A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is the 787 a failure ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old January 30th 13, 01:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:18:26 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:50:31 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:4ZqdnVrwRseNoZrMnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@earthlink .com...

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.

Who has died aboard a 787?

Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
jsw

Like the nut holding the wheel of the 350z, the pilots of that plane
were awfully close to brain dead to allow that to happen. They were
just playing a video game - NOT FLYING THE PLANE. All the warnings
were there except for the indicators on the instrument panel.


All the warnings were NOT there, and the ones they had were
misleading. The stall indicator shut off below a minimum airspeed and
came on when they correctly put the nose down and gained speed. The
stalled plane remained fairly level and controllable in pitch as it
fell at a very low forward airspeed, a condition the FCS apparently
didn't understand. Roll control was harder and kept them occupied.
They advanced the throttles to TakeOff/Go-Around power and kept the
nose slightly high, which SHOULD have been the proper procedure if
they'd had more airspeed. At night in a storm they were purely on IFR,
with no visual cues and airspeed indicators that had been and could
still be(?) reading low only because they had iced up.

A friend of mine was a 300 series training officer for a major airline
and said if the pilot had a pulse and a brain there was no reason for
the plane to crash. The GPS was still functioning, giving them an
indication of ground speed and altitude. Ground speed and air speed
are not the same - obviously, but they could still figure out they
were flying too slow. Stormscope told them what kind of storm
conditions they were getting into as well - no excuse for it.
  #102  
Old January 30th 13, 02:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:31:09 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
... All the warnings
were there except for the indicators on the instrument panel.


All the warnings were NOT there, and the ones they had were
misleading. The stall indicator shut off below a minimum airspeed
and came on when they correctly put the nose down and gained speed.


I finally found it on page 44 of the main body of the BEA inquest:
"............If the CAS measurements for
the three ADR are lower than 60 kt, the angle of attack values of the
three ADR are
invalid and the stall warning is then inoperative. This results from a
logic stating that
the airflow must be sufficient to ensure a valid measurement by the
angle of attack
sensors, especially to prevent spurious warnings."

The stall warning and pitch attitude graphs are on page 6 of appendix
3.

jsw

And there was no reason under the sun (or stars) for an A3 to be
flying anywhere CLOSE to 60 kt. Minimum landing soeed is over twice
that speed EMPTY. And it goes up the heavier the plane is.

It is virtually impossible to "stall" a functioning A3X plane - it
will just descend like an elevator, under full control. The GPS will
show a rapid rate of descent even when the static port is totally
blocked.
  #103  
Old January 30th 13, 03:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Jim Wilkins[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:31:09 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


And there was no reason under the sun (or stars) for an A3 to be
flying anywhere CLOSE to 60 kt. Minimum landing soeed is over twice
that speed EMPTY. And it goes up the heavier the plane is.

It is virtually impossible to "stall" a functioning A3X plane - it
will just descend like an elevator, under full control. The GPS will
show a rapid rate of descent even when the static port is totally
blocked.


And yet they did stall it, at extreme altitude in "coffin corner", and
then fell flat with an indicated forward airspeed below the 60kt
threshold until they pitched down, which triggered the stall warning
for the wrong reason. The altimeter tape showed them that they were
falling, but not why.

Now they know and that particular accident is extremely unlikely to
repeat, but what other unusual condition wasn't predicted or tested by
the programmers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroper%C3%BA_Flight_603


  #104  
Old January 30th 13, 03:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Too_Many_Tools
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default 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/


Another week...and the 787 is still GROUNDED.

Any guess how many MILLIONS OF DOLLARS this has cost Boeing?

TMT

TMT
  #105  
Old January 30th 13, 04:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Bradley K. Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

|
| Even before two battery failures led to the grounding of
| all Boeing 787 jets this month, the lithium-ion batteries
| used on the aircraft had experienced multiple problems that
| raised questions about their reliability.
|
| Officials at All Nippon Airways, the jets' biggest
| operator, said in an interview on Tuesday that it had
| replaced 10 of the batteries in the months before fire and
| smoke in two cases caused regulators around the world to
| ground the jets.
| ...
| Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman for the National Transportation
| Safety Board, said investigators had only recently heard
| that there had been "numerous issues with the use of these
| batteries" on 787s. She said the board had asked Boeing,
| All Nippon and other airlines for information about the
| problems.
|
| In a little-noticed test in 2010, the F.A.A. found that the
| kind of lithium-ion chemistry that Boeing planned to use --
| lithium cobalt -- was the most flammable of several
| possible types. The test found that that type of battery
| provided the most power, but could also overheat more
| quickly.
| ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/business/boeing-aware-of-battery-ills-before-the-fires.html

--bks

  #106  
Old January 30th 13, 05:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Bradley K. Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

Yow!
|
| Boeing had numerous reliability issues with the main
| batteries on its 787 Dreamliner long before the two battery
| incidents this month grounded the entire fleet.
|
| More than 100 of the lithium ion batteries have failed and
| had to be returned to the Japanese manufacturer, according
| to a person inside the 787 program with direct knowledge.
|
| "We have had at least 100, possibly approaching 150, bad
| batteries so far," the person said. "It's common."
|
| The frequency of battery failures reflects issues with the
| design of the electrical system around the battery, said
| the person on the 787 program.
| ...
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020241385_787deadbatteriesxml.html

