The Dreamliner's Continuing Woes

[Guest fountainhall]

Looks like the A380 has been in service for over 5 years, so I might just consider A380 flights now.

 

You are overdue, z!    It's maiden flight was SIngapore/Sydney on 26 October 2007.

[Guest]

You are overdue, z!    It's maiden flight was SIngapore/Sydney on 26 October 2007.

There is no hurry.  We're just 6 months over my 5 year limit & I only need to book on one when it's strictly convenient.

777s seem to be common on the long haul flights which I typically take.

[Guest anonone]

The problems continue....

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/23/travel/dreamliner-diverted/

 

3 diversions / emergency landings in the past several days for United Airlines.  All without injury and none with battery implications...so far anyway.

 

 

A United Airlines 787 Dreamliner was diverted due to a mechanical problem, the third such incident for Dreamliners in six days. 

United Flight 94 was on its way to Denver early Sunday when it was forced to fly back to the Houston airport where the flight had originated, United Airlines said.

The cause: an issue with the brake indicator.

 

On Tuesday, another United Airlines Dreamliner flight made an unscheduled landing.  That flight was on its way from Denver to Tokyo, when it was diverted to Seattle because of an indicated problem with its oil filter.

 

On Thursday a third United 787 flight was diverted to Newark's Liberty International Airport in New Jersey, United said, due to a "low oil indication."

 

And it seems ANA is having a share of the problems as well:

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-12/ana-scraps-787-dreamliner-flight-after-engine-fails-to-start-1

 

 

ANA Holdings Inc. (9202), operator of the world’s biggest fleet of Boeing Co. (BA) 787s, scrapped a service with the Dreamliner yesterday, the third cancellation for the aircraft in Japan this week after a four-month grounding.

ANA couldn’t use the 787 for the flight from Ube, western Japan, to Tokyo’s Haneda airport as the right engine failed to start, said Megumi Tezuka, a spokeswoman at the company. The airline is looking into the cause and said it was separate from the battery issues that had plagued the Dreamliner earlier.

 

Oh, and Japan Airlines also:

 

Japan Airlines Co. (9201), the world’s second-largest Dreamliner operator, also canceled a service with the 787 this week after an indicator on a flight bound for Singapore showed problem with the engine anti-icing system.

 

I won't continue to quote all the details, but still some significant teething pains for this bird.  No reports that any of the issues are battery related, so I guess that is some good news.  I realize that planes get diverted many times for a multitude of issues, but I am grateful this model is getting the increased scrutiny it deserves. 

 

Full disclosure: I have now actually flown on the 787.  I found myself on a domestic leg shortly after they resumed flying.  I was not worried as my main concern was always ETOPS routes, until the plane became more reliable.  Plenty of landing spots all along the route I was on, though not needed in my case. 

 

Not a bad plane, but nothing that I will go out of my way to fly again.  Comfortable enough Business Class....Economy looked pretty grim with United's cabin layout.  Narrow seats at 17.3 inches, 9 across the cabin in 3x3x3.  No thanks.

[Guest fountainhall]

Hopefully the Telegraph was not way off the mark when it used the following headline on June 16th -
 

Dreamliner’s woes are just a spot of turbulence, says Boeing boss Jim McNerney

 

[Guest fountainhall]

Re the Dreamliners and on board fires, a couple of decades ago I came across a neat little fire smoke hood in a hotel in Taipei. It was for sale and was said to guarantee oxygen for about 5 minutes in a fire. So I bought one and started taking it regularly on flights. After all, it is said that a very high proportion of deaths in aircraft fires is due to carbon monoxide poisoning - not the fire itself.

 

A few years later, I noticed a product called EVAC-U-8. This looked rather like a soda can. When pulled out it was a clear mask with a small cylinder near the mouth. It 'guaranteed' about 18 minutes of breathable air. It got great reviews on various websites and had a shelf life of something like 10 years (I think). So I purchased a couple and there was hardly any flight over around 4 years when I did not have one with me in my hand luggage.

 

Then something must have happened to affect the guarantee. One mask had obviously failed - whether in testing or in the air I never found out. The product was recalled and all purchasers received a note from the suppliers promising a refund. These, though, never came. The company went belly-up. 

 

After that, I could find no similar product on the market and stopped thinking about it. Now, though, I have started to look around for anything which is not bulky and would give even a few minutes of breathable air in case of any fire. This 'Breath of Life Bag' looks interesting - US$44.95. 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Emergency-Escape-Mask-Breath-Of-Life-BIOLOGICALS/dp/B005HG51CO/ref=pd_sim_sbs_misc_1

 

The Xcaper Enterprise Smoke Mask Kit looks even more effective but more bulky and more complicated to put on. It's round $60. But it gets a good recommendation from firemen, asin this YouTube vdo

 

 

Does anyone here have any form of smoke mask?

