This really doesn't make me feel very confident about getting on a 787 for a 14 hour flight next week.
On the contrary, it makes me more confident. Engine parts melt and fall off, and the plane doesn't seem disturbed. Awesome engineering!
Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
41–50 of 128 posts
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boeing is a company of truly stunning arrogance and greed. Boeing's case against Bombardier was when I had my personal "oh shit" moment and realized they'd started doing work with paper instead of doing work with wrenches. Any company which starts down that road has little chance of getting off, and it ends with dead people.
The lack of mention of Rolls-Royce here seems more than a little amiss, considering the engine flaw seems to be due to their error as far as I have heard.
Also it seems the airline chooses the engine type they want on their planes, not Boeing. It's a purchase option.
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the aircraft itself seems otherwise undamaged, and people on the ground reported it 'rained' metal shards, I'd say these parts melted off the turbine and fell out. Significant but not catastrophic.
This ended well, fortunately. But that must have been pretty scary. A 787 that is out one engine will put extra load on the remaining engine, if that one has gone through a similar life as the one that just dropped bits all over the place I'd not wager on the remaining one being as safe as when it was last inspected. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. And they don't glide particularly well either, though there are s…
> And they don't glide particularly well either
Nonsense! Modern airlines glide exceptionally well. For example a 787 has a glide ratio of over 20:1 !
http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/
https://seekingalpha.com/article/2494925-boeing-the-airbus-a...
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
This ended well, fortunately. But that must have been pretty scary. A 787 that is out one engine will put extra load on the remaining engine, if that one has gone through a similar life as the one that just dropped bits all over the place I'd not wager on the remaining one being as safe as when it was last inspected. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. And they don't glide particularly well either, though there are s…
> And they don't glide particularly well either Nonsense! Modern airlines glide exceptionally well. For example a 787 has a glide ratio of over 20:1 ! http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/ https://seekingalpha.com/article/2494925-boeing-the-airbus-a...
20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km to line up and land, that's not as bad as a shuttle but not nearly as good as an actual glider. Personally I'd love to be on the ground in that situation.
You can't just land a 787 on a bit of farmland. BTW if you have to deadstick a commercial plane then the 787 is probably the best, it has the best glide ratio of all commercial planes in service today. But I'd hate for that to be put to the test.
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And they don't glide particularly well either Nonsense! Modern airlines glide exceptionally well. For example a 787 has a glide ratio of over 20:1 ! http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/ https://seekingalpha.com/article/2494925-boeing-the-airbus-a...
20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km to line up and land, that's not as bad as a shuttle but not nearly as good as an actual glider. Personally I'd love to be on the ground in that situation. You can't just land a 787 on a bit of farmland. BTW if you have to deadstick a commercial plane then the 787 is probably the best, it has the best glide ratio of all commercial planes in service today. But I'd hate for that to…
That is a nonsensical comparison. Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km to line up and land, that's not as bad as a shuttle but not nearly as good as an actual glider. Personally I'd love to be on the ground in that situation. You can't just land a 787 on a bit of farmland. BTW if you have to deadstick a commercial plane then the 787 is probably the best, it has the best glide ratio of all commercial planes in service today. But I'd hate for that to…
That is a nonsensical comparison. Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick
Clearly the Shuttle's glide ratio was exceptionally bad, which is exactly why I used it for comparison. It still flies, after all.
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
20:1 from 3000 meters gives you 60 km to line up and land, that's not as bad as a shuttle but not nearly as good as an actual glider. Personally I'd love to be on the ground in that situation. You can't just land a 787 on a bit of farmland. BTW if you have to deadstick a commercial plane then the 787 is probably the best, it has the best glide ratio of all commercial planes in service today. But I'd hate for that to…
That is a nonsensical comparison. Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick
> Shuttle's glide ratio was 4.5:1 - barely better than a brick
A brick has a glide ratio somewhere worse than 1:10; the shuttle (at subsonic speeds) is closer to a sailplane (~40:1, or ~9× better than the shuttle) than a brick (more than 50× worse).
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#48Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you tell this when booking your tickets? It isn't a detail I've seen using most travel websites or even an airline's own app.
You probably can figure it out with some sleuthing. For one example, SeatGuru records every airline fleet's different plane types. Once you have airline + plane type for each of that airline's routes, I bet you can dig up the engine type from that info.
There's often also press about it - eg https://www.geaviation.com/press-release/genx-engine-family/...
Re: Metal shards from Boeing 787 taking off over Rome rain down on people below
#50Who is responsible from a liability perspective: Boeing, Rolls Royce, or Norwegian?
Chain. Norwegian to the people hurt and property damaged, they will in turn sue Boeing who in turn will sue Rolls Royce.
I thought the engines and the planes were purchased separately. Or are they bought as a unit for 787s?