Is the 787 a failure ?

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.

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".

Marvin the Martian wrote:

I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make ****
up like "a minor tweek will fix it".


Why? Just because that's what they said when they took you to the
veterinarian to have you neutered?

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:51:59 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make
**** up like "a minor tweek will fix it".


Why? Just because that's what they said when they took you to the
veterinarian to have you neutered?

Wow, you're clever. You must know everything given you have such a wit.

No, the point being that NO ONE knows what the problem is. If it was a
"minor tweek", they would have fixed it after the FIRST fire.

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.

wrote:
...
When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
relatively minor tweek.
...

I don't think replacing the batteries with a safer, heavier
technology and redesigning/recertifying the electrical systems
of the plane can even be called a "tweak," let alone a "minor
tweak."

|
| MIT Professor: Battery Fix Could Ground 787 Until 2014
| ...
| In a nutshell, Sadoway thinks that Boeing needs to monitor
| the temperature and cool each of the eight cells of the
| 787's lithium-ion battery or switch to an older battery
| technology that has a far better safety record -- nickel
| metal-hydride (NiMH).
|
| If Boeing opts to substitute NiMH for lithium-ion,
| certification could result in delays of up to a year --
| effectively grounding the 787 until 2014.
| ...
| When Sadoway got a look at the lithium-ion battery used in
| the 787, he was surprised by "the seeming absence of a
| cooling apparatus."
| ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/01/27/mit-professor-battery-fix-could-ground-787-until-2014/

--bks

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:19:51 +0000 (UTC), (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

wrote:
...
When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
relatively minor tweek.
...

I don't think replacing the batteries with a safer, heavier
technology and redesigning/recertifying the electrical systems
of the plane can even be called a "tweak," let alone a "minor
tweak."

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 -
and you will be safe to bet it will be a "relatively minor tweek" to
the system. It will not be a total re-design of the APU system. The
batteries do not overheat if they are not abused. The charge control
system is abusing the battery, causing it to overheat. They may need
to redisign the battery pack to add cooling to prevent damage IF they
overheat - but the first thing is to fix the charging system so they
do NOT overheat.

I also question why they used lithium Cobalt batteries - slightly
higher energy density than the safer Lithium Iron Phosphate or Lithium
Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide batteries, at the expense of a higher
danger of thermal run-away. Perhaps a change to one or the other of
these chemistries instead of the Lithium Cobalts will be required as
well.
|
| MIT Professor: Battery Fix Could Ground 787 Until 2014
| ...
| In a nutshell, Sadoway thinks that Boeing needs to monitor
| the temperature and cool each of the eight cells of the
| 787's lithium-ion battery or switch to an older battery
| technology that has a far better safety record -- nickel
| metal-hydride (NiMH).

Anything with a potassium Hydroxide electrolyte is a poor choice in
aircraft with aluminum structure. The 787 has a lot of high strength
composite, but aluminum is still a structural component. The 2
materials do not peaceably co-exist - in case of a leak there are
risks - which have been managed so far with Ni-Cads in aircraft use -
but they are NOT benign. NiCad and NimH both ose pottassium Hydroxide.

They are also not immune to overheating - they just boil the
Pottassium Hydroxide out, damaging the plane instead of burning. Not
quite as serious, in the short term - but perhaps just as damaging in
the long term?

In my opinion, going back to NiCad or Nimh would be a big step
backwards - as well as requiring a complete recertification of the
system.
|
| If Boeing opts to substitute NiMH for lithium-ion,
| certification could result in delays of up to a year --
| effectively grounding the 787 until 2014.
| ...
| When Sadoway got a look at the lithium-ion battery used in
| the 787, he was surprised by "the seeming absence of a
| cooling apparatus."
| ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/01/27/mit-professor-battery-fix-could-ground-787-until-2014/

--bks