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
  #1  
Old January 10th 13, 09:02 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 ?

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/busine...r-los-angeles/
  #2  
Old January 11th 13, 12:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military,alt.society.labor-unions
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 154
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On 1/10/2013 3:02 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
have "growing pains."


Exactly! The list of aircraft that had to endure a year or three of
teething problems before going on to give decades of excellent service
is long and filled with many famous civil and military aircraft.

The title of this thread is pure nonsense.

  #3  
Old January 11th 13, 02:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:02:16 PM UTC-5, 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/busine...r-los-angeles/


Boeing located their Dreamliner
Manufacturing facility in North Charleston,
S.C. to circumvent the pressure being leveraged
at them by the IAMAW (International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers). By
sidestepping their responsibility of duly
compensating labor and talent, they have
now gotten what they've paid for. There is
a long history in South Carolina of thought
indoctrination which leads to subservience.

This tradition finds it's roots all the
way back to slavery, and cotton-picking.
After the emancipation, share-cropping was
prevalent which was really a different name
for almost the same arrangement. Eventually,
after decades... textile production became
the dominant livelihood. Still, though, the
factories held their workers on a short
leash, even telling them when to go to bed,
what to wear, when to pray and where to live.
Again, not much of a transition.

Today, in 2012 there is a multitude of
industry in South Carolina, but, there
remains a vestige of philosophy that the
worker is the property of the man, that
he keeps his mouth shut and asks no
questions. Unions are seen *by workers* as
inherently bad, yet they can't really tell
you why beyond what they're told to think.

So good luck Boeing. You are a great
corporation, and yes, carbon-fiber was
the right move. When you finally transition
to the blended-body design and electric
propulsion you will have come full circle.
Just remember... you get what you pay for.

Also, I really question the implementation
of JATO bottles for this design and mission.
Whatever dude, use ammonium perchlorate for
best results.

Good night and good luck.

--
Mark
  #4  
Old January 16th 13, 04:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.society.labor-unions
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 154
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad
news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787
aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of
battery problems."


Vaughn
  #5  
Old January 19th 13, 12:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:01:51 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:
I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad

news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787

aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of

battery problems."





Vaughn


1. In no way can one call this ship a failure. It
is simply still "teething".

2. Lithium batteries are safe and appropriate.
Anything will catch fire, including a rock, if
you put enough voltage to it. The industries
are still learning how to integrate their BMS
with their batteries without having to learn it
empirically.


"The BMS designers may have used Mosfets or Relay contactors. Where the BMS control elements are Mosfets they require sizing for load current and thermal management. If the designers got that wrong, the N Mosfets could burn out with collateral damage to the PCB, possibly causing a short circuit on the board. Relay contactors are more robust and generally the power path is not through the BMS PCB.

BMS design for large format batteries such as those on the Dreamliner requires a conservative approach including secondary cell-by-cell overvoltage protection. According to Ken, this requires an understanding of the full aircraft system, something that may have been tough to come by before the aircraft was operational."

http://www.engineering.com/Electroni...reamliner.aspx

--
Mark
(Post submitted from Dunkin' Doughnuts)
  #6  
Old January 19th 13, 08:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
george152
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On 20/01/13 00:38, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:01:51 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:
I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad

news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787

aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of

battery problems."





Vaughn


1. In no way can one call this ship a failure. It
is simply still "teething".

2. Lithium batteries are safe and appropriate.
Anything will catch fire, including a rock, if
you put enough voltage to it. The industries
are still learning how to integrate their BMS
with their batteries without having to learn it
empirically.


"The BMS designers may have used Mosfets or Relay contactors. Where the BMS control elements are Mosfets they require sizing for load current and thermal management. If the designers got that wrong, the N Mosfets could burn out with collateral damage to the PCB, possibly causing a short circuit on the board. Relay contactors are more robust and generally the power path is not through the BMS PCB.

BMS design for large format batteries such as those on the Dreamliner requires a conservative approach including secondary cell-by-cell overvoltage protection. According to Ken, this requires an understanding of the full aircraft system, something that may have been tough to come by before the aircraft was operational."

http://www.engineering.com/Electroni...reamliner.aspx


And there are those who want electric powered C172s
  #7  
Old January 20th 13, 02:26 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:16:17 PM UTC-5, george wrote:
On 20/01/13 00:38, wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:01:51 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:


I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad




news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787




aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of




battery problems."












Vaughn




1. In no way can one call this ship a failure. It


is simply still "teething".




2. Lithium batteries are safe and appropriate.


Anything will catch fire, including a rock, if


you put enough voltage to it. The industries


are still learning how to integrate their BMS


with their batteries without having to learn it


empirically.






"The BMS designers may have used Mosfets or Relay contactors. Where the BMS control elements are Mosfets they require sizing for load current and thermal management. If the designers got that wrong, the N Mosfets could burn out with collateral damage to the PCB, possibly causing a short circuit on the board. Relay contactors are more robust and generally the power path is not through the BMS PCB.




BMS design for large format batteries such as those on the Dreamliner requires a conservative approach including secondary cell-by-cell overvoltage protection. According to Ken, this requires an understanding of the full aircraft system, something that may have been tough to come by before the aircraft was operational."




http://www.engineering.com/Electroni...reamliner.aspx





And there are those who want electric powered C172s


Ah, that's easy compared to designing
a dreamliner from scratch. One must manage
the heat sink.

Just think if everything had always been electric
(Henry Ford's wife drove an electric car), and now
all of a sudden we discovered gasoline and jet fuel
but knew little about volatility management.

You think there might occur a fire or two? LOL,
in fact, there still is.

--
Mark
  #8  
Old January 26th 13, 12:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.military
Transition Zone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On Jan 10, 6:46*pm, Vaughn wrote:
On 1/10/2013 3:02 PM, Transition Zone wrote:

Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
have "growing pains."


Exactly! *The list of aircraft that had to endure a year or three of
teething problems before going on to give decades of excellent service
is long and filled with many famous civil and military aircraft.

The title of this thread is pure nonsense.


The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,
too. In this case, back up mechanisms didn't seem like they were
there.
  #9  
Old January 26th 13, 12:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.military,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.military
Jim Wilkins[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

"Transition Zone" wrote in message
news:4de25f69-93af-479e-88c6-
The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,
too. In this case, back up mechanisms didn't seem like they were
there.


This isn't the first problem with Lithium batteries:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011.html



  #10  
Old January 26th 13, 02:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 154
Default Is the 787 a failure ?

On 1/25/2013 6:17 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,


The A300 was certainly a candidate for grounding after one lost a
vertical stabilizer in 2001 for no apparent reason. Vital parts
failing, falling off, and causing a plane crash with 100% fatalities
sounds a whole lot more difficult to fix that the 787's electrical
problem.

What saved the A300 from grounding? It had been in service since the
late 70's, and therefore had an extensive record of safe service, and
there were hundreds in use so grounding them would have caused worldwide
travel disruption. None of that is true of the 787.

 




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 07:28 AM.


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