Is the 787 a failure ?

On Jan 10, 2:02*pm, Transition Zone wrote:
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm

JF Mezei wrote:

On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on
ZA004.
They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this,
along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
certification.
So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet
probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating
software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and
reassemble the number of 787s already built.

A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013

More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
obsessed.
I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare --
but definitely a headache.
Dreamliner catches fire at airport

It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
water to frustrated passengers.
Eventually we disembarked.
A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
flight was eventually canceled.
We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel
that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air
travel started.
It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
disembarked.

Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a
plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's
cooperating with investigators.
As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left
the gate.
We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
our scheduled departure.
But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
unfolding.
Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on
Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled
in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the
airplane is safe to fly."

Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
have "growing pains."
But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
like to forget.
After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.

--http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/

BIG problem.

The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.

To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and
BIG dollars until the plane files again.

I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration
within Boeing.

And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
similar oversights.

Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
years...let someone else be the lab rat.

TMT

TMT

In article e0946792-7772-4dd6-9c22-f053444d4e44
@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, , Too_Many_Tools
says...

On Jan 10, 2:02*pm, Transition Zone wrote:
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm

JF Mezei wrote:

On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on
ZA004.
They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this,
along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
certification.
So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet
probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating
software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and
reassemble the number of 787s already built.

A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013

More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
obsessed.
I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare --
but definitely a headache.
Dreamliner catches fire at airport

It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
water to frustrated passengers.
Eventually we disembarked.
A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
flight was eventually canceled.
We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel
that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air
travel started.
It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
disembarked.

Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a
plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's
cooperating with investigators.
As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left
the gate.
We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
our scheduled departure.
But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
unfolding.
Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on
Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled
in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the
airplane is safe to fly."

Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
have "growing pains."
But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
like to forget.
After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.

--http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/

BIG problem.

The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.

To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and
BIG dollars until the plane files again.

I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration
within Boeing.

And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
similar oversights.

Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
years...let someone else be the lab rat.

Or the wrong (read: cheap) lithium batteries? ...

http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-a...eases/148.html


--
Duncan.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:00:39 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Jan 10, 2:02Â*pm, Transition Zone wrote:
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500 Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm

JF Mezei wrote:

On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing
on ZA004.
They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test
this,
along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
certification.
So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical
cabinet probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully,
updating software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a
part and reassemble the number of 787s already built.

A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01
PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013

More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
obsessed.
I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare -- but
definitely a headache.
Dreamliner catches fire at airport

It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
water to frustrated passengers.
Eventually we disembarked.
A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
flight was eventually canceled.
We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel that
seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air travel
started.
It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
disembarked.

Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a plane
is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's cooperating
with investigators.
As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left the
gate.
We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
our scheduled departure.
But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
unfolding.
Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on Tuesday
due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled in Japan
on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the airplane
is safe to fly."

Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
have "growing pains."
But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
like to forget.
After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.

--http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/

BIG problem.

The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.

To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and BIG
dollars until the plane files again.

I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration within
Boeing.

And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
similar oversights.

Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
years...let someone else be the lab rat.

TMT

TMT

History from 2 years ago.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...boeings-za002-
fire-update-poin.html

Boeing says no big deal. It appears they ignored the problem from the
start. They don't seem to know that fires are a big deal on airplanes.

On 1/25/2013 7:22 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:00:39 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Jan 10, 2:02 pm, Transition Zone wrote:
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500 Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm

JF Mezei wrote:

On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing
on ZA004.
They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test
this,
along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
certification.
So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical
cabinet probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully,
updating software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a
part and reassemble the number of 787s already built.

A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01
PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013

More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
obsessed.
I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare -- but
definitely a headache.
Dreamliner catches fire at airport

It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
water to frustrated passengers.
Eventually we disembarked.
A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
flight was eventually canceled.
We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel that
seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air travel
started.
It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
disembarked.

Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a plane
is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's cooperating
with investigators.
As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left the
gate.
We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
our scheduled departure.
But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
unfolding.
Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on Tuesday
due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled in Japan
on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the airplane
is safe to fly."

Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
have "growing pains."
But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
like to forget.
After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.

--http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/

BIG problem.

The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.

To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and BIG
dollars until the plane files again.

I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration within
Boeing.

And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
similar oversights.

Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
years...let someone else be the lab rat.

TMT

TMT

History from 2 years ago.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...boeings-za002-
fire-update-poin.html

Boeing says no big deal. It appears they ignored the problem from the
start. They don't seem to know that fires are a big deal on airplanes.


Shades of Toyota

Daryl

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure.
Like anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far
these issues haven't caused any fatalities.

Now from a business point of view however ... the plane
may indeed be a failure. It's already got a bad reputation.
As problems with aircraft CAN be fatal, passengers seem
reluctant to fly on them - envisioning themselves burning
to death as they plummet from the skies.

If enough people won't fly on a 787 then there's no point
in airlines HAVING 787s ... and orders will start to be
cancelled. Boeing put a LOT of its money and reputation
on the line with this plane and - oversold its fantastic
wonderfullness - and this could be quite a disaster for
that company and the vast number of employees and
subcontractors involved.

So, I'm gonna offer an idea ... withdraw the aircraft
at once and refund all payments and pre-payments.

Yes, this IS severe ... but there's a part two involved ...

In a year or two, offer a "797" ... which will be
essentially the fixed-up debugged 787 with just
enough cosmetic differences so it'll seem like a
"new" model. This way Boeing gets to use 99% of
the money it spent on R&D - ie it doesn't have to
throw away the 787, just the name.

Furthermore, offer the '797' first in a CARGO variant
and let it rack up a ****load of time in this less
critical kind of service to prove its a worthy craft.
A year later, THEN offer the passenger version - with
its "Proven Perfomance" airframe.

Yes, it'll set Boeing back ... but it'll save it from
destruction. Better late profits than NO profits.

OR ... they can just dissolve the company now and merge
its remaining assets with Airbus. Easier, but not, IMHO,
really the best way to go.

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you
get it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
wrote:

snip
Now from a business point of view however ...
snip

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined
as an event that was unanticipated in occupance and limited
in duration, clearly this is no emergency.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...tsourcing.html

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/natio...188336221.html

http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2013/0...blems_draw.php

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewa...st-for-boeing/

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1119...787-dreamliner

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,2349989.story

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...-of-innovation


Its all the unions fault ;-(


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:

snip
Now from a business point of view however ...
snip

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
this is no emergency.

That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
with how potential passengers should act or react.

Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
That's ALL it takes to destroy it.

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:

snip
Now from a business point of view however ...
snip

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
this is no emergency.

That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
with how potential passengers should act or react.

Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
That's ALL it takes to destroy it.


All planes are death traps. You can't pull over to a cloud & call for
a tow, for any of them.

On Jan 26, 11:28*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
"Mr.B1ack" wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it....
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:

snip
Now from a business point of view however ...
snip

These URLs may be of interest. *If an emergency is defined as an event
that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
this is no emergency.

* *That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
* *with how potential passengers should act or react.

* *Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
* *That's ALL it takes to destroy it.

* *All planes are death traps.

No, this isn't the 1930's anymore.

You can't pull over to a cloud & call for a tow, for any of them.

Since then, you hardly ever have crashes because of all-weather
designs, flight patterns and glide paths (in case you need to land).

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:

snip
Now from a business point of view however ...
snip

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
this is no emergency.

That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
with how potential passengers should act or react.

Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
That's ALL it takes to destroy it.

You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.