Boeing 787 Screamliner

[RA1]

I saw an article that claimed the 787 battery box did its' job by containing the battery and contents. Still, there is a problem with the battery which might be the design of the battery, the controlling circuitry or something wrong with the recharging methodology.

As AS has pointed out, there are "good" batteries of this type available. One can hope Boeing quickly figures this all out and the aircraft can get back into the air.

The specifications and performance are very impressive but so are the ones for the A380 and it has had its' share not only of vendor problems but those "generated" by the factory itself.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

But the rimchair who posts here is getting tiresome with the constant digs at Noah. Is it not time to move on?

Mebbe so but, in my book, anyone who can use 'pecksniffian' in a post is worth a second look.

It seems rather pecksniffian of you and Jimboi to be telling we proletariat what planes are safe to fly.

I had to look it up, but am I glad I did!

I make no judgment, by the by, as to whether or not the word was used in fairness; merely that it was used at all.

[Guest hitoallusa]

I think they will fix the problem soon. It's so exciting that a plane designed so complicatedly float in the air and take people all around the world. I think it's a great achievement.

[Guest rimchair]

RA1, on 17 Jan 2013 - 15:54, said:

The 787 definitely has a vendor problem which I would like to think would be solved by using entirely or more US vendors but that seems to be not PC. Boeing will take some economic and PR hits over this but the 787 is no Comet, to quote a poster from the "other" MB. The issues are not huge and not unmanageable. They will be fixed and soon.

LOT has also grounded the 787 to be up to date.

Grounding just means fix it before further flight which might be today or very, very soon. The Apollo flights likely should have been grounded but then we never would have gone to the moon, would we? Airline travel is nowhere nearly as dangerous. It just is not perfect and never will be. Are you willing to drive to the mall? That is VERY dangerous, statistically speaking.

Best regards,

RA1

" They will be fixed and soon. "

So there is more than one 'issue' Junior Birdman? Methinks you are correct, but they won't be fixed anytime soon.

Happy tailwinds,

Rimchair

[RA1]

Sorry, but you are just speculating as is the NTSB and any others regarding this issue. Of course, most of those have far more expertise than you. You are welcome to ride the A340 in th meantime with its' tail issues and the A350 which is facing the same issue about lithium batteries as Boeing. The A350 is not yet in production but that does not seem to stop you from flying on it, just as you did on the not yet certified or delivered 650.

It must be fun to live in the dream world in which you seem to exist with no reality at all.

Best wishes.

RA1

[Guest rimchair]

Seen one of these on a Airbus lately?

[AdamSmith]

they won't be fixed anytime soon.

Having myself beaten Boeing about the neck and ears over the 787 numerous times here and There over the past years, suffer me respectfully to ask:

How do you have the least rat's ass of a notion whether what you say above is so?

The problem, or indeed problems, could range anywhere from one bad production run of batteries caused by a traceable, readily correctable manufacturing defect, all the way to a series of subtle but profound engineering misjudgments cascading throughout the fundamental design of the craft's multiple, deeply interlaced and interacting electrical, electronics and mechatronic systems.

And at least a dozen scenarios I can think of that in severity lie somewhere in between.

You will notice, as has been remarked here, that the popular press is enjoying sounding the alarm bells without much if any notion what they are talking about, as that sells papers. By contrast the engineering trade press, which I read and happen to be part of, is almost entirely keeping its collective yap shut until there is enough data to make some speculations worth the trouble of our and our readers' time.

It would be interesting to hear from knowledgeable posters what the professional aviation press has found worth commenting on so far, and in what areas it is refraining from mouthing off until there is more to go on from the investigators.

[lookin]

It would be interesting to hear from knowledgeable posters . . .

A consummation devoutly to be wished, no doubt, but while we're waiting, it may just take us bozos to give the Feds the hotfoot they need to start scorching Boeing's vitals. And, in our defense, the experts aren't doing all that much better.

