Jump to content

Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

FAA warning notability

In the code of the ===Operational problems=== section, there is a reminder: 

Only accidents or notable aviation incidents please, minor incidents are rarely notable if you are not sure then ask on the talk page first.

After adding a (badly written, I know :) ) paragraph on april 2015 FAA mandated reboots, User:Fnlayson removed it with the justification this has caused no problems per sources and is non-notable. I understand the need to keep the article not polluted by many minor incidents, but in WP policies, notability concern the article, not its content : WP:N#NCONTENT. Content is governed by neutral weight from opposing sides : WP:WEIGHT, which isn't the case here, incidents reports being factual. The usual response to a topic overflow is to create a separate article, like list of 787 incidents or something like that. That said, the reboot issue is prominent : it generated a FAA notice, and have a wide public impact with 14100 results in google news for "787 reboot". I'm putting it back. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As a challenged edit you still need a consensus to add it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
okay, so are you pro or against its inclusion? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I read wp:notnews before, and in my understanding this edit isn't Journalism (no 1st person report), isn't News reports (it's not a burning topic, it just happened and the aftermath is simple : FAA Airworthiness Directive [1]) not a Who's who and not a Diary about an individual. It's not an aviation incident : it's an operational event, with a wide impact : it meets WP:DEPTH with feature length articles in major news journals : nytimes (I read it in print), msn, guardian... (IMO, not because of its significance from an aviation perspective (1 work hour (large estimation :) ) for 28 US planes!) but because it symbolizes the size and complexity of modern airliners' software, and common solution, hence its coverage in IT sites) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to create a list of 787 incidents? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No MilborneOne (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This is one of nine active airworthiness directives current for the Boeing 787 and from reading it is not that important in the big scheme of things just something the operator needs to keep an eye on until the software is updated, it needs all four generator control units to have been powered up at the same time and for more than 248 days. As a precuationary warning to operators it would not even make a separate list of incidents mainly because it is clearly not an incident. MilborneOne (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, just precautionary. There has been no occurrence of a problem with this in service, according to Flight Global. The generator control units would have to run for 8 months for power loss to occur. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
indeed, it's not an incident, it's an operational problem, as said in the section title. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
a potential loss of electrical power (thus commands) is a serious problem, worth an AD and many articles, and its short-term remedy is a first --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It's maintenance within operations --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

operators graphic: map updates

Please update the map 787 operators. Azerbaijan use two Boeing 787 185.30.89.124 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Aydin

I second Aydin's motion above. Unfortunately I don't know how to do it but if some kind person can add Azerbaijan, Belgium, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, and (if my eyes serve me) Singapore to the current operators shown on the map, that'd be ace. Pufferfyshe (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Battery issue; a false fix

As a chemist, I took a good look at the battery technology and the anode is Lithium Cobalt oxide. A thick metal skin is of no value when the fire begins in the anode (which has to be open to transmit power), it's just a fix worked out by someone non-technical. The Lithium Cobalt oxide will happily decompose to cobalt (IV) oxide and a lithium ion LI+ - a VERY reactive species. Lithium metal will burn in the presence of oxygen and react, generating heat, with a huge number of compounds. since it's the anode, it WILL come into contact with oxygen. Such a stupid thing - just add 10Kg and go back to SAFE lead-acid or similar.

I would also like someone more expert (that encompasses almost all Wikipedians) to look at this news report http://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/ in which the majority of people building the Dreamliner state that they wouldn't fly in one. I know people may worry about the balance of Al Jazeera but they DO interview a number of workers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I cant see any problems with batteries being mentioned after the fix, do you have any reliable sources rather than original research that claims there is still an issue. I wouldnt worry about the al jazeera September 2014 article, its just a bit of tabloid journalism. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Investigation

http://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/

If 2/3 of the people building the plane wouldn't fly in it, that's a big issue. The level of subcontracting is vastly higher than any plane in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hardly unlikely that they interviewed everybody around the world involved in building the aircraft, see the reply below when you asked the same question. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hail damage caused 787 to return to airport.

Hail damage leaves big dent on American Airlines Dreamliner http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2015/07/28/american-airlines-dreamliner-dinged--hail-returns--beijing/30774143/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) October 8, 2015 (UTC)

The more wordy the better? (20% more efficient)

Please could you explain the reason for your edit? I assume that you understand why 20% more means 25% less.

My version:

  • The 787 was designed to replace 25% less fuel efficient Boeing 767.

Your version:

  • The 787 was designed to be 20% more fuel efficient than the Boeing 767, for which it was intended to replace.

