Talk:Boeing 777

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boeing 777 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
July 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 777 article.
Article policies
Archives: 1


Contents

[edit] Comparable Aircraft

I think it is a mistake, and frankly misleading to the average reader, to list the A350 as a comparable aircraft. It hasn't been built yet, and will not enter airline service for four more years, if that. I recommend that one be removed from the list.

--EditorASC 00:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


I agree. How can the 777 be a direct competitor of the a330, a340 and the a350. The A340 claims to be a 747 competitor. The A330 a 767 competitor. Airbus doesnt really have a competitor for the 777 until the XWB is built.

This is nonsense. The A350XWB as built is competitor to the B-787 creamliner. The B-777 is a developmental dead-end because its huge engines are a logistical nightmare. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing "American" in the introduction?

The 777 has significant foreign content. Should the introduction be changed to remove the word American but insert that final assembly of the aircraft is in the United States? Archtransit 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dont think it should be changed, the aircraft is still American - a lot of aircraft have large bits made in different countries but in the case of the United States it is where it was designed, were it is finally built and flown from and in legal terms it is a product of the United States. MilborneOne 22:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It should keep American. Its design and its final assembly is all Done in the USA. suggesting its not an american plane is wrong since with that frame of mind Most Chinese cars could be considered American since we supply china with most of its raw steel /stevefazek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.127.19 (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The description "American" is correct, but not important enough that it needs to be mentioned in the first sentance of the article. I think the placement of the word is awkward. Removing the word detracts nothing from the article. 121.44.11.237 (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree it is important to tell the reader the country of origin of the subject, fairly standard in aircraft articles to describe the country of origin in the intro sentence. It is simple one word description the subject is an American airliner otherwise you end up with awkard statements like designed and built in the United States. MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Not saying that the fact is unimportant, but "long-range", "wide-body" and "twin-engine" actually tell you something about what the aircraft is like. My point is that "American" is of absolutely no use in describing the aircraft, and from that perspective, in a short summary at the introduction of the article, it is awkward. 121.44.11.237 (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Have to agree to disagree - I dont agree that American is absolutely no use as it describes exactly the country of origin of the aircraft with the minimum of words. Still dont understand why it awkward you could use the same argument for twin-engined long-range and wide-body. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Sud Aviation Caravelle page doesn't state that it's a French product until the second clause of the Lead sentence, while the de Havilland Comet page doesn't state that it's British until the second clause of the second sentence. I think including "American" in a part of the paragraph like that would improve the flow. Even if one thinks the flow is OK now, I think these pages show that it could be improved for the better. - BillCJ (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Dont disagree with your point BillCJ I think the multiple descriptors (wide-body, twin-engine airliner) make the first sentence lumpy to read with or without the American. Anybody want to try to redo the first few sentences to make it flow better! MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distances should be NM, not KM

The article switches between using NM and KM as the primary unit. (In some parts distances are written as XYZ NM (ABC KM) while in other parts it is written as ABC KM (XYZ NM). NM should be the primary unit, seeing as how it is what is used in aeronautics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.158.38 (talk • contribs)

More than 93% of world population cares none about anglo-saxon units of measurement. In fact, all yankee and briton units ARE now officially just derivates of the metric units (SI) per decree of their own governments! Wikipedia should be all SI and put there some customary units in brackets only where it is really needed. Alternatively you could spell out the plane's fuel economy in hogheads to the furlong! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So? Note talk pages are for improving article, not forum discussions. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Nautical miles are the standard for aerospace, as pointed out. Our source data is therefore in nautical miles and should be primary. ericg ✈ 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heathrow Incident

Just wrecked one from China on London touchdown, luckily no deaths, but hull is write-off with wheels, engines littered all around. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I read only 12 minor and 1 serious injured in the official report, are you sure about 17 minor injured? and "collapsed" for the undercarriadge is a little bit understated, isn't ?Cirrocumulus (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The text is referenced. So check references 52 and 53 54 and 55. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Fnlayson, in both documents there are 1 serious and 12 minor injured. No document states 1+17. This is why I'm asking. For the landing gear: " the right main landing gear separated from the wing and the left main landing gear was pushed up through the wing root." or " Part of the main landing gear was torn off and another part was jammed up into the wing. " For me this is a litle more than "collapsed", don't you think?. Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yep, you're right. I missed where you got that from the report. The text there has changed a lot since the 17th. A BBC reference stated the 17. The landing gear collapsed on first contact then separated on the roll. Fixed now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks! Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sure, thanks for point out the errors. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference 58 hyperlink is now broken. --Dwlegg (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Updated linked. Good catch. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne incident

I am fairly certain from media reports at the time, that the engine explosion incident with a 777 on the 24th August 2004, involved an Emirates aircraft, NOT Singapore airlines.