According to this Forbes article, in spite of lithium-ion batteries' long history of burning up, the 787's lead engineer, Mike Sinnett said Boeing's system had "computerized controls" and "multiple layers of protection that it thought would keep the batteries from overheating and contain any problem." He managed to convince the regulators, and the rest is history.

Those computerized controls offered tremendous promise. They would shut down the battery if it developed a problem and operate as a firewall that would stop a short in one of the battery’s eight cells from spreading to the other seven. What’s more, Boeing claimed, the 787′s pressurized air system would keep flames or smoke from the burning battery from getting into the passenger cabin.

So much for the expert opinions.

Apparently, Cessna replaced its lithium-ion batteries with safer nickel-cadmium batteries after a fire a year or so ago, but Boeing has convinced some 'experts' that the extra forty pounds and extra effort to switch to safer batteries would make the 787 commercially unviable.

Well, that may be an expert's opinion, but it sure smells like bullshit to me. And bullshit just happens to be a field of expertise in which I'm prepared to go toe-to-toe with the very best in the business.

[Guest rimchair]

Well I am sure that RA1 will agree with his vaunted FoxNews:

NO TIMETABLE

While the NTSB and JTSB hunt for a solution to the battery question, there is also an open issue around fuel leaks on the Dreamliner. In early December, U.S. officials warned of a manufacturing fault with fuel lines, and earlier this month a JAL plane in Boston leaked before takeoff.

Industrial manufacturer Eaton Corp said Wednesday it was cooperating with investigators looking at the fuel leaks.

"Without speaking about either the incident or investigation, I can tell you that we do supply pumps and valves to the program," a spokeswoman said.

The 787 program was already years behind schedule before last week's grounding, which means Boeing cannot deliver newly manufactured planes to customers. Boeing's chief 787 engineer, Mike Sinnett, told an aviation conference in Dublin he could not say when that would change.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/01/23/still-no-timetable-for-returning-boeing-787-to-flight/#ixzz2IwqTFKS4

[Guest rimchair]

You will notice, as has been remarked here, that the popular press is enjoying sounding the alarm bells without much if any notion what they are talking about, as that sells papers. By contrast the engineering trade press, which I read and happen to be part of, is almost entirely keeping its collective yap shut until there is enough data to make some speculations worth the trouble of our and our readers' time.

Ah yes, the "fire in a theatre" press.

What gets me Sir Adam is Secretary LaHood coming out one day saying the Boeing 787 is 'safe', and 6 days later grounds the entire fleet for a undetermined length. Multiple safety problems exist: batteries / brakes / fuel lines /windshields.

At the moment the fact is - flying 787 is inherently more dangerous than other mainstream Boeings. I am sure RA1 & JimBoi will disagree. (But remember, they fly on private jets)

""On Thursday, Boeing issued a statement in response to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board's most recent update on its investigation into the causes of multiple safety incidents aboard Boeing 787 airliners of late. The statement, summarized in two words: "No comment."

Specifically, Boeing reiterated its support for NTSB's investigation into the causes of electrical fires, brake failures, and fuel leaks aboard its flagship product and said it continues to assist the agency and other government agencies in both the U.S. and Japan, which are investigating the 787 incidents. Boeing pointed out that it has assigned "hundreds of engineering and technical experts" to the matter and that they are "working around the clock" to find and fix the problems."" Motley Fool

[lookin]

What gets me Sir Adam is Secretary LaHood coming out one day saying the Boeing 787 is 'safe', and 6 days later grounds the entire fleet for a undetermined length.

Two weeks ago, Boeing had a hardware problem. I think today they also have a public relations problem and a regulatory problem. Which is the toughest to solve remains to be seen.

Having been caught with its pants down once, I doubt the FAA will bend over so willingly again. Boeing needs a five-star fix fast.

And the longer the planes stay grounded, the lower public opinion goes, and the longer the airlines lose money.

Which brings up the liability issues. With so much outsourcing, who pays any damages that may be piling up?

Can't advise the Boeing experts what to do, but I would encourage them to feel a sense of urgency.