My wording is more concise and more clear, right? 85.193.232.158 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Your wording is not very clear and probably missing a few words. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The logical construction of the idea to be conveyed can be expressed as follows:

NEW was designed to be better than OLD and this is the only reason for which NEW was intended to replace OLD.

My concise wording conveys this clearly, but it can be changed to:

The 787 was designed to replace Boeing 767, which is 25% less fuel efficient.

As to 25%, do the simple math (elementary school level). You will find there this 20% - 25% "problem" explained. But I have for you something even simpler. Imagine that you have $100 and I have increased it by 100%. Now you have $200. But if I decrease $200 by "exactly the same" 100%, you will have $0. Surprised? :-) Now, here is a challenge for you. By what percentage should I reduce $200 to obtain $100?

@ User:MilborneOne: Can you be more specific? 85.193.232.158 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Basically it doesnt make sense in English, and you need a reliable source to change from 20% to 25%. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
A "reliable source" for such simple math sounds ridiculous, but let's assume that I have one. What is wrong with the following sentence?
  • The 787 was designed to replace the Boeing 767, which is 25% less fuel efficient.
85.193.232.158 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Still doesnt read right and the 25% less is not referenced and appears to be made up and the wrong way around, it needs to be "The 787 was designed to be 20% more fuel efficient then the Boeing 767 it was to replace." The 767 was first so it is the benchmark/reference point for the saving. MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think that you've completely misunderstood my question. 85.193.232.158 (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Didnt you ask what was wrong with your sentence and I replied, not that it matters as the Boeing benchmark is 20% less fuel burn then the 767 which is what the original sentence says so we are unlikely to change the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You've ignored the crucial assumption in my question, that I can provide the necessary source as to the 25% issue. Of course I can NOT - it was just a theoretical assumption. The (absurd in my opinion) necessity for providing any separate source (in that case) is another story. All I wanted to know was your opinion about purely linguistic aspects. I was curious about possibly wrong syntax but you didn't answer WHAT was wrong with my sentence. If you ask me anything about my native language (Polish), my answer will be much more comprehensive. 85.193.232.158 (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ADS-B problem?

This Flightglobal article describes what seems like a serious problem with the aircraft's Automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast system, which appears to result in the aircraft's location being misreported to air traffic control, and has resulted in restrictions being imposed on operations in Canada annd to a lesser extent in Australia - is this worth mentioning in the article?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be particularly serious as most ATC still uses primary radar rather then rely on the ADS-B output. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of the New Zealand operational incident?

The last entry in the "Operational problems" section seems like it's ill-suited to the section; planes regularly have mechanical or electrical issues without being listed as major incidents in their Wikipedia pages. Just because it delayed a flight doesn't suggest notability to me. Zen-ben (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

More images of 787-9

This page at last view has many pictures of the 787-8 but only one of the 787-9. There have been many 787-9 delivered now (about 25% of deliveries)and they dominate the order book (almost half of all 787 types ordered). A few substitutions of 787-8 images with 787-9 images would provide a more accurate representation of this aircraft.Hans100 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Hans100

Primary/more users in infobox

I'm sort of confused why UA wouldn't be listed as one of the primary/more users in the infobox. Of course NH should be top, but UA is second in deliveries and third in orders (not counting ILFC). I'm replacing AI (fifth in deliveries, 11th in orders) with UA. Riphamilton (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the Operators order is based on the 2015 World Airliner Census (July), where the totals were: All Nippon Airways (38), Japan Airlines (23), Qatar Airways (22), Air India (21), United Airlines (18), Ethiopian Airlines (13), LAN Airlines (13), etc... There are no new reliable sources quoted since the WAC which take a snapshot of all B787 operators totals, so normally we have to wait for the next annual census to update these figures. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Speed in kph removed

The fact that on July 19 an edit has been done that removes the speed of the aircraft type in kph, only to leave knots and mach, is conflicting with the understandability of information on Wikipedia, as most people cannot relate to knots and mach (only scientists, aviation and nautical people/fanatics understand). Please add the km/h back to make it easier to understand for the layman. --OPolkruikenz (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The edit in question did not remove the unit conversions on purpose. It was simply a formatting issue with the template. This has been fixed and I added the mph conversion too. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

National origin

The article currently describes the Boeing 787 as an "American" airliner. This seems overly simplistic given that parts of the aircraft have a "national origin" outside the United States. According to the article, different parts of the aircraft are manufactured in Japan, Italy, Korea, Sweden, France, and India. Which secondary sources explicitly call the 787 an "American" aircraft? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

