Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Semi-protection?

I was thinking, I would like everyone's opinion here whether or not this article should be semi-protected. I am not going to request it yet, however, with the recent reports of issues with the 787, there is the potential risk of edit wars in the article about these issues and whether or not they are normal "teething issues". The tension between Boeing and Airbus fans are getting higher by the moment. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 01:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not one to advocate locking things down in anticipation of edit wars. I advocate locking them down when they begin. They have not begun here, and people are behaving themselves. It does my heart good :) Marteau (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, as if on cue, out come the nitwits. I'd have no issue with semi-protection. Marteau (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested semi-protection Marteau (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, I changed the heading Early operational issues to Operational issues, as the heading is a sub-head of Development and is therefore obviously early. For the record, I can assure you I'm 1. not a nitwit, and 2. uninterested in either Boeing or Airbus (in fact I hate flying). Ericoides (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this edit was the one made by the "nitwit". - BilCat (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection was denied. Marteau (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking and the update. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Series of safety incidents in late 2012 / early 2013

I know these are included in the operations section, but does the recent series of safety incidents and subsequent investigations warrant it's own section in the article? It seems that this aircraft is suffering a relatively high number of teething problems even considering that it's brand new. 86.159.110.166 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

yes, the article definitely needs one, today there was a SIXTH incident in under a week. 82.31.236.245 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't this article covering the current technical failures and incidents with the Dreamliner around the planet? --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 04:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See the "Service entry and operations" section... at the end Marteau (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think an "Incidents" subheading is justified - will have a look at creating one unless someone else gets there first ... please! Springnuts (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think a heading of that sort would be a good idea for the sake of ease of navigation. Just FYI, the Airbus A380 has a section called Incidents and accidents. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 14:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see the heading "operational issues" has been added to break up the section. This sounds like a fair and neutral heading for the section describing the problems encountered by the aircraft type - many reliable sources use much stronger language than this. I've edited the description of the Takamatsu 787 evacuation because it's description of the passengers being "safely evacuated" to say "evacuated using emergency slides" as "evacuated safely" was not in the reference and in any case it has been reported that there were 5 minor injuries with one taken to hospital for treatment. 86.159.110.166 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Bleedless??? Lithium-ion battery#Safety lets Boeing BLEEDING!

Not a forum

Probably Airbus was right by using Bleed air for the A350. Could stop the production and ground the fleet of the Dreamliner for months, possible years: Lithium-ion batteries can rupture, ignite, or explode when exposed to high temperature. Lithium-ion batteries containing more than 25 grams (0.88 oz) equivalent lithium content (ELC) are exempt from the rule (that passengers on commercial aircraft could carry lithium batteries in their checked baggage) and are forbidden in air travel. I´ve ever questionized the safety of these things. If its true - and the possibility is NOT LOW - its a DISASTER for Boeing. Tagremover (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Is it just too early to make a redirect here from Nightmareliner? (Sorry for the bold. Ah, ok, i love being bold. But here its imho needed!) Tagremover (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Why are the batteries now catching fire: The Separator (electricity) is getting old: + and - together makes it hot. And: Capacity is getting lower, so the battery has to be charged higher. See Lithium-ion_battery#Disadvantages. (edit-conflict) Tagremover (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC) PS: The varying air-pressure stesses the separator, too. Tagremover (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I think it would be more in accordance with the sources, as well as easier for people to find what they're looking for if the header was changed to Incidents. After all, businessweek is asking: Boeing's 787: Will This Plane Kill You? :D .... But seriously, I think it would be better for people looking for this specific information as well as perfectly objective. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) This is a very short technical analysis based on my engineering knowledge. The future will show who is right. I repeat: Above average probability that on THIS plane bleedless causes (minimum financial) bleed! I propose a section: "Bleedless" listing technology, advantages, disadvantages, related issues. Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Flight_systems, Engines and Interior is not enough. Tagremover (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC) U.S. regulators ground Dreamliners over fire risk I ANALYZED and predicted THIS ! Tagremover (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Editors with technical knowledge should not waste time to write the ABOVE proposed section Bleedless. I have no time to make it alone. Tagremover (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Tagremover, what is going on? You are sounding very much upset and angry. For wikipedia, I feel we should wait for the various inspections and investigations which are happening now to make some statement of findings before we publish any information about the causes of the various problems and incidents so far. It is not for Wikipedia to reach conclusions about the safety of various aspects of the 787 like engine design and battery systems. Hope you can stay calm until some more information is available. Cheers. —fudoreaper (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Fudoreaper, its sad but seems that you haven´t understood much. Because you don´t mind and care about anything? Its clearly my original research, and if you would understand a thing, than that guys like me know what they can publish in an article. I am quite proud of this analysis, which in the first part has proven to be correct (I thought FAA will take 2-4 days until they make such a strong and serious decision: But: My respect, they are good!) I chose some bold "headline language" to sum it up: In a few months, there will be a lot more guys who understand what i already know now: Thats what leading engineers are for: To make an analysis based on knowledge deep enough, make the decision and present the results and the consequences in a wide context. It seems science is not your thing, so just ignore the bold language. To others: The consequences including the other design faults will quite surely cause serious damage to Boeing for years (although Boeing will have a healthy production of especially 737 and 777 in the next few years, until the 737MAX could be delayed because the 787 eats up engineering power). Tagremover (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a forum. As per WP:NOTFORUM "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information" That includes talk pages. Marteau (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC) You ignored my proposal of a section summing bleedless. Tagremover (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Give it up, you're "pissing in the wind" against "established editors" with WP:OWN issues who will "revert" you into oblivion... Not worth it. Is the Dreamliner Becoming a Financial Nightmare for Boeing? sees probably months of grounding. Other analysts come and join my previous stated opinion. Too many biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. That was one reason i used strong words above; but if one see the consequences, one chose them - see established time magazine. Sources: fix A350 Tagremover (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC) ALL I SEE IS LOTS OF GLOATING. CONGRATS YOU GOT YOUR WISH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.39.11 (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) If all my wishes will come true as easily.... (edit conflict) Tagremover (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Please read WP:AGF. You are clearly POV-pushing and seem to have an agenda here. ANDROS1337TALK 18:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC) First: IMHO its aggressive, to take this discussion about a somewhat biased article to ANI. You want to fight by all available means to keep some critical statements out of the article ? I hope its clear even to you: I NEVER added or proposed to add something worded like that written above. And: Those are just a few statements, plus a proposed neutral section related to bleedless, covering this here NOTABLE topic. To others: The 787 is not a bad plane, but seems to achieve no advantages of its advanced technologies (weight issues, efficiency and safety of bleedless, window-cracks), but as disadvantages design and production problems, delays and cost, and now teething issues. The next thing keeping the "Dreamliner" in the headlines will likely be the big (bigger means > must be thicker) cockpit windows, which are additionally in a line (Force vector) with the fuselage: Capturing Torsion (mechanics) and Shear stress. Currently its probably too early, but i am sure there will be some investigations with notable info for this article. Tagremover (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