[AdamSmith]

Well, just a couple of thoughts.

(1) Re Boeing and its new baby: The problems are a mess, to be sure, and grounding was absolutely right until they get fixed. But so far they all look fairly expected given all the (avoidable, but that's water under the bridge) risks Boeing took in, as I've said, changing both product and process so radically at the same time.

But none of the problems so far look particularly gnarly to fix. Even if they have to swallow their rhetoric on the batteries and drop back to older technology. Airbus with the 380 weathered big messes in its electrical system early on, including if memory serves large amounts of rework of already-installed wiring harnesses etc. in large numbers of completed or nearly completed craft.

My worry has always been the composite airframe. If that were found to have recurrent systemic defects, it could be a threat to the whole 787 program orders of magnitude worse than shortsighted battery decisions or a poor-quality valve supplier.

(2) Now, the FAA (we will not even bother to rip into poor old hapless LaHood) and the certification process. These are stuck in the 19th century and, reliant on certain manufacturer-supplied design and test data, can be a bit like Victorian doctors listening to their female patients through a long tube muffled by layers of nightgown and bed hangings.

One challenge is that FAA-mandated ways of submitting this data have not kept pace with the vastly increased complexity of latest-generation aircraft and all their interdependent subsystems. Indeed the manufacturers and their suppliers are themselves trying to get the FAA to accept all kinds of live digital data generated in their engineering, simulation and test activities -- one of the terms of art is 'model-based engineering' -- which would be much more revealing than the currently required static drawings, 3D images, and written reports. But thus far the FAA largely resists. Unsure, I think, of its own competence in utilizing these potentially far more effective means of carrying out its mission here. (The DOD in sharp contrast is pushing contractors as hard as it can to get on the stick with these new engineering tools and methods -- Google 'Systems 2020' if interested.)

If the 787 mess can bring some real long-term good, in my view, it will be to drag official certification and oversight procedures and techniques into the 21st century.

[AdamSmith]

P.S. What a tiresome post. I will now revert to witless one-liners.

[lookin]

P.S. What a tiresome post. I will now revert to witless one-liners.

Concerned Lady Macbeth was a bit of a buzzkill,

The Bard feels a sonnet coming on.

[AdamSmith]

In the mode of Sonnet 18...

To a Houseboy Kept Too Long

Shall I compare thee to my monthly pay?
Thou art cheaper and more desperate.
Rough times do come our way,
And we shall part ways at any rate.

Sometime too hot the oven bakes our dine,
And often is the pie’s gold complexion burn’d;
Your cooking, looks and smell continually decline,
Through chance or time, you’ve never learn’d.

But thy idiotic comments are never late,
Nor lose their place as the lowest;
Nor shall I brag thou know me, or that you’ve ever been near my shade,
When in reality I see everyday those facial wrinkles growest.

So long as you can breathe and I can see,
So long my mission is never over till I take life from thee.

[RA1]

So far no one seems to know what the technical problem really is or, if they do, they are not saying publically. Lookin has it right in that it IS a PR problem for sure. And, AS has it right in that the thread has become tiresome.

However I cannot resist making a couple of observations.

The FAA cannot ground a whole fleet unless the whole fleet is entirely US registered. They can void the type certificate which would have the same effect but is a different process. So far, they have not done this.

The NTSB can investigate but not legislate. The FAA does and should listen to recommendations from the NTSB but are not by law bound to follow same.

There are two kinds of jet aircraft. Those that are leaking fuel now and those that are about to do so.

As AS pointed out, new babies have all sorts of teething problems. I never knew you could be such a good parent, AS.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

There are two kinds of jet aircraft. Those that are leaking fuel now and those that are about to do so.

As AS pointed out, new babies have all sorts of teething problems. I never knew you could be such a good parent, AS.

The baby could well make money for me one day, precisely because of these travails.

(In fact it already has. To be serious again for a minute -- sorry! -- what I hope really comes of all this is insight in how to better execute globally distributed outsourced engineering and manufacturing programs. That trend will only accelerate, for reasons good and bad, so we had better up our game.)

