787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

Chris Foss
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Chris Foss » Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:39 pm

Your knee-jerk reactions just further reinforce my growing perception that you are a parlour talker.
It took you, what, 12 years of reading his stuff before you got that perception?
Give me a break, Flyboy. You know perfectly well that I have never pretended to be an aviation expert.
Per
Ah yes, this old game again....

Having been deemed competent and qualified in quite a few technical disciplines, and expert in a small number of specialist areas, I have spent much of my time imparting my knowledge and experience in the form of mentoring, training and simply sharing what I have learnt. In the process, I have in turn learnt a significant amount from laypeople through the questions they ask and misconceptions they want modified. But often from their untrained and inexperienced perceptions which are often uncluttered and free from dogmatic blinkered views which we all suffer from.

So I have always pitied those so called experts that guard their knowledge defensively as they greedily and pompously 'share' their perceptions on internet forums with the old and very tired 'parlour talking' jibes.

It just spouts insecurity and lack of class.

Ohhh, its so good to be back... :twisted:

Chris Foss
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Chris Foss » Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:57 pm

May I assume that wiring used in aviation may be of different grades where filament thickness, stranding pattern, conductivity and insulation material allows tighter radii.... ?? :shock:

Just done a course on the acceptability of risk. Fascinating and very refreshing perspective on safety vs commercial ideology in a world where liability has swamped common sense.

Yes, there are incidents like SR111 and pictures of fried components like the 787 batts and wiring, but in a few million air miles as a passenger or pilot, I can't say I was ever concerned about wiring apart from my in flight entertainment package not working properly. That is a personal perspective which is every bit as valid as Per's regardless of what anyone else thinks or knows or their level of 'expertise'.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby flyboy2548m » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:25 pm

Ah yes, this old game again....

Having been deemed competent and qualified in quite a few technical disciplines, and expert in a small number of specialist areas, I have spent much of my time imparting my knowledge and experience in the form of mentoring, training and simply sharing what I have learnt. In the process, I have in turn learnt a significant amount from laypeople through the questions they ask and misconceptions they want modified. But often from their untrained and inexperienced perceptions which are often uncluttered and free from dogmatic blinkered views which we all suffer from.

So I have always pitied those so called experts that guard their knowledge defensively as they greedily and pompously 'share' their perceptions on internet forums with the old and very tired 'parlour talking' jibes.

It just spouts insecurity and lack of class.

Ohhh, its so good to be back... :twisted:
Calling people "pompous and greedy", on the other hand, is the very epitome of class and self-confidence.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

Chris Foss
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Chris Foss » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:06 pm

Ah yes, this old game again....

Having been deemed competent and qualified in quite a few technical disciplines, and expert in a small number of specialist areas, I have spent much of my time imparting my knowledge and experience in the form of mentoring, training and simply sharing what I have learnt. In the process, I have in turn learnt a significant amount from laypeople through the questions they ask and misconceptions they want modified. But often from their untrained and inexperienced perceptions which are often uncluttered and free from dogmatic blinkered views which we all suffer from.

So I have always pitied those so called experts that guard their knowledge defensively as they greedily and pompously 'share' their perceptions on internet forums with the old and very tired 'parlour talking' jibes.

It just spouts insecurity and lack of class.

Ohhh, its so good to be back... :twisted:
Calling people "pompous and greedy", on the other hand, is the very epitome of class and self-confidence.
Game on... :twisted:

Nice deflection, but you are not addressing the issue: Why take the role of holier than though without the jibes?

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby GlennAB1 » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:07 pm

I could not find the picture I refered to which is basically the same as this, minus the results of the fire and the guy with his ass in the air. Never mind that, look at the wires. They are crossed, they are touching, they are not fixed at proper intervals, some of the radii looks suspiciouly small............it is a mess and a maze and a very amateurish one at that.
An installation like that would not have been allowed in any fixed object here, in other words homes or commercial buildings, not to mention moving objects that I am familiar with like cars, trucks, ships, drilling rigs or anything else offshore oil and gas related. On an airplane however..............................laughable, unless you are transported in one.

