I did in 09 and was feeling about the same. Done some stuff since then and in a CRJ now for the old company and it is actually worse. To see the transition from a 707 thru a 767 is mind boggling.

From the perspective of the Pax back in 22A, the on-board systems are great- as long as nothing goes wrong. When it does, I'd rather have Preacher as PF than someone with 2,000 hr of flipping switches and pushing buttons.

I agree 100% !!

With any plane, there are redundancies built into it. This is the third incident of a 787 with at least smoke - United had one a couple weeks back and there was another one that had to emergency land back during testing. They'll iron it out. The backups are working.

Actually, that's not the worst news.

The worst news is that it appears to be unrelated to the previous problems (APU, turbine blade failure). If all reported 787 issues had the same symptoms and root cause, there'd be one problem to fix.

Wasn't there another one or two window cracking incidents? If so, I wonder if the windows were from the same lot.

@preacher1 : exactly right !!!!

Bravo !! Well said !!

I really think one reason that everybody is uncomfortable with FBW is the fact that hydraulics have been there so long and very reliable. Same with your throttle cable and other mechanical linkage. That said, over the years, there have been problems with these others as well. Technolgy will advance and FBW and it's derivatives will become accepted and we will go on to something else. As I have said, in years past, we haven't had Internet or National media to let us know almost instantly of every little happening. In addition to that, we now have the exaggeration factor, in wihich a cut finger in ATL this morning becomes a broken arm in LAX in early afternoon.

There is also the issue of carbon fibre composites, aluminium has a memory, it can take only a certain number of stresses. Composites are light , strong , but they break if overstressed. What is the lifespan of a composite airplane ?
Only the future will tell !

Well, 16 years was a long ride for the L1011 as an interim. A big part of the l-1011's problem was with Rolls Royce's problems with it's financial condition and not the Airframer. Seems like they could carry 350-400 people, depending on config and were one of the first with auto land. They have probably thought about briging them back, but you probably wouldn't see anything close on fuel as these newer twins, and that is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Knowing DAL Tech ops, anything is possible though.

Where you been anyway? You ain't been on here in months.

well, "Sturm und Drang" is found in Webster's. So perhaps its usage is in the English language- thus it may well already be 'in english'

I believe I'm correct in saying there's a more civilized and appropriate way of getting your thought across, Mr. Kruspe.

Fire, smoke and jello. In other words, Bla,bla,bla.
Your rude comments aren't needed Mr. Kruspe.