers and 11 crew members had been on the plane. Everyone had disembarked when the fire was discovered, the airline said."

My bad. I guess those were the passengers from the previous leg. I'm always second-guessing articles because of the shabby state of modern journalism. I assumed they were saying that the plane was evacuated because someone noticed smoke or something. I guess my snark projector is broken... Probably has something to do with getting canned yesterday.

You're right though, you could read it to mean that the passengers and crew disembarked after the fire was discovered...

172 passengers? Hardly a full flight...


Almost. The JAL 787-800 is configured for 186 PAX: 42 executive; 144 economy.
 
2013-01-08 08:23:18 AM  

Mike_1962: Mike_1962: Deathfrogg: The 787 was an engineers nightmare. The people who started the program (yes, I'm looking at you Mr former Mcdonnell-Douglas executives) were doing everything they could to bypass the Union and farm out as much of the manufacturing as they could to save a few bucks to put in their own pockets. They sold the manufacturing of one section to the Japanese, one to the Chinese, one to the Indonesians, a whole bunch of the avionics and flight control stuff to a couple German, Italian and French firms and then built these huge fancy cargo aircraft to ship the goods back to Everett for assembly.

What they got, was misaligned holes, fuselage sections that varied in size by as much as two inches, delaminated sections that couldn't even be used and had to be scrapped, alloy parts that were the wrong alloy or flat-out counterfeited, and untraceable inspection stamps that didn't seem to belong to anyone.

This plane has yet to seriously come back and bite Boeing in the ass, but it will. It's the DeHaviland Comet all over again.

In all fairness, the original Comet design was deeply flawed and quickly taken out of service...but not quickly enough. Since it was the first commercial jetliner they had few prior lessons to learn from. The intensive investigation into its flaws greatly benefited the entire industry. Later Comet versions served with distinction for over 30 years. In it's Nimrod reincarnation it served the British military until 2011.

Oops. Its.


This. The Comet had only one flaw: square windows and fuselage openings which caused concentrated stress points) and there was a manufacturing flaw (punch riveting the windows instead of the designed glue, then rivet process). Once the windows were retrofitted or redesigned for the 4, the Comet went on to fly until 2011 (as the basis for the Nimrod). Only the DC-8 comes close to equaling such service length (KC/RC-135/E-3/Joint STARS don't count, they're a different airframe from the 707, thinner and differently built).
 
2013-01-08 08:24:21 AM  
FTA: We advanced an aggressive, offensive fire attack.


It was super effective!
 
2013-01-08 08:26:56 AM  
JAL has been operating these planes for a while -- long enough for them to have been through a couple of B Checks.  If there was a fire on board, I'm not entirely sure it is Boeing fault.
 
2013-01-08 08:29:01 AM  

8tReAsUrEz: Once the windows were retrofitted or redesigned for the 4, the Comet went on to fly until 2011 (as the basis for the Nimrod). Only the DC-8 comes close to equaling such service length (KC/RC-135/E-3/Joint STARS don't count, they're a different airframe from the 707, ...


I assume you mean among JETS.  The DC-3 hit 75 years in commercial service last year.
 
2013-01-08 08:30:46 AM  
Deathfrog : The 787 was an engineers nightmare. The people who started the program (yes, I'm looking at you Mr former Mcdonnell-Douglas executives) were doing everything they could to bypass the Union and farm out as much of the manufacturing as they could to save a few bucks to put in their own pockets.

Maybe if the union wasnt trying to put as many bucks in their own pockets it wouldnt have happened. Or does it not work that way too?
 
2013-01-08 08:33:56 AM  

swingerofbirches: It's good the FAA is on top of these things:

FAA to loosen fuel-tank safety rules, benefiting Boeing's 787


Wasntt that one of the reasons why twa 800 went boom?
 
2013-01-08 08:40:09 AM  
"The 787, being a new airplane, does have teething problems,"

How many teething babies have the ability to kill 300 people?
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report