[Rogie]

I wonder if anyone has found a similar product on the market - one that has not so far failed! It strikes me that anything which will give you even a few minutes of breathable air in case of a fire might save your life.

 

As a non-technical person the obvious question in my mind having read that is "what about oxygen masks?" In a serious event such as a fire on board, which I would assume would start slowly enough for the cabin crew to initiate the masks, and assuming the plane was able to make an emergency landing in one piece without any casualties owing to the fire itself (rather than the smoke), I wonder how long the oxygen supply would last.

[Guest fountainhall]

Sorry Rogie, I edited the post after you made your comment.
 
Oxygen masks cannot used in the event of an on-board fire, for the flow of oxygen effectively will feed the fire. Their primary function - as I understand it - is to give you breathable air in the event of sudden decompression at high altitude. Only the flight crew have full-face masks and a separate feed of oxygen so they can continue to function in case of on board smoke or fire.
 
Imagine a fire on board as you come in to land - or a crash landing which involves fuel ignition. Many of the items on board are flammable and give off toxic fumes - the seats, for example. Breathe that lot in and you are unconscious within seconds. You need something that enables you to continue to breathe and also to see (even if it is just the light coming from an open door or a crack in the air frame) for the few minutes it may take you to get out of that aircraft shell.
 
Remember, too, that you will be surrounded by sheer panic - everyone who is alive scrambling to get out. And in panic situations, most people breathe far too quickly and therefore become unconscious more quickly.

Here’s some advice on surviving a crash from The Telegraph in 2010
 

Contrary to popular statistical myth, however, air travel is not the safest form of transport – rail travel is safer in terms of accidents per journey and accidents per hour travelled (air travel wins only in accidents per mile travelled). But what is true, contrary to expectation, as the study reveals, is the survivability of most crashes. More to the point, the study found that a third of those who died – smoke and fire accounted for most deaths – would almost certainly have survived if they'd taken certain precautions . . .

SMOKE INHALATION
Fire is a main cause of death in most survivable crashes, but smoke is worse. Even a few breaths that draw in smoke can result in loss of consciousness. If possible wet a handkerchief, or other piece of material – the seat back headrest, for example – to cover your nose and mouth. If no water is available, use urine. This is a matter of life and death – it's no time to be fastidious.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/4269453/How-to-survive-a-plane-crash.html

[Rogie]

Does anyone here have any form of smoke mask?

 

Not me, but having read both your posts and now aware that in the event of an on-board fire the oxygen masks can't be used, it would definitely be interesting to know more, especially having followed this Dreamliner thread.

 

Just as a reminder, here's a quote from post #2:

 

In 2006, a devastating lab fire in Arizona showed just how volatile Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner lithium-ion battery can be if its energy is not adequately contained. A single battery connected to prototype equipment exploded, and despite a massive fire-department response the whole building burned down.

 

On the finished Dreamliner, however, Boeing is confident its engineers can safely harness and contain that energy.

 

The 787’s battery-fire protection regime aims both to make a catastrophic blowout impossible through multiple independent controls and also to compartmentalize any less serious battery meltdown, venting smoke outside until the high-temperature reaction burns itself out.

 

That approach was approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), with special conditions attached. Yet the All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 emergency last week suggests Boeing's containment plan — even if the engineering is technically solid — may not work for airlines in operational terms . . .

 

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) raised concerns about Boeing’s battery-fire-protection plan in the course of the FAA certification process. During the public-comment period in 2007, the pilots union stressed that “a fire from these devices, in any situation, is unacceptable.”

[Rogie]

Not a bad plane, but nothing that I will go out of my way to fly again.  Comfortable enough Business Class....Economy looked pretty grim with United's cabin layout.  Narrow seats at 17.3 inches, 9 across the cabin in 3x3x3.  No thanks.

 

Thanks for that report Anonone.

 

Would I be right in thinking each airline can specify the cabin layout to suit its own purposes? If so, some economy cabins may be better . . .

[Guest anonone]

Yes Rogie.  You are correct.

The airline works with Boeing to choose the interior layout they wish for the plane.  This is true for all aircraft.

 

As another example, ANA went with a much more spacious economy product for the dreamliner.  8 seats across in a 2x4x2 configuration.  Each seat has 18.6 inches of width.  Much more comfortable for ultra long flights, which is what the 787 is designed to fly.  (And this is regular economy, not some type of premium economy setup).

 

ANA regular economy pitch is 33-34 inches.  United regular economy is 32 inches.  United economy plus is 35 inches, though still the really narrow 17.3 width. 

 

You are probably aware, but seatguru.com has all the specs for each of the major airlines around the globe, with each of the numerous aircraft types in their inventory.  The accuracy has declined a bit of late, but still a good resource.  I consult it all the time when evaluating flights if I come across a decent fare.  Really useful for airlines I don't fly regularly to see if their Business class seats are lie-flats and not recliners, etc.