All modern aircraft are built with bits from around the world but the national origin releates to where the final assembly and certification is carried out, with the Boeing 787 that is two sites in the United States, so clearly the aircraft is legally American by design and build. Engines are a large part of the cost of an airliner and most are built in different countries to that of final build and certification but for example you would not consider a RR-powered Boeing to be Anglo-American. MilborneOne (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
If modern aircraft are built with parts from around the word, then that would seem to undermine the notion that modern aircraft possess a nationality at all. According to whom does national origin relate to where the final assembly and certification are carried out? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The 787 is assembled from various parts from around the world, indeed, but by Boeing, an american company, under the review of the US FAA. For example, one of the most established source in the industry is (the British) Jane's All the World's Aircraft, and the 787 is referenced for the USA section, along with other Boeings. Airbus is under the multinational section.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I can agree with describing Boeing Commercial Airplanes as an "American company"; however, does Jane's book explicitly describe different aircraft as being American, Russian, British, etc.?
Regardless, American is a nationality, which I think is different than national origin; I don't think that manufactured products such as airplanes have nationalities per se. It's a colloquial or journalistic convention to speak collectively of "Japanese electronics", "German automobiles", etc., but I don't think that such journalistic shorthand fits well in an encyclopedia article about a specific product. For instance, the Sony PlayStation is not described on Wikipedia as "a Japanese video game console", nor is the Mercedes S-Class called "a German luxury car". These products are simply described as items produced by their respective companies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Aircraft do have a national origin as it relates to airworthiness certification, any Boeing 787 would be described as a product of the United States. MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The S-class article is within the Category:Mercedes-Benz vehicles itself within Category:Cars of Germany. Companies have nationalities. But I agree I don't really care for the 787 of being american, it is foremost a Boeing product, itself a US company. I don't care either if other wp editors want to underline that the 787 is american. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Design/Interior Section Appears Grossly Inaccurate

"The 787's nine-abreast seating for economy provides passengers less space, particularly across the hips and shoulders, than any other jet airliner.[230] This has led to recommendations that passengers, particularly taller or larger individuals, avoid the 787 for international service.[230][231][232]" I'm afraid the article cited for link 230 is just completely inaccurate. The article's author claims "Nine-abreast on a Dreamliner means a seat width of 17” or below," however, every 787 configuration with nine-abreast seating I've seen has stated much more seat width in a nine-abreast seating configuration: ANA (18.6"), United (17.3"), BA (17.5") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.23.142 (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

ANA seats are 18"6 in 8 abreast, seatguru made an error on one layout but the others are correct : 9-abreast are around 17". The sources are OK, Mary Kirby (runway girl) is an ex Flight Global and is a great ref on airliners layouts.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017

In the section "battery problems" it states that it's the first time the FAA grounded an airliner since 1979 but it does not state which airliner. Pilot4151 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The DC-10 was the airliner in question, but that detail is not relevant to the 787. The text in the incidents section is long already and could use some summarizing. So I don't feel minor details like this need to be added. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete Sentence/Text Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

Under heading 'Flight test program' in the fifth paragraph there is an incomplete sentence with a citation. The text "That same month, Boeing .[124]" needs to be expanded upon or removed. Nabuma (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Found the missing text way back and reinsterted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing information and corporate PR spin?

There have been several notable incidents involving 787s which are not detailed on this page. In fact, only one incident is mentioned and no details are provided other than the date of the incident, and a brief statement along the lines of, this is a standard 'toothing' incident expected of all new passenger planes, nothing to worry yourself about, please move on! Call me paranoid, but to me this whiffs of corporate public relations / marketing spin. Mjonesot (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Incidents involving the 787: https://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/type/b788/boeing-787-8-dreamliner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjonesot (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to presume good faith here, you will probably find that they are just not noteworthy to be mentioned. Perhaps if you provide some examples and we can explain why they have not been included. Not sure where you get the impression that only one incident/accident is mentioned, there there is a large section on operation problems and the issues with batteries which is hardly promotional. MilborneOne (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right MilbourneOne, looking again at the page i jumped the gun. Totally overlooked the operational problems and issues. Must have presumed the next heading was on a different topic without reading it. Mjonesot (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Production Start

Production start is given at 2007, yet first planes delivered in 2011. Does it take four years to make one aircraft? 193.242.214.225 (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A lot of aircraft were built in anticipation of the aircraft gaining its type certificate, they were built and parked, some of these early aircraft were built to "heavy" and were not actually delivered for a number of years, there may be still some parked up. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Cruising speed 903 km/h > Maximum speed 648 km/h