So Which Factory Made All These Mistakes?

I went to this page just knowing it was going to say this was the airplane made at the brand new non-union factory in South Carolina and of course I was RIGHT!!! However it seems the plant in Everette, Washington might have made a few of these planes as well. However I checked everywhere on the front page and it does not say anywhere that all the bad ones were also the non-union planes built down in the Carolinas. Can we clear up this issue with non-union 787's? I also noticed NONE of the news stories made any reference to this issue at all whatsoever. It should appear on the front page of this article IF the affected planes were the ones built in the Carolinas by the non-union amigos. . . or whomever. Lesbrown99 (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If as you say no reliable sources are reporting these issues then that would exclude mention here as well. Marteau (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We certainly state that 787s have been assembled in Everett, and also in South Carolina. But we don't talk about how many were assembled at each, nor any differences between assembled aircraft. You are making a suggestion here that the 787 aircraft experiencing problems have been assembled in South Carolina. Do you have any information that says this is the case? If you do, please tell us, we would all be interested to read about it. If you do not, please end this kind of discussion, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, where we talk without restraint about a topic, but a place to collect information we can demonstrate to be reliable and accurate. Speculating about causes of accidents is not a discussion of facts, and thus not what we will spend time discussing. Cheers, and thanks for giving feedback on the talk page, where we can talk about what should be included in the article. —fudoreaper (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RIGHT, Dude! I just checked one of the places where i seen the non-union angle and it turns out it was from the comments section below the story! I will continue to find a credible citation and appreciate your help on this matter!!! Thank-You for your help on this!!! Lesbrown99 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Lesbrown99 (talk)

An artist's impression

These An artist's impression pictures are considered original research, are they not? How can they be allowed in the article?--98.87.90.173 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I can see no rationale for those images being included in the article. Marteau (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The images are modified versions of the current 787-8 with a lengthened fuselage or other changes based on cited sources. There's not enough changes visually with these to amount to Original Research, in my opinion. The artist illustrations in the article are a 787-3 image (shorter wingspan with winglets), and 787-9 (lengthened fuselage), btw. The size comparison image might fall in this same group. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have always considered original research to be a binary yes or no kind of thing and not a matter of degree. But I'll of course go with the consensus and don't really think these images matter that much considering the more pressing issues with this article and aircraft Marteau (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, either original research is present or it is not. The changes are not from a reliable source and there is nothing otherwise notable about the images. Marteau (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I revise my opinion. I have since seen several other examples of Wikipedia editors creating visual representations demonstrating the purport of other sources, and I now realize that what Fnlayson says in this issue is true. Consider... by using words we in fact create representations of other works. We are describing in words what other sources have said. To a degree, creating representations using JPG images we as Wikipedia editors create is no different in intent than creating representations using words. Given that, I strike out my previous opinion and now believe these images are acceptable and are not "original research" per se. If this issue or others like it is addressed formally in codified Wikipedia standards I am not and was not aware of it... if there is not there should be. Marteau (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cockpit Image

The source of this image is listed as: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/1940205/L/ where there is a CLEAR copyright notice that is not Creative Commons (as the Wikimedia image citation says), and indeed says "This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without proper permission." Even the image itself contains a copyright notice that is clearly not CC. This is pushing "fair use" a bit far. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The notice you quoted from airliners.net says it cannot be used "without proper permission". Proper permission was granted by the owner of the copyright and is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_787-8_N787BA_cockpit.jpg Marteau (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Grounded worldwide status

