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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:13:24 -0500, clare wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:29:30 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:43 -0500, clare wrote: 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. I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make **** up like "a minor tweek will fix it". When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a relatively minor tweek. Right. The APU is complex, ergo the solution will be simple. Or maybe you're trying to say, the APU is simple, so the solution will be simple. Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical system. Which kinda makes you claims absurd meaningless and laughable prattle. You sound good, tho'. Keep pontificating! Maybe you'll fool someone into thinking you know something. So, how many days has it been? Where is that simple tweek!? LOL! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Jan 27, 2:19*am, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote: On Jan 25, 9:54*pm, "Mr.B1ack" wrote: 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. But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. *Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too. * *Irrevelant. * *It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being * *dangerous. And the A320 didn't? That's all-important. That's all that counts. The 787 is *done*. I *way* doubt that. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:25:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian
wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:13:24 -0500, clare wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:29:30 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:43 -0500, clare wrote: 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. I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make **** up like "a minor tweek will fix it". When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a relatively minor tweek. Right. The APU is complex, ergo the solution will be simple. Or maybe you're trying to say, the APU is simple, so the solution will be simple. Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical system. Which kinda makes you claims absurd meaningless and laughable prattle. You sound good, tho'. Keep pontificating! Maybe you'll fool someone into thinking you know something. So, how many days has it been? Where is that simple tweek!? LOL! Just because the tweek will be minor does not mean figuring it out will be simple. And getting it signed off will not be a simple matter either - we ARE dealing with certified aircraft. I suspect there will be some reprogramming of the charging system and a possible switch to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiPo ) cells from the LCo (Lithium Cobalt Oxide) batteries that caused a lot of consternation in portable devices, like laptops, a few years ago. I cannot understand why LCo batteries were spec'ed instead of LIPo or LNMC cells. The relatively minor power density advantage is hard to balance against the known issues with LCO cells. The LCO cells CAN be safely used with proper controls - but the risk is still there. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
wrote:
... You can be fairly safe to bet that the batteries will not be replaced with heavier old tech batteries. The charging system will be fixed - ... | | U.S. investigators examining the battery charger from a | Boeing Co. (BA) 787 that caught fire this month in Boston | have found no evidence of flaws that could have caused the | incident. | ... http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-27/battery-charger-aboard-787-cleared-in-fire-investigation --bks |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:25:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian
wrote: snip Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical system. snip Which ignores the fact that the plane was three years late in delivery, giving ample time to have constructed a prototype or mock-up of the entire battery/power system with extra sensors, and conducted exhaustive cycling/simulations including charging/powering with a verity of GPUs. This would appear to have been highly prudent given the news items of electric cars with the same or similar power storage bursting into flames, and the loss of an entire factory when a prototype cell under test exploded. Indeed, with the advantage of hindsight, the type of lithium cells used should have been retrofitted to some existing aircraft (cargo to start) and tested under actual operating/flying conditions after these were proven "safe." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...120872184.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ar-safety.html http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal20...aPaper2007.pdf -- 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" |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On 1/27/2013 5:39 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
giving ample time to have constructed a prototype or mock-up of the entire battery/power system with extra sensors, and conducted exhaustive cycling/simulations including charging/powering with a verity of GPUs. Do you actually have a reference that says they never did any of that stuff? Or are you just blowing smoke? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
|
| Washington - Further testing still has not found the cause | of a battery fire aboard a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Boston | earlier this month, the National Transportation Safety | Board said on Sunday. | | In a statement released on Sunday, the safety regulator | said "no obvious anomalies were found" in its initial | investigation of an undamaged battery aboard the plane and | that a more detailed examination would follow. | ... | Oliver McGee, an aerospace and mechanical engineer who was | a deputy assistant secretary of transportation for | technology policy under President Bill Clinton and a former | consultant to Boeing, described the challenge facing the | investigators as a "megascale engineering puzzle". | ... http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/cause-of-boeing-fire-eludes-team-1.1459385 Redesign, recertify, redeploy. --bks |
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 |