  • Cruising speed Mach 0.85 (488 kn; 903 km/h)
  • Maximum speed Mach 0.90 / 350 kn (648 km/h) equivalent airspeed[405]

Maybe the 9 is up side down ;-) --Fisch4Fun (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the linked equivalent airspeed can explain and the references be verified?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2017

on the variants page, on the last line about the -10, it states that the aircraft is to be delivered to "SIA", I request a change to Singapore airlines instead as not everyone knows what "SIA" is 222.152.60.248 (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but not required. Previous text in the section (2nd paragraph) lists "Singapore Airlines (SIA)". --Finlayson (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

image up for deletion

File:Dreamliner battery fire.jpg will likely be deleted at Commons as copyvio/accidental misuse of PD-USGov tag. Please consider upload under fair use. --Denniss (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Bleedless engine cabin air system

I removed the sentence "the bleedless engine cabin air system also allows the 787 air to avoid oil fumes and toxins which are dangerous to the health of passengers and crew and are found in all other aircraft bleed air systems.[1]" from the article. The website aerotoxic.org [3] is not a reliable source. But more importantly, the original document "BOEING 787–8 DESIGN, CERTIFICATION, AND MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS REVIEW" [4] makes no claims about "oil fumes", "toxins" or the bleed air system on any other aircraft. So the whole sentence is not supported by the source. --McSly (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I'm pretty sure conventional bleed air systems could not be certified if they were toxic, and there should be some results from any toxicity since 60 years.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Only the Boeing 787 Provides Passengers and Crews with Clean Breathing Air". Global Cabin Air Quality Executive.

Someone has sabotaged this page by changing all the image links to links to a YouTube video. I'm not a sufficiently advanced Wikipedia user to attempt to fix this so I'm posting here to flag it for someone who can.Pedrofp (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

the external image template only points to flight's cutaway--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Range versus London-Perth distance

The article says that Qantas will start flying London-Perth, a distance of 14,499 km. However the maximum range of a 787-9 is quoted as 14,140 km.

Is the range figure wrong? Zin92 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No - the Qantas aircraft will only have 236 passengers or less and more fuel to get the extra few miles. MilborneOne (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

787-9 fuel capacity

According to specs, 788 and 789 have virtually the same fuel capacity, yet heavier 789 has greater range. I think something's wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.160.155.34 (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Payload-range --Marc Lacoste (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add this tag to the main page

Thanks. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Image caption

In my opinion, “the first shorter variant” is not needed in the image caption. This is not very important and nothing similar is found in other aircraft articles. ElshadK (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Trent 1000 engine issues completely missing from article

The Trent 1000 engine issues are something that severely impacted several airlines that had the Trent 1000 engines fitted to their Dreamliners. Relevant information regarding this topic and its impact should be added to this article. 193.226.5.248 (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

see Trent 1000#Blade cracking--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

B-787 is not same type rating as B-777

The first section of article says the B-787 shares a common type rating with the B-777 which is not true. Pilots typed in one or the other can obtain the other with a shorter transitions course, but the type ratings are distinct and do not allow a pilot with one to fly the other. Reference here: https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ I would edit this but the article is locked. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhwikipicki (talk • contribs) 03:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

More discussion and research is needed. The 777 and 787 do appear to have an EASA common type rating per https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/12092018%20EASA%20T_R_List_Acft.pdf , so.it doesn't really make sense that it isn't to the FAA also. - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
See also http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2011/info11016.pdf . It clearly states, "The B-787 Flight Standardization Board (FSB) has evaluated and validated the differences training and checking proposed by The Boeing Company and has determined that the B-777 and B-787 aircraft qualify for a common pilot type rating (IAW AC 12053A)." There are.stipulations and qualifications in that document, but the two aircraft do have a common type rating, at least the did on September 30, 2011, the date of the document. - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

That 2011 document is outdated. See here page 5 http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/fsb/b787_rev_5.pdf EASA may use a common type rating, but the FAA does not. The clearest editis to delete the statement because it is not universally true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.126.29 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I need further information to remove the information outright, as the report you cite does state that there are commonalities, and may be outdated itself. Someone else is free to remove the information if they want to. - BilCat (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The "b787_rev_5" document on page 5 says "the B-787 and the B-777 are separate type ratings that have been determined to have commonality." So the wording needs to be clarified to match, not simply deleted. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


Clarify or remove, but the two airplanes do not share a common type rating. They share commonalities, enough that a pilot type rated in one can obtain his/her type rating in the other with abbreviated training, but that is not a "common type rating."

