????近來對于波音（Boeing）最新787型飛機的安全性和可靠性的擔憂看起來被過分放大了。上周發(fā)生的一系列不幸的技術故障不僅本質(zhì)輕微，就算有必要進行系統(tǒng)性維修，維修成本也不高。但這并不意味著波音就沒事了。

????上周不是波音（Boeing）的好日子。由于相對較新的波音787型飛機接連發(fā)生三起技術故障，這家飛機制造商的股價上周曾下跌達7%。第一起故障發(fā)生在上周一早間，日本航空公司（Japanese Air Line）一架乘客均已離機的飛機在波士頓機場跑道上起火。第二天，日本航空公司另一架787型飛機在波士頓起飛前因飛行員發(fā)現(xiàn)漏油，被迫返回登機口。似乎這一切還不夠，接著全日空航空公司（All Nippon Airways）一架787型飛機由于飛行員接到飛機制動系統(tǒng)相關報錯信息，在日本的航班又被取消。

????雖然飛機機艙冒火和燃料系統(tǒng)漏油令人擔憂，特別是鑒于公眾對于飛機機械故障的敏感程度，但對這些故障的描述方式可能在普通大眾和投資者當中引起了不必要的恐慌。比方說，美國國家運輸安全委員會（National Transportation Safety Board）的初步報告顯示，火災始于飛機的兩塊鋰電池之一，這兩塊鋰電池只在地面上使用，從不在飛行中使用?；饎莺苄。瑥钠鸹瘘c僅蔓延了兩英尺，遠非人們擔心的熊熊烈火。

????導致這塊輔助電池過熱的原因可能是連線不當。美國唯一的一家飛行這種新型飛機的美國聯(lián)合航空（United Air Lines）報告稱，其六架全新787飛機中有一架飛機的鋰電池連線不當。如果這是火災的原因，那么很容易糾正，費用也低。

????但波音的這款“革命性”飛機已經(jīng)不是第一次遇到麻煩了。事實上，787型夢想飛機（Dreamliner）項目自十年前誕生以來，就一直與眾多令人煩惱的技術故障和事故相伴。但是，過去的麻煩和上周的故障本質(zhì)上都是機械問題，與該機型顛覆性的創(chuàng)新設計無關。事實上，如果懷疑有任何形式的根本性設計缺陷，美國聯(lián)邦航空管理局（Federal Aviation Administration）早就停飛所有787型飛機了。不過，一項調(diào)查已經(jīng)展開。

????兩者存在重大區(qū)別：機械缺陷往往容易解決、成本不高，而設計缺陷可能是毀滅性的。舉例來說，設計缺陷可能導致強制召回已投入使用的約49架787型飛機。它還意味著這款交貨期已比預訂計劃晚了3年的噴氣式飛機須重回設計制圖階段（投入極其昂貴的設計制圖成本），重新調(diào)校。

????The recent worries over the safety and soundness of Boeing's new 787 aircraft appear vastly overblown. The unfortunate series of technical glitches that occurred this week are not only minor in nature, but are also cheap to fix—that is, if any system-wide repair is even necessary. That doesn't mean Boeing is out of the woods.

????It hasn't been the greatest week for Boeing (BA). The aircraft maker saw its stock tumble as much as 7% at one point this week due to three separate technical incidents involving its relatively brand new 787 aircraft. The first incident Monday morning involved a fire breaking out on a Japanese Air Line (JAL) aircraft that was sitting empty on the tarmac in Boston. The next day another JAL 787 in Boston was forced to turn back to the gate after its pilots discovered a fuel leak. And if that weren't enough, an All Nippon Airways 787 in Japan was forced to cancel its flight when the pilots received an error message related to the aircraft's braking system.

????While a fire on board an aircraft and a leaky fuel system are concerning— especially given how sensitive the public can be about mechanical issues on an aircraft—the way the incidents have been portrayed have set off an unnecessary panic in general and among investors. For example, preliminary reports by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) indicate that the fire broke out in one of the aircraft's two lithium-ion batteries, which are only engaged when the plane is on the ground and never in flight. The fire was small, creeping only two feet from its source, making it far from the raging inferno of people's nightmares.

????The auxiliary battery may have overheated due to faulty wiring causing it to overheat. United Air Lines, the only US carrier to fly the new aircraft, reported that the wiring to lithium-ion batteries on one of its six brand new 787s was done improperly. If this turns out to be the root cause of the fire, then it would be a quick and cheap fix.

????Still, this isn't the first time that Boeing has had troubles with its "revolutionary" aircraft. Indeed, the Dreamliner program has been marred by a number of annoying technical glitches and hiccups since its inception a decade ago. But past troubles as well as those that occurred this week were all mechanical in nature and were not linked to the aircraft's radical design. Indeed, if a more fundamental design flaw was suspected in any way the Federal Aviation Administration would have grounded all 787s. An investigation is underway however.

????This is an important difference because mechanical flaws are usually cheap and easy to solve while design flaws are potentially devastating. For example, a design flaw could force a potential recall of the 49 or so 787s that are already in use. It would also mean going back to the drawing board—a very expensive drawing board—to recalibrate a jet that is already three years behind on its original delivery schedule.