Any confirmation of this from somebody? Evansgd 19th January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansgd (talk • contribs) 09:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're right, the the ATSB make a mistake in there report in calling it a Singapore-regitered aircraft, or else Emirates registered that 777 in Singapore. This article backs up the Singapore airlines' claim. - BillCJ (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne airport seems to be bad for turbine blow-ups! The Singapore airlines 777 incident WAS correct on 24th August 2004. The aircraft had just taken off, and had to return after the engine caught fire. The incident I was thinking of actually happened in 2001, (30th January), when an Emirates 777 had to abort a take-off when an engine blew. Evansgd 19th January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "engine explosion" should not be used to describe this incident. The technical term for this is engine surge. With the cause being determined to be HPC abradable seal erosion (as referenced in the referring report) this further justifies the use of the term surge.Gt8917b (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BA 28 vs. 777

In the list of 777 incidents in this article, there are only two British Airways 777 incidents listed. However, the article about British Airways Flight 28 (17 JAN 2008) lists that incident as the 3rd BA incident involving the 777. Which is correct?

Srajan01 (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the United Kingdom AAIB reports you will find most of the quoted incidents are minor and not notable. Some range from sick co-pilots to injuries from turbulence. I would suggest leaving it as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Only notable incidents and accidents are listed here. The section could easily double or triple in length due to minor incidents if they were included. (Making sure this is clear for future reference.) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Electric probes power loss on 3 recent 777 flights

flightglobal.com is reporting "An unusual rash of engine shutdowns since early December has temporarily stranded three of the normally reliable General Electric-powered Boeing 777-300ERs."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/05/221329/general-electric-probes-power-loss-on-3-recent-777-flights.html

M100 (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sack of Fly-by pilot

  • (Changed heading - "Fly-by-Sack" sounds like an attempt to counter fly-by-wire or fly-by-light by the Smovairans! - BillCJ (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

I didn't write this text, but some else did, and yet someone else removed it:

On 25 February 2008, it was confirmed that the chief Boeing-777 pilot for Cathay Pacific, Captain Ian Wilkinson, was sacked for performing an unauthorised low-level flypast at at Boeing Everett Factory at the start of a 30 January delivery flight of a Boeing 777-300ER[1].

I think it's notable ... can anyone try to incorporate it in the article. It doesn't have to be this one, but maybe in the Cathay Pacific article, perhaps? Thanks!--Inetpup (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true, but I don't think it's notable. The video's on youtube - [1] :-) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 08:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It could have been any plane. The fact that it was a 777 is incidental, so it doesn't really add anything to the Boeing 777 article.--Father Goose (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I added it, I see it as notable to the 777 article because the pilot was the chief pilot of this type for his airline, the flyby occured with approval from the boeing tower, and the implication behind his sacking is that he did something dangerous that he was not qualified to risk-asses, in clear contradiction to the above two points. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
All of that is highly significant to Ian Wilkinson, and maybe of some significance to Cathay Pacific. If the story were extensively publicized -- which it wasn't: it didn't even hit the 24-hour news cycle -- then maybe it would have lent some notoriety to the 777.--Father Goose (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
How many chief pilots have been sacked for doing a fly-by on picking up a new plane at Boeing field? And it certainly hit the news because that's how it came to my attention, in fact there is speculation as to whether he would have been sacked at all had this not made it to youtube. MickMacNee (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's notable to the airline and the pilot articles, but not to the 777 - as stated, it could just have weel been any aircraft being picked up. Now if the plane had been damaged or had crashed during or as a result of the fly-by, or caused damage to a near-by aircraft in some way (like "blowing" a Cessna into the ground!), then that would have been of more significance to the 777. - BillCJ (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This has been added to the Incidents and accidents section. Maybe it qualifies as a Incident to the FAA, but it is still is not a notable in any event. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Where exactly has the FAA characterized it as an incident? On Youtube?--Father Goose (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm advocating mentioning this, er, event in Cathay Pacific#Incidents and accidents. The fact that one of Cathay's lead pilots did it is not so incidental; the fact that he did it in a Boeing plane is more so.--Father Goose (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)