If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
I think we've moved beyond a "minor tweak":
| | The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Airbus' upcoming | A350, the company's competitor to Boeing's high-tech 787 | Dreamliner, will drop all use of lithium-ion batteries. | ... http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/14/3990308/airbus-350-reportedly-dropping-lithium-ion-batteries --bks |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
Jumping from "minor tweak" to "OMFG!":
| | Boeing will propose to regulators as early as this week a | short-term fix to bolster the 787's defenses in case of | battery fires like those that have kept the jet grounded | for the past month. | ... | The interim fix includes a heavy-duty titanium or steel | containment box around the battery cells, and high-pressure | evacuation tubes that, in the event of a battery fire, | would vent any gases directly to the outside of the jet. | | Boeing's approach implicitly acknowledges that four weeks | after two batteries overheated -- one catching fire on the | ground, the other smoldering in flight -- investigators | have still not pinpointed the cause. | ... | However, it's unclear if the FAA is ready yet to accept | containment of an overheated battery cell rather than | prevention. | ... | Brian Barnett, a battery specialist with Mass.-based | technology development company VIAX who has closely studied | lithium ion battery failures, said that in his lab's | experience, about half the time "you cannot reach solid | conclusions" about the root cause. | ... http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020373450_boeing787xml.html?prmid=4939 --bks |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On 1/10/2013 3:02 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
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) -- A bit of progress... Japan's transport ministry said it had identified the likely cause of fuel leaks on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, but is still looking into why batteries overheated on two occasions, causing the aircraft to be grounded globally http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...013656490.html Vaughn |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
|
| After meeting with Boeing executives, top federal aviation | officials said on Friday that they would not approve any | fix to the battery problems on the 787 jetliner until they | were certain that the batteries would not fail again. | ... | "The safety of the flying public is our top priority and | we won't allow the 787 to return to commercial service | until we're confident that any proposed solution has | addressed the battery failure risks," Laura J. Brown, a | spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said | in a statement. | ... | The meeting, however, was unlikely to bring about a quick | lifting of the 787s' grounding order. Boeing is asking the | F.A.A. to approve the fixes even though safety | investigators have not figured out precisely what caused | the battery on one plane to ignite and the battery on | another to start smoking last month. | ... | In that sense, the meeting on Friday was also aimed at | expanding the company's emphasis from engineering work to | the political arena. | ... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/business/faa-sets-terms-for-boeings-battery-fixes-on-787.html --bks |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:46:01 +0000, Charlie+ wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 22:53:02 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote as underneath my scribble : Thanks for the mini updates here . appreciated. C+ | | After meeting with Boeing executives, top federal aviation snip --bks Appartently on at least one plane the APU was miss-wired. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On 2/25/2013 1:06 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:08:16 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:46:01 +0000, wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 22:53:02 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote as underneath my scribble : Thanks for the mini updates here . appreciated. C+ | | After meeting with Boeing executives, top federal aviation snip --bks Appartently on at least one plane the APU was miss-wired. No indication that I've seen (so far) that it was significant to the problem. Could have been a shield grounded at the wrong end, a different wire gauge than the drawings or something like that. And it MIGHT have been the battery voltage sense wire. Why are we guessing at this? |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:49:34 -0600, Richard
wrote: On 2/25/2013 1:06 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:08:16 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:46:01 +0000, wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 22:53:02 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote as underneath my scribble : Thanks for the mini updates here . appreciated. C+ | | After meeting with Boeing executives, top federal aviation snip --bks Appartently on at least one plane the APU was miss-wired. No indication that I've seen (so far) that it was significant to the problem. Could have been a shield grounded at the wrong end, a different wire gauge than the drawings or something like that. And it MIGHT have been the battery voltage sense wire. Why are we guessing at this? Related articles Q&A: What is the impact of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner safety concerns Jet problems fail to stall Boeing Delays with Dreamliners deepen nightmare for Boeing Dreamliner fault tests focus on damaged battery Boeing faces vast bill over Dreamliner delivery delay Ads by Google Japan's Transport Ministry said that an investigation into the overheating of a lithium ion battery in an All Nippon Airways (ANA) Boeing 787 discovered it had been improperly wired. The Transport Safety Board said that the battery of the aircraft's auxiliary power unit (APU) was incorrectly connected to the main battery that overheated. However, it added that a protective valve would have prevented power from the APU from doing any damage. The safety board said that more analysis was needed Perhaps they should have stated "a protectiive valve SHOULD have prevented power from the APU from doing any damage" |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
|
| The Federal Aviation Administration says it is not close to | approving test flights of Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner with | a proposed Boeing fix for the aircraft's lithium-ion | batteries. | | The agency was responding to a Wall Street Journal report | Tuesday that federal regulators have been working to give | Chicago-based Boeing Co. the OK for airborne tests of | proposed battery fixes as early as next week, though the | actual test flights aren't likely to come that quickly. The | newspaper cited unnamed sources familiar with the details. | | "Reports that we are close to allowing 787 test flights are | completely inaccurate," spokeswoman Laura Brown said in an | email statement to the Chicago Sun-Times Wednesday. | ... http://www.suntimes.com/business/18509916-420/faa-denies-report-that-boeing-787-fix-test-flights-near.html --bks |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
This came along a few days ago.