I'm not sure if 'grounded worldwide' is the best description of the aircraft's status. It implies a permanent state, whereas the grounding is temporary and a result of specific concerns about the battery. Anyone have a better idea for status? Skrelk (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

'Grounded worldwide' seems reasonable because aircraft are frequently grounded for one reason or another and it's almost never permanent so there's not cause for confusion. OTOH, there's no reason why you can't precede 'grounded' with 'temporarily' if you think it would be clearer. PRL42 (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Tabulation/chronology of operational incidents

It looks like there is enough going on with the problems on this plane that it would very helpful to have a table that lists the chronology of notable incidents affecting this plane (battery fires, fuel leaks, etc.). Perhaps unlike some other areas, in aviation, pretty much any "incident" rises to the level of notability, so it is unlikely that a discussion of those incidents will be removed from this article in the future. Instead, there'll probably be thousands of pages of reports on every single incident involving the plane. So starting with a table makes sense to me. Thoughts? jhawkinson (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a 2-dimensional table with time on one axis and issue type on the other axis? Or can you refer to other tables for examples? TGCP (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dont think it is really needed far to much info for an encyclopedia entry, we have a section describing the incidents and grounding already. Its probably a bit over the top and I can see it shrinking once the news driven stuff is tidied up adding a table will be something else to delete later. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a forum

Can a remind users that this page is for comments to improve the article, it is not a page for general discussion, speculation or fringe theories. Forum type discussions will be removed and continually adding forum type discussion may be seen as being disruptive, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and Boeing <> Airbus and other editors fights

I see some pro-Boeing biasing at Dreamliner, but also at other aircrafts: Boeing and a lot of Americans and Airbus: Often too positive. Russian and especially former Soviet: Often too negative. Ukraine editors (Antonov): Fighting hard. Let me explain a few examples (mainly Dreamliner): Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please anyone should feel free to add and discuss normally at the end of each subsection. Tagremover (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines...."

Facts:

1. This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS TECHNOLOGY IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV !
2. "says": See ref: Boeing believes...and expects... : Thats different!
3. Are all systems included, for example de-icing?
4. 35% compared to what EXACTLY? An equally modern system isn´t meant: Airbus disputes that. Stop that biased anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing thinking ! Technology has to be understood: But this statement is vague.
5. Reference is OLD (6 years?), a clearly PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, a time diff in which the whole system was constructed in reality. A NEWER ref of EXISTING tech is needed.

...allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy.

1. see above: 1. and 5.
2. "The total available on-board electrical power is 1.45 megawatts, which is five times the power available on conventional pneumatic airliners...": Sounds not very efficient: Has to be explained/detailed.
3. Advertising primary source

Result: "indisputable": Its too sad to LAUGH about. Has to be rewritten! Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article was written well before the aircraft flew and statement from Boeing were the only ones available to describe the aircraft systems. I think you are trying to say that the 35% claim was not the end result, if so then have you a reliable reference that shows that the original claim of 35% less power from the engines proved to be wrong? MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"The article was written well before the aircraft flew and statement from Boeing were the only ones available to describe the aircraft systems. " I agree: If you remember my subsection A350 (here deleted, available at ANI): Its easy to claim something of a not existing plane!

<5. "trying to say that the 35% claim was not the end result": I have no new ref. But the wording has to be changed, because of not only point 5., but also 1-4, and the second part below. Regarding points 1. and 2., first part:

• Boeing expected... Thats an easy solution for points 1. and 2., if you can live with that. But:
• Points 3-5, first part of the sentence: Difficult! Starting with:
• Point 4, first part of the sentence: Somehow including that Airbus disputes that, and: This could also be combined with the second half of the sentence, which gives valuations and comparisons. Probably 2 sentences. Tagremover (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK dont think we need to bring Airbus in to it they are not a reliable source for information for a Boeing aircraft, if we have no later reliable information we cant really refute the statement. How about something like In 2007 the Boeing 787 systems director said they were expecting the no-bleed system to extract 35% less power from the engines than a pneumatic system. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Far better! I can live with that as a first sentence, but its too questionable for me, and must be strengthened or related to another statement. In a following sentence?

"Airbus ... not a reliable source for information for a Boeing aircraft": As well as Boeing knows other systems, im very sure Airbus knows nearly every important stuff from the 787. They made a lot of statements about the 787, even posted in Wikipedia.

Proposal for a following sentence: "Boeing as well Airbus for its competing A350..." (and then im searching the ref, have only recently read it... Something like:) "...claim lower total operating cost for their aircraft."

Airbus<>Boeing are related. I will support links from Airbus pages to Boeings. Found a probably interesting ref about something different:

737MAX is getting real

Boeing has revealed more details on its definition for the 737MAX now and one significant revelation is the decision to add 8 inches to the nose gear. This was the tough choice engineering wise.

A new pylon and strut for engines will be used in the style of the 787 and the rear tail cone will be extended and the area above the elevator thickened to improve aerodynamics. Electronic bleed air will be added to improve cabin pressurization (which is much like how the A350 will use bleed air)and better means more efficient fuel burn.

