Heathrow fire on Boeing Dreamliner 'started in battery component'

Re:Heathrow fire on Boeing Dreamliner 'started in battery co... by jordanb on Thursday July 18, 2013 @08:26PM (#6067536)

That kind of diversion is very common for a new type entering service. The crew doesn't have a lot of time in the type, they know MX doesn't have a ton of time working on the type, and so their default when anything seems amiss is to get the plane on the ground and have it looked at.

The diversion rate right now for the 787 is enormous, but nearly all the diversions are "abundance of caution" calls by the crew.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Heathrow fire on Boeing Dreamliner 'started in battery co... by RockyMcNuts on Thursday July 18, 2013 @10:34PM (#6067982)

gonna cost a lot of money and inconvenience a lot of passengers. if a non-emergency, wouldn't they loop in dispatch and maybe a Boeing engineer before turning it around? makes you think, better to wait til they work out kinks before taking one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Heathrow fire on Boeing Dreamliner 'started in battery co... by HeyLaughingBoy on Friday July 19, 2013 @09:14AM (#6069910)

Can't work out all the bugs without running the thing you built.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Heathrow fire on Boeing Dreamliner 'started in battery co... by RockyMcNuts on Friday July 19, 2013 @02:54PM (#6072133)

yeah, I hear you. it's just, I don't know that they turn the plane around just because the 'check engine' light came on... and whether it's an abundance of caution or not, for myself, sounds like a situation I'd rather avoid as a passenger.

[ Parent | on HN ]