Departure wrote Just seen it on the news thought it was a piss take, because its been having faults for months now. they only brung the plane back into service 2 days ago. Yet again its on fire like the other time it went up in the air and there was a battery problem,


Noting this, I was ment to fly on the 787 dreamliner to florida in 3 days.

I'm also going to Florida! But in 2 days hopefully not on this plane...

This is why I don't travel a lot.
I hate airplanes.

News just in***

Dreamliner diverted to Manchester Airport following technical issues

Vancouver_Canucks wrote If they dont sort out these issues soon, i sense a Concord type disaster happening.

Ugh. That would be terrible. Although it was a great subsonic passenger plane.

DLT wrote Hopefully this doesn't affect Stansted, I am waiting for my flight into their so I can go home.

Thats where im flying to, on another note Yet another plane took off from manchester and had to land back at manchester again for a technial fault of some sort..


Ill be definetly put on another plane. they will be grounded again.

Wish wrote

Departure wrote Just seen it on the news thought it was a piss take, because its been having faults for months now. they only brung the plane back into service 2 days ago. Yet again its on fire like the other time it went up in the air and there was a battery problem,


Noting this, I was ment to fly on the 787 dreamliner to florida in 3 days.

I'm also going to Florida! But in 2 days hopefully not on this plane...

Well Im going in 2 days also LOL. sorry for the late replys.

I agree with everyone and these statements, Even the A380 Had some sort of faults, Not a joke here but my grandad was on the A380 going into las vegas from paris
when the plane had a fault mid flight half way over the ocean. But its not had a fault since.

-Wub wrote This is why I don't travel a lot.
I hate airplanes.

I'm going to tell you what I told that last couple of people that said that:

Click to View Content

Anticipate wrote I'm going on a plane this year, and I keep seeing crashes, so that scares me and Rest in piece to those people who died in the plane.

-Gibbo wrote Im flying in 11 hours, i hate planes as it is, so seeing this all over the news has made me mentally unstable haha..

Commuting by aviation is the single safest method of travel in the world, unless you want to walk (and it might even be safer than walking). You're more likely to die on the way to the airport than you are to ever be in any sort of aviation incident, fatal or otherwise.

A study concluded that, to be involved in a fatal airliner crash, you would have to fly non-stop for 70 years, getting off a plane and right back on.

Commercial aircraft are over-engineered; designed not to fail, and if something does fail, redundancy measures allow the pilot to easily recover. For example, a Boeing 737 series only needs one engine to do its job, but it has two. Should one fail, you can still land safely. Until two days ago, there hadn't been a fatal airline incident in the U.S. in years.

I've been a pilot for more than 8 years, and I've flown everything from gliders to regional jets to a Lockheed T-33 (only once, it was neat though) and the absolute worst incident I've ever had was an emergency landing in a glider, after a rope broke on tow. Even though it was an 'emergency' landing, I was able to do some thermalling, a bit of vanity flying, and only after I had my fun did I enter the traffic pattern to land.

---

-Amped wrote

Vancouver_Canucks wrote If they dont sort out these issues soon, i sense a Concord type disaster happening.

Ugh. That would be terrible. Although it was a great subsonic passenger plane.

The Concorde was supersonic, that's why it was famous. It was the first passenger aircraft to go supersonic.
(Supersonic = faster than the speed of sound. Subsonic = slower than the speed of sound.)
Also, the Concorde was actually a horrible passenger plane - arguably the worst ever invented. It was horribly inefficient, loud as Hell, it could only go supersonic over water since most countries banned supersonic flight over the mainland, and incredibly expensive to fly on. I tried to get a flight on a Concorde during its years of service, and it would have cost me $10,000 USD per person, and for a four person party, I wasn't ready to make the investment.

The only thing the Concorde was really good for was its innovations, like the delta wing design which was later adopted to some military aircraft and allowed the plane to have a very low stall speed, and also allowed the plane to go supersonic.

Fun fact, the Concorde would always land at a 12.5 degree pitch angle because it has no flaps (flaps are used on landing to change the angle of attack (angle of attack is the angle at which the relative airflow (wind) hits the wing)). That's why the nose tilts, so the pilots can see the ground.

---

Vancouver_Canucks wrote If they dont sort out these issues soon, i sense a Concord type disaster happening.

The Concorde incident was caused by shrapnel hitting the fuel tanks, and was solved by basically armoring the fuel tanks (wings). I don't think it's possible for that to happen to a 787. Although, I assume you just meant a large scale disaster, not necessarily a ruptured fuel tank.

Rainbow_Dash wrote

-Wub wrote This is why I don't travel a lot.
I hate airplanes.

I'm going to tell you what I told that last couple of people that said that:

Click to View Content

Anticipate wrote I'm going on a plane this year, and I keep seeing crashes, so that scares me and Rest in piece to those people who died in the plane.

-Gibbo wrote Im flying in 11 hours, i hate planes as it is, so seeing this all over the news has made me mentally unstable haha..

Commuting by aviation is the single safest method of travel in the world, unless you want to walk (and it might even be safer than walking). You're more likely to die on the way to the airport than you are to ever be in any sort of aviation incident, fatal or otherwise.

A study concluded that, to be involved in a fatal airliner crash, you would have to fly non-stop for 70 years, getting off a plane and right back on.

Commercial aircraft are over-engineered; designed not to fail, and if something does fail, redundancy measures allow the pilot to easily recover. For example, a Boeing 737 series only needs one engine to do its job, but it has two. Should one fail, you can still land safely. Until two days ago, there hadn't been a fatal airline incident in the U.S. in years.

I've been a pilot for more than 8 years, and I've flown everything from gliders to regional jets to a Lockheed T-33 (only once, it was neat though) and the absolute worst incident I've ever had was an emergency landing in a glider, after a rope broke on tow. Even though it was an 'emergency' landing, I was able to do some thermalling, a bit of vanity flying, and only after I had my fun did I enter the traffic pattern to land.

---

-Amped wrote

Vancouver_Canucks wrote If they dont sort out these issues soon, i sense a Concord type disaster happening.

Ugh. That would be terrible. Although it was a great subsonic passenger plane.

The Concorde was supersonic, that's why it was famous. It was the first passenger aircraft to go supersonic.
(Supersonic = faster than the speed of sound. Subsonic = slower than the speed of sound.)
Also, the Concorde was actually a horrible passenger plane - arguably the worst ever invented. It was horribly inefficient, loud as Hell, it could only go supersonic over water since most countries banned supersonic flight over the mainland, and incredibly expensive to fly on. I tried to get a flight on a Concorde during its years of service, and it would have cost me $10,000 USD per person, and for a four person party, I wasn't ready to make the investment.

The only thing the Concorde was really good for was its innovations, like the delta wing design which was later adopted to some military aircraft and allowed the plane to have a very low stall speed, and also allowed the plane to go supersonic.

Fun fact, the Concorde would always land at a 12.5 degree pitch angle because it has no flaps (flaps are used on landing to change the angle of attack (angle of attack is the angle at which the relative airflow (wind) hits the wing)). That's why the nose tilts, so the pilots can see the ground.

---

Vancouver_Canucks wrote If they dont sort out these issues soon, i sense a Concord type disaster happening.

The Concorde incident was caused by shrapnel hitting the fuel tanks, and was solved by basically armoring the fuel tanks (wings). I don't think it's possible for that to happen to a 787. Although, I assume you just meant a large scale disaster, not necessarily a ruptured fuel tank.

Thanks for such a detailed reply to the post .

if i were you id be scared