If you have this ref from Airbus about bleed<>bleedless cost, it would be nice. Tagremover (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I cant agree with mentioning Airbus, this article has nothing to do with Airbus (or the 737), I have made a reasonable comprise on an alternate wording supported by the reference, we will let others agree with it or not. If you have an alternative then you really need some references. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, as i already mentioned its far better, even without a following sentence. Probably i start a new section about Boeing <> Airbus and other links to improve performance statements/comparisons/valuations independent of this. Thanks. Tagremover (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"According to Boeing, the 787 consumes 20% less fuel than the similarly sized 767"

This is a message of MAJOR importance, the KEY reason for the Dreamliner: FUEL-EFFICIENY ! Avoid ANY biasing, it bias the message of the WHOLE article!

Facts:

1. This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS AIRCRAFT IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV !
2. Outdated: [1].
3. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example:
   1. Design change: Weight increase.
   2. Design change: Range reduction.
4. Clearly ADVERTISING: "super-efficient airplane", "top aerospace companies", "unmatched fuel efficiency", "exceptional environmental performance", "exceptional performance" ...I wouldn´t trust this text a thing. Minimum this section seems to be written by advertising department, sentence with 20% just copied from old text.
5. "similarly sized 767": similarly see weight increase, and: What version, which age, what for engines? Vague !
6. 787 : What version? Vague !
7. How is that calculated? Per seat? Vague !

But:

1. ANA said 21% fuel savings. [2] But:
   1. Tokyo-Frankfort is nearly out of range even for the 767-300ER, an extended midrange-model, must be measured in shorter distances, like North-American east-coast <> Western-Europe.
   2. Vague: Per seat, aircraft, or whole payload?

And:

• A350 - direct competitor - not mentioned: Also its preliminary.

Results (major message):

• Reference as unreliable, primary, old, vague and advertising: disputed !
• 20% highly questionable (deleted), 21% (ANA) vague.
• Has to be rewritten! Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The source now says similar sized airplane so we do need to change the quote. The article covers later on in service entry that ANA achived more than 20% so I dont think we have an issue with the original claim. Do you have anything reliable that says it is not more than 20% efficient. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See: I do not want to delete the 20% fuel-savings totally: Just the wording has to be changed. And: I think the ANA results could be combined. Proposal: To combine it (in the article) with ANA results: we are writing now about an existing plane.

<5. similar sized airplane: Outdated: [3]: Compare the weight increase.

"ANA achived more than 20% " See 2 points above: 1. Tokyo-Frankfort, 2. Vague

"Do you have anything reliable that says it is not more than 20% efficient.": No.

Proposal: "Boeing projected the 787 to consume 20% less fuel than the similarly sized 767. According to ANA specific results on long ranges, the 787 surpassed the promised 20% fuel burn reduction, as compared to the shorter ranged Boeing 767. On the Tokyo-Frankfurt route the fuel savings was 21%." First sentence could be used in the intro. Second shouldn´t: Too specific: Wait for more results: Than it will be even ok to write: Airline results... average xx %. Tagremover (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"...the world's first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction"

IMPORTANT message.

Facts:

1. Detail: Meant is most of its weight, not most of its volume.
2. Outdated: [4].
3. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example:
   1. Design change: Weight increase.
   2. Design change: Range reduction.
4. 51%, 50% (other refs), or 49% ? Or: Much more Titanium? Boeing's 787 Dreamliner is no lightweight (Describes plane ready to flight)

Result:: Has to be rewritten. Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Low Article quality

Especially Aircraft articles seem to consist of quite isolated, ordered sentences; a list of sentences. Also articles contain a lot of info, no real concept or coherent explanation. Talk pages sometimes similar: "Does this isolated sentence comply with the following reference?" This is no real discussion. Tagremover (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Improvements

Must mainly be done regarding the editors. Difficult. But this anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and leads to biased, low Article quality. Talk? Discuss?

Hopefully this shows some problems and improves the article. Thanks for reading. Talk welcome. Tagremover (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Tagremover I am sure we can look at your comments about this article. All the other comments about Boeing/Airbus rivalry and editor bias in other articles are not really relevant to this talk page so you wont get an answer here. Perhaps I can suggest that issues that you have with other articles are raised at the individual talk pages or at the aircraft project talk page - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course they are relevant here. Please release the section above from the forum tag to suppress other opinions. And of course this article is biased, see above. (Update: deleted A350 + Tu-144) Tagremover (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, I was hoping that you would discuss your issues about this article here editing the article again is starting to get disruptive and could get you blocked. MilborneOne (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why i should be blocked? Why disruptive? Reasons?

AND: i see no discussion. If it would be some, i stop editing. Of course i would not revert it. But discuss. Tagremover (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You evidently misunderstand and are misusing the "dubious" tag. By tagging "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines" as dubious, you are claiming Boeing never said that. They did in fact say that and it is cited. Whether it actually extracts 35% less power is a different matter; the fact that they did say that is not dubious. I'm not sure how much clearer I can get about this. Marteau (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"You evidently misunderstand and are misusing..." Please stay calm. But: Thanks for a reply.

