why is the 787 so scary?

[Linflas]

For the most part, humans lack a good risk analysis model. There are many things that you are much more likely to die from rather than a commercial aircraft accident.For example:


National Safety Council© Injury Facts© 2011

Lifetime Odds of death due to:
Heart disease: 1 in 6
Cancer: 1 in 7
Stroke: 1 in 28
Accidental poisoning by toxic substances: 1 in 130
Falls: 1 in 171
Car accident: 1 in 303
Assault by firearms: 1 in 306
Motorcycle accident: 1 in 770
Accidental drowning: 1 in 1,123
Exposure to smoke/fire: 1 in 1,177
Cycling: 1 in 4,717
Firearms discharge: 1 in 6,309
Air and space transport accidents: 1 in 7,032
Exposure to electric current, radiation, temperature or pressure: 1 in 9,943
Exposure to excessive natural heat: 1 in 12,517
Cataclysmic storm: 1 in 46,044
Contact with hornets, wasps and bees: 1 in 71,623
Lightning: 1 in 84,079
Bitten/attacked by dog: 1 in 120,864
Earthquake: 1 in 148,756
Flood: 1 in 175,803
Fireworks discharge: 1 in 386,766


On the other hand, as a human you have the right to be irrational. So should you want to be paranoid about 787's, I would support you.

Best of luck,
Uno

It is all about what you feel you are in control of. As much as the stats tell us how much safer flying is vs driving to the airport we feel we are in control of our fate when we drive and almost helpless strapped into a seat in a thin aluminum tube being controlled by people we can't see.

 

[unokitty]

It is all about what you feel you are in control of. As much as the stats tell us how much safer flying is vs driving to the airport we feel we are in control of our fate when we drive and almost helpless strapped into a seat in a thin aluminum tube being controlled by people we can't see.

That's one of Bruce Schneier's themes.

If we make security trade-offs based on the feeling of security rather than the reality, we choose security that makes us feel more secure over security that actually makes us more secure. And that's what governments, companies, family members and everyone else provide. Of course, there are two ways to make people feel more secure. The first is to make people actually more secure and hope they notice. The second is to make people feel more secure without making them actually more secure, and hope they don't notice.

The key here is whether we notice. The feeling and reality of security tend to converge when we take notice, and diverge when we don't. People notice when 1) there are enough positive and negative examples to draw a conclusion, and 2) there isn't too much emotion clouding the issue...

There are some complex feedback loops going on here, between emotion and reason, between reality and our knowledge of it, between feeling and familiarity, and between the understanding of how we reason and feel about security and our analyses and feelings.

As you have identified, its an interesting tension that exists between the feeling and the reality of being secure.

Uno

 

[BurnItDwn]

I would urinate on the fire to put it out. Then, I would be the hero, except that I had eaten asparagus, so I would be the enemy of everybody.

 

[skimple]

I flex 13 hours in one in September. Loved it. No problems and its a lot nicer to fly in a new plane than some of the antiques that US airlines are still cobbling together.

 

[Mixolydian]

Car accidents are pretty horrible. So is getting hit by a car as a pedestrian. Shark attacks can ruin your whole day. Lightning strikes can kill you. Storms can drown you. Vending machines are really dangerous when they fall on you. Bottom line is that going outdoors is scary. Then again if you stay indoors you might be attacked by bugs or get carbon monoxide poisoning. You might drown in the bathtub.

I'd take a car accident over a plane accident any day. Falling out of the sky? No thanks.

Shark attack would be worse in my opinion. . . Plane crash into great white infested waters though. . .

Hmm shark attack would be pretty bad...

You'll likely never get to see many wonderful parts of the world without flying. Good luck taking boats around the world at huge price premiums and taking days instead of hours.

I can live without.

 

[Linflas]

I would urinate on the fire to put it out. Then, I would be the hero, except that I had eaten asparagus, so I would be the enemy of everybody.

Urinating on an electrical fire not a great idea...

 

[RGUN]

This...

The major cost factor in aviation by a big margin is fuel costs so doing everything your can to reduce fuel consumption is number two on the list of priorities, just behind safety.

Aircraft have been made mostly with lightweight aluminum for decades but CF is lighter still so the aircraft can be made lighter which: reduces the fuel needed to transport x number of people y miles, reducing the amount of fuel needed further reduces weight which further reduces fuel consumption.

In addition, an airframes lifespan is driven more by the number of pressurization cycles then by the number of air-miles because metal tends to fatigue when flexed like this but CF is, as best I know, largely immune to this failure mechanism.

Lastly, the engines on this new plane are the latest and greatest which once again reduces fuel consumption.

Put it all together the long term operating costs are expected to be much less than anything out there so it's no surprise the airlines are on board.


Brian

I had a chance to speak to a fairly senior person on this specific topic a couple weeks ago. The major concern between him and his colleagues was the fact that metal airframes crack as they fatigue and this all happens relatively slowly. Their inspection cycle allows them to spot that crack and repair it. Composites (in his opinion) fail with very little if any warning. Now I'm sure it's all designed for infinite or some specific finite life, but not every component that comes off the line is perfect, and handled properly up to the point of being installed.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Urinating on an electrical fire not a great idea...

I have peed on an electrical fence and survived fully in tact.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I had a chance to speak to a fairly senior person on this specific topic a couple weeks ago. The major concern between him and his colleagues was the fact that metal airframes crack as they fatigue and this all happens relatively slowly. Their inspection cycle allows them to spot that crack and repair it. Composites (in his opinion) fail with very little if any warning. Now I'm sure it's all designed for infinite or some specific finite life, but not every component that comes off the line is perfect, and handled properly up to the point of being installed.

They are able to do testing now that will reveal how many cycles, on average, it takes for cracks to develop and as best I know there just isn't the same failure expectations with CF. CF will break, of course, but if you stay within the limits it should have a nearly infinite lifespan. The concern I'd have is the long term reliability of the glues they use to connect sections together.

The first major disaster to be traced to metal fatigue was the De Havilland Comet which had squarish windows and the sharp angle cut in the aluminum resulted in magnified stress and early cracking then -- fatal failure. Since then the windows were made rounder to reduce the stress, but there are many other areas (cargo doors etc) that fatigue as well.

The windows on the 787 are about the largest in modern airliners.


Brian

 

[KeithP]

i like a plane that is simple, robust, and proven.

787 seems like it keeps getting grounded for silly shit like poorly made batteries or computer software.


wtf would iu do if your 787 was over the atlantic and a battery burst into flames? D: fuck. that.

Your life will be more pleasant if you don't worry about things that aren't going to happen.

-KeithP

 

[Tommy2000GT]

the 787 is a dog and pony show

the 777 is way better

 

[jaedaliu]

the 787 is a dog and pony show

the 777 is way better

except for fuel economy and therefore operational costs. They also serve different markets.

However, the 777X or whatever it's called now will bring those same fuel efficiencies to a 777 sized plan.

 

[Linflas]

I have peed on an electrical fence and survived fully in tact.

If only I wasn't at work so I could search for the Ren and Stimpy "Don't Whiz on the Electric Fence" video.

 

[dud]

Seems that this thread has been "hijacked". Pun intended.

OP, the 787 will ultimately prove itself to be a safe aircraft. It is a new design and a quantum leap from previous aircraft generations. The bugs will be worked out soon enough ...

 

[Linflas]

Seems that this thread has been "hijacked". Pun intended.

OP, the 787 will ultimately prove itself to be a safe aircraft. It is a new design and a quantum leap from previous aircraft generations. The bugs will be worked out soon enough ...

At least the problems are not as bad as the Lockheed Electra wings falling off or the De Havilland Comet breaking up in mid flight problems.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

If you were to board one random flight per day it would take you an average of 30,000 years to board a flight that would be involved in a fatal accident*.


* based on U.S. Air travel statistics and does not factor in drunk Russian pilots crashing on takeoff.

Of course some people are lucky and manage to get the one that crashes on their very first pick.

 

[zoiks]

I've flown a dreamliner on a 6 hour flight. They're pretty nice. The in seat entertainment was awesome and I think I wasted a full 20 minutes just playing with the window.

Lots of shitty cars are nice when you're a passenger sitting in the back seat.

 

[adlep]

<end of thread>Airbus can land on water</end of thread>

 

[Linflas]

<end of thread>Airbus can land on water</end of thread>

Like Air France Flight 447(Airbus A330-203)?

 

[Number1]

I have peed on an electrical fence and survived fully in tact.

How about the rest of you?

 

[BurnItDwn]

How about the rest of you?

fully in tact.

That said, later that night my fiance was shocked.

 

[ElFenix]

i like a plane that is simple, robust, and proven.

787 seems like it keeps getting grounded for silly shit like poorly made batteries or computer software.


wtf would iu do if your 787 was over the atlantic and a battery burst into flames? D: fuck. that.

who said it's scary?

 

[mizzou]

Like Air France Flight 447(Airbus A330-203)?

don't watch the documentary on that one if you have a fear of flying...

 

[Linflas]

don't watch the documentary on that one if you have a fear of flying...

Honestly the only part of flying I fear is dealing with the airlines and the security garbage. I am unfortunate to be old enough to remember when flying and the airports were fun and not a stress test.

 

[jaedaliu]

Honestly the only part of flying I fear is dealing with the airlines and the security garbage. I am unfortunate to be old enough to remember when flying and the airports were fun and not a stress test.

aren't most people? 2001 wasn't that long ago.

Or are you talking about the golden age when only the elite got to fly regularly and flight attendant (or should I say stewardess because that's what they were in those days) was a glamorous job.

and back on OP's point. The safety record of the 787 is perfect so far, no fatal crashes. Safety systems are working as intended.