Per
Having been an inspector in the aviation industry for 25 years, I can't find anything wrong with the wiring in that picture. It may be perspective... looks like some wires may be crossed and touching, I see clamps and standoffs so they aren't touching.
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby flyboy2548m » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:37 pm

Having been an inspector in the aviation industry for 25 years, I can't find anything wrong with the wiring in that picture. It may be perspective... looks like some wires may be crossed and touching, I see clamps and standoffs so they aren't touching.
Easy now, Glenn, bringing your actually relevant credentials into the conversation is liable to get you labeled "pompous, greedy and holier than thou jiby".

Or something.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

Chris Foss
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Chris Foss » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:03 pm

Having been an inspector in the aviation industry for 25 years, I can't find anything wrong with the wiring in that picture. It may be perspective... looks like some wires may be crossed and touching, I see clamps and standoffs so they aren't touching.
Easy now, Glenn, bringing your actually relevant credentials into the conversation is liable to get you labeled "pompous, greedy and holier than thou jiby".

Or something.
:clap: Nice try, but no.

Without a difference of opinion, there's no point exchanging them on forums. Doing it without putting down the others is classy. Its actually valuable in knowing the experience base where the opinion is coming from as it adds weight which better influences the perspectives of others.

Getting defensive as you have been taints the opinion and the receptiveness of those reading. :geek:

Is it me, or have you lost your edge in old age FB? ;)

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby flyboy2548m » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:41 pm

Getting defensive as you have been taints the opinion and the receptiveness of those reading. :geek:
The ship of me worrying about your receptiveness (or lack thereof) sailed some years ago.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

Chris Foss
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Chris Foss » Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:48 pm

Getting defensive as you have been taints the opinion and the receptiveness of those reading. :geek:
The ship of me worrying about your receptiveness (or lack thereof) sailed some years ago.
Then one wonders why you contribute to a forum.

Back to the issue of what makes you feel relatively comfortable with the safety of an aircraft:
Actual facts and information really have little to do with each individuals perception. Like it or not, we are all relatively ignorant of all the true data. Even expert engineers only specialise in their fields and few have more than a good working knowledge of the rest of the many fields.

There was an interesting experiment where two sets of doctors were asked to diagnose some patients. One set were given full histories and allowed to carry out extensive tests and the other set were alowed only to ask 6 basic questions with partial histories. Bizarrely, the latter group scored higher in terms of correctly diagnosing the conditions. This is called 'blink theory' and works because the calls were made without allowing the clutter of information to distract the mind. It theorises that gut-feeling choices are based on the sub-concious use of vast experience without distractive tangents.
However, it is also worth noting that this very specific experience often leads to dogmatic and pre-emptive judgement then defensive behaviour which in turn leads to a reluctance to question ones own knowledge or understanding.

Having a gut feeling about something can lead us to selectively picking out the information that supports that assumption and dismissing other views out of hand. Just human nature I'm afraid. Trouble is that many supposed experts are more guilty of this than parlour talkers. Go figure!

Life is littered with cases of parlour talkers being right and the experts being wrong, which is what makes forums like this so fascinating.

Don't spoil the fun FB

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:10 am

Don't spoil the fun FB
Considering how much fun you and your erstwhile squeeze spoiled over the years, that comment is laughable.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

Chris Foss
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Chris Foss » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:28 am

Don't spoil the fun FB
Considering how much fun you and your erstwhile squeeze spoiled over the years, that comment is laughable.
C'mon FB, you know I love it when you get bitchy. :D


Reading the other thread on the 787 and remembering the problems Airbus had with the 380 and probably will have with the 350, I have to say that we seem to have lost a little relative perception in the past 80 years. Many aircraft manufacturers had serious inherent flaws in their designs as they stretched technology and manufacturing limits. Some flaws are still bubbling to the surface decades later and the learning process continues. But generally, aircraft like the 777, 380 and hopefully the 787 have been incredibly succesful in not killing people, despite a few bits falling off and frying up.
I very much appreciate the advances achieved so far and would love to see much more in aircraft design, like blended wings and canards. Material science is the key to future designs and I can't wait until folks get past the idea that just metal tubes with wings are safe. A quick browse through NASA's future design website does wet the appetite.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8142
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby 3WE » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:38 am


[Per's Picture]

AND

from Flyboy:

Looks very similar to the avionics bay wiring of the E-170/175. CRJ, too.
I'm impressed that these things are still big old, heavy-looking boxes-stress BIG- and not the size of an i-phone/i-pad. Looks like 1968, or maybe even 1958!