• "you are claiming Boeing never said that." Wrong. Think clearly.
• They did in fact say that and it is cited": See above 2.: "says": See ref: Boeing believes...and expects... : Thats different!
• Lots of other reasons given above.Tagremover (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagremover you are not making much sense, the statement from Boeing is reliably referenced so cant be dubious. Now if you have issues with the context of the statement thats fine that is what the talk page is for. I think you are saying that now the aircraft has been built the statement could be wrong, OK then provide some reliable references to counter the statement, we have no reason not to add further explanations. As to being disruptive, re-adding the tag again after it has been explained that the quote reflects the reference is disruptive. You have to help us by explaining what you dont like, accusing others of bias is not going to help as it upsets other editors. So please calm down and we can deal with your issues one at a time, we are not in a rush dont throw loads of text at the page, again other users see that as being disruptive. So start a separate section below for each of your points and explain clearly what you want and provide reliable references if you have them. Other users will help and and even agree to modifiy the article if your points are valid but you need to just take your time and explain clearly. MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:MilborneOne

• Accusations:

• I already apologized for some language above (thought that someone like my highly rational and obviously accurate analysis, but with the understandable use of some bold language presented results: Posted to start an article discussion) but was wrongly accused for disruptive editing and personal attacks and taken to ANI: Only one apologized to me.
• "Tagremover you are not making much sense", "other users see that as being disruptive" and even worse, including taken to ANI: Do YOU like that if it was done to you?
• But: I was probably right, but i was not friendly and it wasn´t helpful to call the article and, unspecific, users biased: There are just a few statements. Sorry. OK?

Please could we end this accusations: I do not like called disruptive and taken to ANI, and i admit i am somehow biased, too, as i am human.

• "So start a separate section below for each of your points and explain clearly what you want and provide reliable references if you have them": Already done above, signed every section. Do you mean this:Talk:Boeing_787_Dreamliner#.22Boeing_says_this_system_extracts_35.25_less_power_from_the_engines.....22
• Please anyone should feel free to add and discuss normally at the end of each subsection. Tagremover (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for breaking up the sections, other editors will be along shortly I am sure to discuss each of you points above. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not. I do have the virtue of saying what I mean in a couple sentences, so when I inflict myself on others, it is short and to the point. You might want to tighten up your prose is all I'm saying... quite seriously, it's painful to read. Marteau (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between suggesting that someone is less verbose and calling them 'insufferable'. PRL42 (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ya think? Marteau (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox status

Someone keeps putting grounded in the info box. It is not grounded in every country world wide. Just because it is in some countries doesn't mean it should be put there. That status is for an overall general world wide status. The FAA only has jurisdictions for US registered aircraft similar to the EU equivalent. Plus its not a permanent grounding so still should be put in. This should not be changed to grounded without consensus. --JetBlast (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? The BBC and The Guardian must be mistaken then? --John (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverting from 'grounded' to 'operational' is disingenuous. By all means add some qualifying text but to claim an aircraft type that has been grounded by every country who has a carrier that uses them is 'operational' is absurd. PRL42 (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is for permanent status of the type not for temporary stuff like precuationary groundings. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide an official Wiki reference for that or is it just your opinion? (Serious question - you may be correct but there are elements in other info boxes that are not permanent) PRL42 (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Just my observation of how it is used from many years working on aircraft articles, the official description is a bit vague and probably needs to be tweaked quote !Status - In most cases, redundant; use sparingly MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that it is a rather pointless heading once the aircraft is in service. Perhaps, rather than, 'operational' which is simply wrong, at the moment, we could use 'released to customers' or something similar. Although I'm still at a loss to understand why this issue appears so controversial given the 'grounded' is a perfectly accurate status. PRL42 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it? What plane types have ever been permanently grounded? --John (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hughes H-4 Hercules has been. Concorde is another example. John, the links you provided do not say its been grounded in every country. Why have you changed it back without consensus????? --JetBlast (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no, and I didn't. Keep trying though. --John (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry i meant to say why was it changed without consensus, not specifically you. I was typing in a rush. No no? care to Expand? --JetBlast (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am having trouble confirming that either the Hughes H-4 Hercules or the Concorde was permanently grounded and have never heard of such a thing. Certainly it makes no sense whatsoever in the case of Concorde as it returned to service the year after its fatal crash. The Hercules was a one-off experimental type in any case and it doesn't make a good comparison with the 787. Better comparators would be the Comet and the DC-10, which were both grounded pending safety improvements. In the former case these improvements resulted in a new variant, but in neither case was the aircraft type permanently restricted. --John (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Normally an aircraft is grounded by the authorities rather than the users, an example is the withdrawl of the aircraft type certificate like the BAC One-Eleven which grounded all but one aircraft which was flying under military rules. I think the same happended to Concorde but cant find a reference at the moment. Although it is not really relevant to this discussion. Might be best just to remove the status for the time being. MilborneOne (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean this? I can't think of any other groundings of the One-Eleven. --John (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No Airbus revoked the type certificate effectively grounding the type. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How could Airbus revoke a type certificate for anything, let alone an aircraft made by a completely different manufacturer before they were even in business? PRL42 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Airbuses heritage includes Aerospatiale which held the Concorde manufacturers type certificate. A manufacturer can voluntarily revoke any type certificate it holds, making it illegal to fly those aircraft in most circumstances in any ICAO jurisdiction - flying a type without a manufacturers type certificate means the manufacturer is no longer supporting the aircraft, and while alternative type certificates can be granted, they are extremely expensive to achieve.

John, as you like to quote the BBC i have done this same. They say Concorde is grounded for good See here --JetBlast (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As in retired from service voluntarily by their operators? A somewhat different case than the one we are discussing I think. --John (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But that's not what you said, I quote "What plane types have ever been permanently grounded?" So i answered your question. --JetBlast (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So you are arguing that the 787 has been voluntarily grounded by its operators? I don't think that is the case though. --John (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ANA and JAL did, according to the article. --JetBlast (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And have the FAA said or done anything or was it just a voluntary grounding by the two Japanese operators? --John (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to see what all this fuss is about. The aircraft is, quite clearly, grounded until further notice. Try and remember the purpose of an encyclopaedia; it's where people come to find (they hope) accurate and up to date information. It's beyond stupid to have as a status for an aircraft that is not being flown by anyone and has been officially grounded by many aviation authorities worldwide: 'operational', because it quite evidently is not. PRL42 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --John (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But there is no reason why it can't operate say in Australia. The FAA only applies to the USA. Have a look at this, reasons why it should not be there Template:Infobox_aircraft_type --JetBlast (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

One reason that it cannot operate in Australia is that all operators have grounded their planes, and Boeing has grounded all of theirsDingowasher (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see why you say that the status is incorrect according to that source. The problem seems to be that the keyword is wrong. If a reader sees 'Status: Operational', then one would expect them to assume that means that the plane is able to operate. There's no way they can know that some editor decided that 'status' meant 'programme status', rather than the current status of the type. I feel it's important to avoid showing information that appears to be incorrect just because some editor, at some time in the past, decided that 'status' means something more specific than it would generally mean. PRL42 (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

See also: Electric car fire incidents‎

I took the liberty of removing this nonsensical reference, since it is, at best, only tangentially relevant to the 787. Comparing these battery-related incidents to "Electric car fire incidents" (A pretty questionable topic in its own right) is quite absurd, in my opinion, especially without official results from the ongoing investigations. Ericloewe (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree; this is a problem that has been plaguing Lithium-Ion batteries for quite some time now, let it be cell phones, laptop computers, and electric cars. In fact, there's a known cargo aircraft crash that happened due to thermal runaway of Lithium-Ion batteries that were simply being transported! The point is, is that Lithium-Ion is a quite unstable technology, and some reference to this should be added. I've taken my own liberty to add a reference to problems with Lithium-Ion batteries, and put it at the bottom of the section instead of the top. The Legacy (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point of view - it is definitely noteworthy that Li-Ion batteries have been known to occasionally combust due to defects/bad charging/other reasons. Referencing Li-Ion batteries in general seems appropriate - it was the "Electric car" part that was bugging me most. I suggest leaving the references to Li-Ion batteries as you left them, until further developments come along and allow for a more precise explanation of what really happened - no point in speculating, plenty of other places to do that.

On second thought, referencing UPS 6 seems a bit excessive, since it is a rather different issue, even though it is related to Li-Ion batteries. Ericloewe (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable. The reference down in See Also at the end of the article is still there, so I'm assuming you're fine with that. The Legacy (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This picture shows the energy output during thermal runaway for various battery technologies, and LiCo is the most reactive (post #20). Can anybody access www.sandia.gov for the original ? For weeks, that site has been unavailable to me. TGCP (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find the original, but I found a virtually identical image in this PDF. I have uploaded it here. Feel free to upload it to the Commons if it qualifies under copyright. The Legacy (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Cracked Windshields on the 787

Reading the wikipedia article on the 787, I've noticed mention of cracked windshields listed with the operational problems in the Operational Problems section. I feel that the mention of cracked windshields should be omitted, as this is a common issue with all aircraft, not just the 787, and is misleading for readers in regard to its reliability. Unless it is occurring on a substantially higher than normal basis, it shouldn't be included, and as of right now I'm only aware of two incidents since it was released to airlines. I recommend checking Aviation Herald, and searching for "Cracked Windshield" for a good example of how frequent it happens with all models of aircraft from any company, and simply happens due to the pressure changes during flight, as well as wear and tear. I'll make this change myself in a week's time if no one makes objections to this change. The Legacy (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. There's no need to start enumerating every minor problem with the type just because there appears to be one temporary, major, one. PRL42 (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I'm removing the references to cracked windshields, and based on the below discussion on "Shortening of section "Incidents" including subsections", more should also be trimmed. The Legacy (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes complete. The Legacy (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Shortening of section "Incidents" including subsections

I think this should be shortened, because:

• No one was hurt
• Its size gives it an inappropriate, negative weight, although its sentences are correct

Probably this difficult task could be started in a week or later, when facts are getting clearer: for example half the size? Could be decreased even to a quarter in a few months, when the 787 is flying again and facts are much clearer than today.

"Incidents" is surely a good word, because they had potential danger in this heavily coal and oil based plane, see my previous discussion (now forum), which results were later joined by FAA and other analysts, airlines and authorities. Tagremover (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Short term (i.e. until further details are known), "softening" the references to the minor issues is probably the best alternative (they are indeed minor problems and some of them are indeed more common than one would think, like cracked windshields). I think major re-writes should wait for a preliminary report from the authorities, at least. Ericloewe (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The usual Wiki method is to add content when events occur, and then trim down / spawn when the fog clears later. Fortunately, the impact is on economy rather than safety. Here is a link documenting the electrical system, may be useful in the article. TGCP (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I get the feeling we're at or beyond the point where we start speculating. Adding information right now might be seen as speculation and/or original research. That document does look like it could be useful as a source for clearing up doubts that might arise from a preliminary report, once one is available. Ericloewe (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a follower of the Aviation Herald, and I've read that site for a few years now. Based on that experience, I know that a variety of problems are normal for every day aviation. If you look at the website, you'll see that between one and three -notable- incidents can occur each day (far more aren't listed, and the Aviation Herald doesn't cover most ground incidents). Of these, you'll see a lot of mention of incidents that look similar to what the 787 has gone through; cracked windshields, leaky hydraulics, electrical problems, burning stoves, failed engines, fuel leaks, you name it.

That all said, I think how it reads now is fair; the two fuel leaks in such a short period of time seems very unusual for a brand new aircraft, and the battery problems go without saying. I removed the references to the cracked windshields as per my above question thread. I don't see any other unneeded references, so I suggest not adding anything extra unless it catches the FAA's attention, and not removing anything. Perhaps a good way to balance this article is to study the Airbus A380's page to get a good idea of how to go about this fairly. The Legacy (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the section should expand, as cause and effect are being discovered. I have left out the contradicting reports about the Japanese investigation for now, as they will likely soon be resolved into stable info, but here are the links on battery still being checked along with the no-fault battery. TGCP (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; in fact, I think this entire investigation should be put on a separate Wiki page, called "Boeing 787 Dreamliner Battery Problems". I'm going to try editing the entire section tomorrow to do exactly that, if that's okay with everyone? The reason is because it puts far too much weight onto the teething problems of the 787, when its safety record for the most part has been stellar. It's just these darn batteries, that should have their own article. The Legacy (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. In the past, I'd just have recommended shortening the section once the problem was solved and the whole picture was available. Since it seems the saga isn't close to its end, a separate article about the battery problems makes sense, especially considering that there may be repercussions for the A350 and other future aircraft. Ericloewe (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Question - 150%

"On March 28, 2010, the 787 completed the ultimate wing load test, which requires that the wings of a fully assembled aircraft be loaded to 150% of design limit load and held for 3 seconds."

If the wings are loaded to 150% of their design limit during the testing, then surely the designers design for that. Which means the wings were really designed for that, and they're actually being tested to 100% of their design limit, because the test is the limit of what they were designed for. See what I mean?

It seems that sentence is circular reasoning, and the logic is unsound.

If the 787 wings were tested to load n, and n is 150% of what they were designed for. However, the designers knew they would be tested to n, so n is 100%. It doesn't make any sense. Otherwise the wings could break and the designers could say, of course they broke, we only engineered them to take a lower load, because that was the design plan.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.226.182 (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the 150% is the correct terminology. That's 1.5 times the maximum design load, the max load expected to be seen by the wings or other components. The 1.5 is a safety factor (or factor of safety) called for by aviation regulations. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Design load" is the maximum load they must support in normal operation. Thus, the wings are loaded 50% than they would be during operation. Maybe the expression is a bit misleading, but it's the right one. Ericloewe (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume that 100% is forever, or at least during a flight, but 150% is tested only for 3 seconds, so the requirements are 100% and 150% for 3 seconds. Not very circular? --Stefan ^talk 13:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the design load will be the load at maximum take off weight when the aircraft is pulling maximum certified +ve of -ve G. If you only made it strong enough to withstand maximum weight + 50% in normal flight the wings would come off as soon as you hit any major turbulence. PRL42 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment, not an answer: I think there is indeed a sort of circle (well, more a spiral) there - somewhere, the assumption is being made (probably based on a lot of evidence gathered over many decades) that if a metal wing can withstand a given weight indefinitely, that just 151% of that might snap it in under three seconds. I suppose the choice of factor of safety, and the sharpness with which regular load turns to immediate destruction, are indeed part of the "design" in some broader sense of the word. But if you're going by the way the sources use a word, whether or not that makes perfect philosophical sense, that is what matters. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Auto-dimming windows?

Can someone explain about these auto-dimming windows? Do the passengers have control or not? Seems like you either want to look out the window or else be totally asleep, so I don't understand any possible use for it. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Each window has a button for varying its transparency. It takes the place of a shade, which can reduce maintenance. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I found [5] which gives a mixed result. Apparently, as with all electronic innovation, it means that Daddy Corporation is now in control, in this case of your window. (And probably being very stingy, since you can't just pull the shade up a little) However, at least sometimes the passenger still will have a say. Wnt (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Battery problems - Offered assistance

I found information from newsarticles that Elon Musk has offered his expertise into solving the dilema with the batteries. have there been any other companies that have done the same?--Nrpf22pr (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Musk has only offered to help. This does not seem that notable unless they actually help. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Section "Groundings" or "Operational problems" subsections

I propose subsections to summarize these statements and give a better overview:

• "Financial consequences" (exceptional event and therefore notable, with many different statements, latest:[6])
• and something like "Technical details and quality" (also related to outsourcing production Company engineers blame the 787’s outsourced supply chain, saying that poor-quality components are coming from subcontractors, [7], and even quality checks FAA faulted for outsourcing 787 safety checks to Boeing).

Also in this section: 3rd faulty battery:[8][9]

The section Groundings and even the "Operational problems" seem to long for me, see above, and content could be transferred. Tagremover (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a new subpage to hold all talk about the batteries. Later, I may in fact take everything launch related, and put it on its own page as well. The Legacy (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Major Edit - Incidents section

I've gone ahead and did a major edit on the Incidents section, to have it both conform to existing standards on Wikipedia, and to reduce the massive amount of information about the problems with the 787. I may further trunicate it to only leave minimal mention of the problems, and create a redirect link for everything else. Let me know if this new layout works for you all. The Legacy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and placed the ANA and JAL incidents in chronological order, I think. The section is much improved in clarity, but it needs some work, since at least some information is repeated across the section.

I'm not sure all four incidents mentioned in the beginnings of the first two paragraphs were due to the batteries, so I'll reword that as well.

Final nitpick: should Boeing 787 Dreamliner Battery Problems be the "main article" or a "see also" for the section? Ericloewe (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be the main article, because it has a shortened description on the 787 page, and a full description on the new page. However, I've considered changing the new page to "Boeing 787 Teething Problem" or "Boeing 787 Early Service Issues", and dumping that entire section into there, scrapping "Boeing 787 Battery Problems" in the process, and transferring its data over. If you want, I can do that conversion, which will, of course, require a second major edit. The Legacy (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The main problem is the batteries and that's why they are grounded. Names should be more formal/encyclopedic than "Teething Problems" (and sentence case). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo of grounded 787s

ANA 787s grounded at HND

I stumbled upon this photo of grounded ANA 787s on Commons. I’m not sure it’s a worthwhile addition to the article, so I post it here instead... Feel free to grab it. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems more fitting than the image of the 787 at Boston, which does not show much. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I like this image too. Shows these aircraft grounded, very clearly. —fudoreaper (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need a photo? --JetBlast (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We could ask why we need photos on any article on Wikipedia. I have reverted the removal of the image from the article, and have added some additional information to the caption to make it even more encyclopaedic in nature. Russavia (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Battery size

I was looking for info on the 787 battery size. I saw this listing,"One of the two batteries weighs 28.5 kg and is rated 29.6 V, 76 Ah". How ever this spec does not look right, most car batteries have much higher capacities then this. I think this spec is for the size of one of the multiple cells that make up the battery packs on the 787. I hope someone can find the real specs and correct the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.21.199 (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Check the numbers in the attached sources - they are the same as the article (that is how Wikipedia works). Car batteries have similar ampere-hours and weight, but that is for only 12 Volts. So lithium batteries have significantly higher energy density. TGCP (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• And Li batteries charge faster, which is another reason for their use. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems

There are many cases of new airframes having serious problems, from the DC-10 and 747 to the F14 and Osprey. But they do not all warrant their own articles. Andrew³²⁷ 04:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [Typo fix Andrew³²⁷]

Oppose: Much to much info for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner: Technical details are even coming. Tagremover (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I think Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems has enough content for its own article. --JetBlast (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose For the above reasons. It would make the article end up with far too much focus on a particular aspect of the life of the type that will become less relevant as time passes. PRL42 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support (weak) - the battery problems article essentially duplicates what is in this article and is less up to date. A consensus was never reached here to split that off anyway. If that article is not being fully supported, then merge it back here. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

After a few months, it should be "merged" the other way: from Incident section to the detailed battery problem article. Tagremover (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: This is a rapidly evolving set of circumstances in a field where navel lint can necessarily be encyclopaedic. The details are important and affect human lives. There's more than enough for the separate article, and it will be helpful to isolate the churn from developing events and breaking news. Revisit this question in a year or two after the controversy has died down; but I suspect even then we'll wish to keep it separate. jhawkinson (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as we have far to much info in this article already, probably needs a serious prune once we get past it being a news item down to a couple of paragraphs, further Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems is clearly a deletion candidate as it covered here and doesnt need the extensive coverage of trivia in a seperate article it woffles on enough here as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose but it depends on how fast Boeing is able to reliably fix the problems. If it's going to be an endless story - fix, fix doesn't work in service, another fix - the article should be kept separated, otherwise merged ~2 months after Boeing's fix has been proven reliable. --Denniss (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

new info

Might want to work this into the article. From CNN:

The Federal Aviation Administration cleared Boeing to make fixes to the battery system of the 787 Dreamliner. That paves the way for the aircraft to start flying again.

Nearly 50 Dreamliners have been grounded for the last four months, after two fires on Japanese jets prompted the FAA to order the planes grounded on January 16. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What is worth to write about?

I had a recent electric fire onboard a testflight at the 4th of May 2013 with one of ANAs 787 erased, what is worth to write about?

Alexmcfire (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't actually a fire. If it had been, it would probably have been worth inclusion. However, any aircraft will have problems if it is not put back together properly after maintenance so it's really not worth adding every instance of such a failure to an article on the relevant aircraft. PRL42 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The article you cited even said it was minor. It was a minor incident in a test flight. Wikipedia is not a news service where it covers everything like a news outlet. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)