Back to Squawk list

Norwegian Air grounds Dreamliner after brake problem

Norwegian Air Shuttle has been forced to keep one of its new Boeing 787 Dreamliners on the ground in Stockholm since Monday after problems with its brakes, the company said on Thursday. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

wx1996 5
Were is the news about all the other Boeing Models and All the Airbus aircraft that were grounded by a mechanical or system problem? Why is this significant?
preacher1 4
If this was any other aircraft besides a 787, this post would not even be appearing.
Roland Dent 2
I keep telling people that this is an iconic machine...maybe I should STFU.
preacher1 3
And this ain't a fleetwide thing. 1 stinkin' plane. Like I said, if it had been something besides a 787, it wouldn't even make the news
Toby Sharp 2
Naaaahhhhhh. They will get all the kinks out.....just all apart of the process of newness.
True they need to fix everything. A380 had some problems too remember QF32
Ric Wernicke 2
If I was a "budget" airline dispatcher and found out I had forty passengers per day booked on an overseas flight I would send out maintenance to write a ticket for something that could be easily fixed. I once saw such a ticket that said "Right engine missing." Two later the ticket was closed with "After exhaustive search engine located under right wing." The plane left full on the third day.
I am old enough to recall the hullabaloo when the DC-10 had a series of incidents and the world according to the media was about to end!! It went on to out sell the L1011 and even become the MD-11 and remains widely used in the cargo sector. I dislike the B787 due to it's awful looks ( it's a female thing ) but perhaps the stretched version shall improve on that score.

However, once more, I agree that it is a media storm and little else given that this is high technology at work and time is necessary for this and perhaps the A350 to settle down.
preacher1 1
747 had it's share of teething problems too. The main thing about it, the DC 10 and L1011, was that we didn't have Internet and 24 jour news at that time, to tell us every time a pilot had to go P.
I was never aware of teething problems related to the 747 because the media here in UK went bonkers because of the DC10 ( British Caledonian and Laker had ordered them ) suggesting that they may be death traps in the air owing to that fin based third ( or no.2 ) engine as opposed to the rear fuselage embedded centre engine on the TriStar and that accidents involving the Douglas were a 'STORY' that the newspapers could not resist.

My first sight of a DC-10 landing at my local provincial airport made the hairs on my neck stand up owing to it's sheer size and beauty compared to the Vickers Viscounts and DC9's parked up next to it and to this day I adore seeing the trijets as often as they appear. They were and remain different compared to the modern boring big twinjets and the ever rare quad jets.

Oh, one more thing....did you have to mention the pilot going to the loo? You Tube just might get a little warmer now!!
preacher1 1
LOL on the loo. That #2 engine gave everybody talk for concern over here. A layman couldn't figure out how they did that; said it would never work, yada, yada, yada. Engineers said it was innovative and forward thinking. When AA 191 went down in Chicago, it wasn't the #2 engine that tore loose and flipped over the wing.
Any brand new aircraft has had it's share of teething problems and they will continue to have as they are introduced. Look at Bombardier. Better to be safe that sorry on the CS100 but undoubtedly unplanned things came up to get in the way of the test flight. You don't hurry on development. When you don't, you are less chance to come across something after production. On FA here somewhere today is a video of the CS100 on high speed taxi test. It looks like if he would have rotated, it would have flown, but that is a step in the process.
I also think back, as a Brit, the problems the De Havilland Comet had due to metal fatigue. Unforeseeable because we only had turboprops to deal with up until that point and as such, speed and altitude tests did not have the benefit of computer simulations to fall back upon and that Boeing were still developing the 707 and a different design. We had massive testing tanks within hangers to allow for theoretical failures and frames were tested to destruction simulating thousands of rotations and pressure tests to simulate altitudinal variations and at temperature extremes, much of which are done on a small PC today. My point here is that the Comet evolved into a reasonable ship, learning from the earlier crashes as best we could, and it eventually was adopted and improved for service with many airlines and the RAF in varied constructs.

Airbus also have had problems with their flagship A380, despite exhaustive testing in accordance with all the regulators, it needed an inflight failure for a problem with the engine to be identified and as a result of those investigations, further problems were found within the construction of the wings. No pre certification tests could have allowed for such events but as with the DC-10, it needed an incident and time for these issues to be dealt with, in a calm manner with the ultimate purpose of providing a safe product and an enjoyable experience for those that hand over hard earned currency, and perhaps their lives, for their tickets.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!