PLUS- I'm thinking that this sort of stuff was never in a Cessna 172- even though it potentially had dual nav-coms, GS, ADF, GPS and autopilot. (But not FMS nor Wikipedia)
Concur. I'm pretty sure there are vacuum tubes inside those metal boxes.
DC-7 Avionics bay around 1:35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYM9zZBQkcc

My, how far we have come.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

Ed
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:27 am

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Ed » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:01 am

Is "Chris Foss" actually Tony Manzur?

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:07 am

Is "Chris Foss" actually Tony Manzur?
Isn't it obvious?
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

Ed
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:27 am

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Ed » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:11 am

Is "Chris Foss" actually Tony Manzur?
Isn't it obvious?

LOL! All we need back is NSA San Diego "Karl" and Amy for the perfect trifecta.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:13 am

LOL! All we need back is NSA San Diego "Karl" and Amy for the perfect trifecta.
Indeed.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Not_Karl
Previously banned for not socially distancing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Bona Nitogena y otra gaso, Argentina

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Not_Karl » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:21 am

DC-7 Avionics bay around 1:35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYM9zZBQkcc

My, how far we have come.
A lot of electronic devices being used by the passengers during crucial parts of the flight. I wonder how didn't they died.
International Ban ALL Aeroplanies Association, founder and president.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8142
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby 3WE » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:48 am

DC-7 Avionics bay around 1:35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYM9zZBQkcc

My, how far we have come.
A lot of electronic devices being used by the passengers during crucial parts of the flight. I wonder how didn't they died.
Perhaps the pilots were highly competent in traditional airmanship.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Ancient Mariner » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:32 am

GlennAB1:
Having been an inspector in the aviation industry for 25 years, I can't find anything wrong with the wiring in that picture. It may be perspective... looks like some wires may be crossed and touching, I see clamps and standoffs so they aren't touching.
Only goes to show that standards differ.
Per

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8142
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby 3WE » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:29 pm

...standards...
Then we have black and white thinking: It meets standards, therefore it is safe.

Or better yet: It meets standards, and therefore shall not be discussed by the self-loading freight.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Ancient Mariner » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:58 pm

...standards...
Then we have black and white thinking: It meets standards, therefore it is safe.

Or better yet: It meets standards, and therefore shall not be discussed by the self-loading freight.
Good point and I agree. The worst input I hear is "we've always done like this", or the one to kill for "we didn't do like that on my last ship" (fill in airline, company as applicable).
Thing is, do like I say or convince me otherwise.
Per

Chris Foss
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Chris Foss » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:37 pm

Is "Chris Foss" actually Tony Manzur?
Isn't it obvious?

LOL! All we need back is NSA San Diego "Karl" and Amy for the perfect trifecta.
Ed!! You old coot. How the devil are you?

I hear Karl is busy between Thailand and playgrounds these days, but you never know... The CIA have a day-release program. :ugeek:

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby GlennAB1 » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:50 pm

GlennAB1:
Having been an inspector in the aviation industry for 25 years, I can't find anything wrong with the wiring in that picture. It may be perspective... looks like some wires may be crossed and touching, I see clamps and standoffs so they aren't touching.
Only goes to show that standards differ.
Per
I'd like to see some pictures of boat wiring to see how they differ...
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby GlennAB1 » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:35 pm

It could be that Engineers know boats take more of a pounding than aircraft, so maybe manufacturing standards have to differ...
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Ancient Mariner » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:53 pm

GlennAB1:
Having been an inspector in the aviation industry for 25 years, I can't find anything wrong with the wiring in that picture. It may be perspective... looks like some wires may be crossed and touching, I see clamps and standoffs so they aren't touching.
Only goes to show that standards differ.
Per
I'd like to see some pictures of boat wiring to see how they differ...
I've actually been looking and Googling, but could not find any good ones. Mostly exterior and engine rooms, but none that shows the actuall wiring. I'll keep searching.
Per


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests