Is the 787 a failure ?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:47:49 +0000, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:

|
| What, then, is wrong with the Dreamliner? |
| "I think people had their fingers crossed that it was a | battery
fault," Keith Hayward, head of research at the | Royal Aeronautical
Society, told BBC. "It looks more | systemic and serious to me. I
suspect it could be difficult | to identify the cause."
| ...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...ces/2013/0128/
Boeing-787-battery-passes-initial-probe.-What-s-wrong-with-the-Dreamliner

--bks


NOT a battery fault ... something in the circuitry
that monitors and controls the charge state. Could
be rather minor - and under-rated low-ohm resistor,
a cheapo Chinese cap or inductor ... or it could be
further up, in the software.

In the first case it means that EVERYTHING that uses
similar components, and/or was designed by the same
engineers, has to be taken apart and torture-tested.
In the second case ... COULD be a local firmware
glitch - assuming they're using "smart" modules -
or it COULD be in the system software. The former
is less of a big deal - such control programs tend
to be relatively short. If the system software
is nanny to this and more components however ....

|
| Short of a breakthrough in the investigation into the two
| battery fires, this Wednesday will mark the start of the
| third week Boeing's 787s will have been grounded. Now,
| hundreds of engineers, many of whom worked to get the jet
| certified to begin with, are back at work trying to figure
| out where Boeing goes from here.
|
| They're working in teams, and multiple sources with
| knowledge of the company say Boeing's strategy is as
| follows.
|
| 1. Find the root cause of the battery incidents. Engineers
| are working with the National Transportation Safety Board
| and the Federal Aviation Administration to get to the
| bottom of a battery fire in Boston and a smoking battery
| aboard a second jet in Japan.
| 2. Get airborne. How to prepare for a range of fixes to
| comply as soon as possible with the FAA's airworthiness
| directive that grounded the jets on January 16.
| 3. Scenario planning. What if the use of lithium ion
| batteries was banned altogether, or regulators made another
| major move that would force Boeing to redesign the
| electrical architecture of the 787.
| ...
http://www.king5.com/news/local/What-does-Boeing-need-to-do-to-get-787s-flying-188770201.html

--bks

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:49:55 -0800, Bug Dout wrote:

"Mr.B1ack" writes:

Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.

And I think you'll find a lot of other people with the same
sentiment.

"a lot", that would be 100 people, 100 times more people than you, yes,
that's a lot! The fact people buy tickets based on the cheapest online
price and ignore all the baggage fees, etc. shows that people simply do
not know or care what model of airplane they fly.

You sound like a Boeing subcontractor ...

I think you're a troll for Airbus. Or, one of those wacky right-wing
conspiracy kooks.

I don't care for the AirBus safety record either.

This is one of those cases where capitalism works
against us. The competitors tend to rush these very
complex machines out the door, trying to stay ahead
of each other. A modern airliner is at least as
complex as a space shuttle ... and they always had
problems with those (usually with tri/quad redundancy
to save their asses).

IMHO, especially given the disaster possibilities,
airliner manufacturers should NOT be using the
public as their beta testers to "work out the
kinks". The planes should be READY before the
first passenger buys a ticket. There needs to
be more regs and govt oversight.

(does that sound ultraright-wing ? :-)

In article ,
, Mr.B1ack says...

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:47:49 +0000, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:

|
| What, then, is wrong with the Dreamliner? |
| "I think people had their fingers crossed that it was a | battery
fault," Keith Hayward, head of research at the | Royal Aeronautical
Society, told BBC. "It looks more | systemic and serious to me. I
suspect it could be difficult | to identify the cause."
| ...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...ces/2013/0128/
Boeing-787-battery-passes-initial-probe.-What-s-wrong-with-the-Dreamliner

--bks


NOT a battery fault ... something in the circuitry
that monitors and controls the charge state. Could
be rather minor - and under-rated low-ohm resistor,
a cheapo Chinese cap or inductor ... or it could be
further up, in the software.

In the first case it means that EVERYTHING that uses
similar components, and/or was designed by the same
engineers, has to be taken apart and torture-tested.
In the second case ... COULD be a local firmware
glitch - assuming they're using "smart" modules -
or it COULD be in the system software. The former
is less of a big deal - such control programs tend
to be relatively short. If the system software
is nanny to this and more components however ....

Posted again...

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

--
Duncan.

"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?

On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"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?

No one.

How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
been ordered out of service?

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:00:33 +1300, Dave Doe wrote:

In article ,
, Mr.B1ack says...

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:47:49 +0000, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:

|
| What, then, is wrong with the Dreamliner? |
| "I think people had their fingers crossed that it was a | battery
fault," Keith Hayward, head of research at the | Royal Aeronautical
Society, told BBC. "It looks more | systemic and serious to me. I
suspect it could be difficult | to identify the cause."
| ...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...ces/2013/0128/
Boeing-787-battery-passes-initial-probe.-What-s-wrong-with-the-Dreamliner

--bks


NOT a battery fault ... something in the circuitry
that monitors and controls the charge state. Could
be rather minor - and under-rated low-ohm resistor,
a cheapo Chinese cap or inductor ... or it could be
further up, in the software.

In the first case it means that EVERYTHING that uses
similar components, and/or was designed by the same
engineers, has to be taken apart and torture-tested.
In the second case ... COULD be a local firmware
glitch - assuming they're using "smart" modules -
or it COULD be in the system software. The former
is less of a big deal - such control programs tend
to be relatively short. If the system software
is nanny to this and more components however ....

Posted again...

http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-a...eases/148.html
So far EVERYTHING, including the opinions of the so-called experts
is just speculation. The smoking gun has not been found yet.

MY opinion is still that it will be found to be a relatively simple
tweek - but they MAY end up switching from Lithium Cobalt Oxide to a
different lithium chemistry as a precaution and to re-assure the
public that a mistreated battery won't cause a fire in flight.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"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?

No one.

How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
been ordered out of service?


More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
aircraft accidents in 50 years.
Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every
day.

On 1/28/2013 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"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?

No one.

How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
been ordered out of service?


More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
aircraft accidents in 50 years.
Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every
day.

Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver...-by-auto-make/

The point is, within any *given* mode of transportation, people don't
want to use dangerous vehicles if they have a choice, /ceteris paribus/.
If the 787 is dangerous and a 777 isn't, people will want to fly on
the 777.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

"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