Unverified (like most Internet gossip) Reputedly form a retired Boeing engineer. The merge between Boeing and MD did happen - 1997. But I can't confirm or deny the internal workings. For one thing the problem may not be with the batteries themselves, but with the control system that keeps the charge on them at a given level. And the 'battery problem" is just one problem in many. Last week I had my regular monthly lunch with 5 fellow Boeing engineers (all but one retired) and we talked at length about what we call the "nightmare liner". We all agreed we will not book a flight on one. The one engineer still working (at age 74) says the news from inside is not good, and that there are no quick fixes for the multitude of problems that the 787 has. The disaster began with the merger with McDonnell-Douglas in the mid 90s. The M-D people completely took over the Board and installed their own people. They had no experience with commercial airplanes, having done only"cost-plus" military contracting; and there are worlds of difference between military and commercial airplane design. Alan Mulally, a life-long Boeing guy and President of Boeing Commercial Division was against outsourcing. But instead of making him CEO after he almost single-handedly saved the company in the early 90s, the Board brought in Harry Stonecipher from McDonnell-Douglas, who was big on outsourcing. Stonecipher was later fired for ethics violations. Then the Board brought in Jim McNerney, a glorified scotch tape salesman from 3M and big proponent of outsourcing, to develop the 787. (Alan Mulally left to become CEO of Ford and completely rejuvenated that company.) McNerney and his bean-counting MBAs thought that instead of developing the 787 in-house for about $11 billion, they could outsource the design and building of the airplane for about $6 billion. Right now they are at $23 billion and counting, three year behind in deliveries, with a grounded fleet. That's typical for military contracting, so McNerney and the Board probably think they are doing just fine. But it will destroy Boeing's commercial business in the same way McDonnell wrecked Douglas when they took over that company decades ago. Boeing had a wonderfully experienced team of designers and builders who had successfully created the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 in-house, always on-time, and mostly within budget, and with few problems at introduction. That team is gone, either retired or employed elsewhere. (I took early retirement after the McD takeover of Boeing because I knew the new upper management team was clueless.) The 787 was designed in Russia, India, Japan, and Italy. The majority of the airplane is built outside the US in parts and shipped to Seattle or Charleston for assembly. Gee, what could possibly go wrong? Answer: just about everything. Because the M-D people that now run Boeing don't believe in R&D, the structure of the airplane will be tested “in service.” Commercial airplanes in their lifetime typically make ten times as many flights and fly ten times as many flight hours as military airplanes, so the argument that composite structure has been "tested" because of the experience of composite military airplanes is just so much BS. So structure is a big issue. The 787 is very overweight. The all-electric controls have the same lack-of-experience issue that the structure has. The good news for me is that the Boeing pension plan is currently fully funded, although it may not stay that way as the 787 catastrophe develops. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATC failure in Memphis | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 77 | October 11th 07 03:50 PM |
The Failure of FAA Diversity | FAA Civil Rights | Piloting | 35 | October 9th 07 06:32 PM |
The FAA Failure | FAA Civil Rights | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 8th 07 05:57 PM |
Failure #10 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 7 | April 13th 05 02:49 AM |
Another Bush Failure | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 8 | July 3rd 04 02:23 AM |