--bks

  #107  
Old January 30th 13, 07:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Bradley K. Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

|
| TOKYO - (AP) -- U.S. transport safety regulators have asked
| Boeing Co. to provide a full operating history of the
| lithium-ion batteries used in its grounded 787 Dreamliners.
|
| The National Transportation Safety Board said in a
| statement it made the request after recently becoming aware
| of battery incidents that occurred before a Jan. 7 battery
| fire in a 787 parked at Boston's Logan International
| Airport.
| ...
http://www.newsday.com/business/us-regulator-asks-boeing-for-full-battery-history-1.4532223

--bks

  #108  
Old January 30th 13, 09:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Transition Zone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Jan 29, 4:45*pm, Max Boot wrote:
On 1/29/2013 1:13 PM, Transition Zone wrote:









On Jan 29, 3:02 pm, Max Boot wrote:
On 1/29/2013 11:40 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:


"Max Boot" wrote in message
...
On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:


So Europeans are fully justified in crucifying Boeing over a battery
that harmed no one, but Americans MUST NOT embarrassingly mention the
fatal crash of an Airbus that was in perfect working condition when it
smashed into the ocean?


Such fragile egos!


Okay, so you're not just an untraveled rube and bumpkin, you're also
hyper-nationalistic and sensitive about being an untraveled rube.


* *I haven't seen anything to suggest Europeans are "crucifying" [sic]
* Boeing over the battery problem. *You seem to be trying to downplay it.

* *It's a serious problem, and it has led to the *American* FAA
grounding
* all the planes. *While ice in the pitot tubes is suspected of producing

* the faulty airspeed readings, the main cause of the crash of the Air
* France A330 was pilot error.


That was the same ruling for the A310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in
Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). *Its like it just ran out of fuel and
fell out of the sky or something.


No, that's not what happened at all. *It had an unretracted landing gear
that caused it to burn fuel faster than expected. *The crew used a
flight management system that estimated how far they could go on the
remaining fuel, but that system did not take into account the

effect of
increased drag, so they ran out even earlier than anticipated and had to
glide the aircraft toward an airport, which they didn't reach by 500 meters.

Get your facts straight next time.


So how is all that NOT pilot error huh, smartalek ?
  #109  
Old January 30th 13, 09:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Transition Zone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Jan 29, 4:40*pm, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
"Transition Zone" wrote in message

news:c67b5f86-745c-46fc-9534-

That was the same ruling for theA310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in
Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). *Its like it just ran out of fuel and
fell out of the sky or something.


The wiki says the landing gear wouldn't fully retract and the FMS
miscalculated their remaining range. They aborted to Vienna and had to
glide the last 20km, hitting 500m short.


Honestly though, if there were ever any doubt about Airbus landing
gear from that incident, it may have been either helped or hurt later,
on September 21, 2005, by the A320 that had to go back to LAX and land
after its nose wheel was accidentally at a 90 degree turn. (it looked
scary when it was trying to land)
  #110  
Old January 30th 13, 09:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions
Max Boot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On 1/30/2013 12:30 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
On Jan 29, 4:45 pm, Max Boot wrote:
On 1/29/2013 1:13 PM, Transition Zone wrote:









On Jan 29, 3:02 pm, Max Boot wrote:
On 1/29/2013 11:40 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:


"Max Boot" wrote in message
...
On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:


So Europeans are fully justified in crucifying Boeing over a battery
that harmed no one, but Americans MUST NOT embarrassingly mention the
fatal crash of an Airbus that was in perfect working condition when it
smashed into the ocean?


Such fragile egos!


Okay, so you're not just an untraveled rube and bumpkin, you're also
hyper-nationalistic and sensitive about being an untraveled rube.


I haven't seen anything to suggest Europeans are "crucifying" [sic]
Boeing over the battery problem. You seem to be trying to downplay it.
It's a serious problem, and it has led to the *American* FAA
grounding
all the planes. While ice in the pitot tubes is suspected of producing
the faulty airspeed readings, the main cause of the crash of the Air
France A330 was pilot error.


That was the same ruling for the A310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in
Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). Its like it just ran out of fuel and
fell out of the sky or something.


No, that's not what happened at all. It had an unretracted landing gear
that caused it to burn fuel faster than expected. The crew used a
flight management system that estimated how far they could go on the
remaining fuel, but that system did not take into account theeffect of
increased drag, so they ran out even earlier than anticipated and had to
glide the aircraft toward an airport, which they didn't reach by 500 meters.

Get your facts straight next time.


So how is all that NOT pilot error huh, smartalek ?


It *was* mainly pilot error, you stupid drooling fat ****. By saying
"Its [sic] like it just ran out of fuel and fell out of the sky or
something", you suggested it was something else.

It was only partly pilot error. They relied on a "Flight Management
System" tool to estimate fuel consumption, but the program didn't take
drag into account and so gave an invalid figure.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.