The current (Aug 2018) list of every FAA issued type rating is here: https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/ In that list, consider the Cessna (aka Textron) CJ series, i.e. the CJ, CJ1, CJ2, CJ2+ ... which are identified as 525 variants. These are distinct models of aircraft but truly share a common type rating, per the right column entry "CE-525." If a pilot has the CE-525 type rating, meaning he/she completed training and passed a checkride and received a new pilot certificate with CE-525 printed on the back, he/she can fly a CJ1, CJ2, CJ3, or CJ4 as a crew of two. If his/her pilot certificate has CE-525S printed on it, meaning he/she is type rated for single pilot crew, he/she can fly it alone. The type rating is analogous to a category/class rating on the pilot's certificate, and to state that the 787 and 777 share "common type rating" is tantamount to stating a multi-engine land rating and a single-engine seaplane rating are the same thing. The list shows the 787 series requires the "B-787" type rating and the 777 series "B-777" which are distinct, and thus the statement in the opening paragraph "It shares a common type rating with the larger Boeing 777 to allow qualified pilots to operate both models" is patently false. In this summary paragraph the entire statement should be removed, and any discussion about the commonalities, the intent but failure to secure a common FAA type rating etc. are details suitable for the body of the article, but not it's introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.126.29 (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  • But the fact they do not in the USA means it's not really true. Which is better, including a statement that is not completely true, or omitting it? Save the details for the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.126.29 (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Strange logic - the statement "It shares a common type rating with the larger Boeing 777 to allow qualified pilots to operate both models." is clearly true as it doesnt say "in the United States". It might be worth adding a hidden note that it doesnt apply in the United States but no reason to remove it as it was an important point in the design philosophy in the early days which is why it is in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


They actually have distinct type ratings in Australia too: https://www.casa.gov.au/file/162961/download?token=uuHJeYMB Can we compromise and someone with rights add “in some jurisdictions” or just I wait until the article is unlocked and I’ll do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhwikipicki (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on main image

ONLY BLUE SKY
There is consensus to use the "only blue sky" image (File:Boeing 787 N1015B ANA Airlines (27611880663) (cropped).jpg) as the main article image. — Newslinger talk 12:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I changed the main image from what it is now (top) to the bottom image. It was reverted pretty quickly, so I'd like to generate consensus here on if this picture is better or not.

  • Current and longstanding image
    Current and longstanding image
  • Proposed new image
    Proposed new image

Ultimograph5 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Although the original image is glaringly obvious as a 787 with the large lettering, the new image you proposed has a more identifiable raked wingtip, which is iconic for this Boeing build. TenderFooter (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It fails WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES "the aircraft in images should preferably face the text". Having the airliner with landing gear up and viewed a little bit from above is nice (like A380) but the light is a bit dull and the sky is grey. I would support the same picture going the other way with a better light.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

How about the [one below] which seems to tick most of the right boxes, but perhaps could do with a little cropping.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • cropped
    cropped
  • more blue sky
    more blue sky
  • only blue sky
    only blue sky
I cropped it and I do support it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I added two others from the same series, with more blue sky and only blue sky, perhaps less distracting without clouds (but the middle one with clouds below is interesting symbolic-wise)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Only blue sky image is beautiful. I think that would be a perfect fit for this article and it checks all the boxes including the rulebook. Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Current and longstanding image - At present, this seems like the best image to me. Most contrast and detail. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The more blue sky looks best to me. The current one makes the aircraft look chubby, and doesn't show the raked wingtips. Maproom (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment on looking at the photos and noting the start of the RFC, I am not sure why I am called in now. There are a lot of photos in the article, including some with the wheels down, and it seems that the current photo has indeed replaced the old chubby one, so who cares? FWIW I think that the current photo, being attractive, is acceptable as the lead photo, especially as there are enough other photos to show off most of the features of practical interest. JonRichfield (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Opppose change from the original JA801A image, nothing wrong with it rather than use far from normal air display images with a Boeing operated aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 'more blue sky' – the current picture is alright, but the proposed one is better: it shows the aircraft's side (the usual view for illustrations), the mentioned raked wingtips and an in-service livery that doesn't look like a '787' advert. Shame for the slight backlight, but on the whole it would be an improvement. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment given that 'More Blue Sky' is attracting support, here is a version which reduces the backlighting (fuselage is brighter). Regards SynergyStar (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • more blue sky, brightened
    more blue sky, brightened
  • Only blue sky which has apparently become the infobox image since this began; second choice more blue sky, brightened; third choice, the original with the big 787 lettering. All seem fine to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_787_Dreamliner/Archive_5&oldid=1160371128"