[Guest CharliePS]

In the mode of Sonnet 18...

To a Houseboy Kept Too Long

Shall I compare thee to my monthly pay?

Thou art cheaper and more desperate.

Rough times do come our way,

And we shall part ways at any rate.

Sometime too hot the oven bakes our dine,

And often is the pie’s gold complexion burn’d;

Your cooking, looks and smell continually decline,

Through chance or time, you’ve never learn’d.

But thy idiotic comments are never late,

Nor lose their place as the lowest;

Nor shall I brag thou know me, or that you’ve ever been near my shade,

When in reality I see everyday those facial wrinkles growest.

So long as you can breathe and I can see,

So long my mission is never over till I take life from thee.

Aha! I detect the hand of the Earl of Oxford.

[AdamSmith]

...no more of his anatomy than that?

[Guest rimchair]

So far no one seems to know what the technical problem really is or, if they do, they are not saying publically. Lookin has it right in that it IS a PR problem for sure. And, AS has it right in that the thread has become tiresome.

More than a PR problem, and there are technical problems.

Peter Cohan, of Forbes nails it: "When it comes to the technical problems of the 787, the analogy that comes to mind is the iceberg. After all, 10% of its volume is typically above water and the other 90% is below the surface. Sure, the self-immolating batteries are getting plenty of attention at the moment. ... But the other 90% of the 787's problems may well be below the surface. ... In the past, Boeing has outsourced manufacturing but maintained tight control over design. ... But with the 787 ... Boeing outsourced 60% of the design and manufacture to suppliers. (This) meant that each supplier of, say, the wings, or the batteries that supplied power to the engines or auxiliary systems, would use its own approach to both the design and the manufacture. ... Boeing assumed that its suppliers would share its commitment to quality. ... But this did not happen."

[AdamSmith]

"...iceberg..." As the high-school debate coach reminds your first time out, lose the analogies as they prove nothing.

Sorry about Cohan. A 2nd-tier (if that) management consultant flack straining to ape Michael Porter, Clayton Christensen and others with some claim to being the Real Thing. He knows a little bit about IT but naahthing about mechanical, electrical, electronics or mechatronics engr/mfg.

I mean, he is a Forbes contributor, for chrissake! Get a clue.

[Guest rimchair]

Flammable electrolytes and aircraft don't mix. It is The Doomliner.

[Guest rimchair]

And so it begins. Wonder if the Poles aren't far behind.

NEW DELHI: Air India has put all its newly-acquired Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner planes for sale and leaseback and invited bids from prospective lessors by February first week, even as all of these aircraft remained grounded across the world.

Air India and other Dreamliner operators across the world have grounded their entire fleet of 50 B-787s delivered so far following a directive from the US Federal Aviation Authority after a fire risk reportedly caused by a battery problem.

In spite of this, the national carrier has gone ahead with its plan of sale and leaseback, which has already been approved by the government as part of its turnaround and financial restructuring plans.

[RA1]

FEDEX cancelled its' order of A-380s but that was because the delivery date was so far advanced. Not because of the later engine problems, wing problems, etc. FEDEX will likely be the only airline to make money with the A-380 because it can stuff it full of freight while the others cannot fill it full of pax.

In the meantime, the charging circuit protection seems to be under investigation as opposed to the batteries in the 787.

I realize this is a silly question but why are we not willing to wait for "official" and scientific answers to whatever problems confront Boeing and the 787?

In the meantime the media and those who shout "fire" in a crowded theater are running amok.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

NEW DELHI: Air India has put all its newly-acquired Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner planes for sale and leaseback and invited bids from prospective lessors by February first week, even as all of these aircraft remained grounded across the world.

...the national carrier has gone ahead with its plan of sale and leaseback, which has already been approved by the government as part of its turnaround and financial restructuring plans.

Rimmer, Air India has been bleeding cash ever since the Gov. allowed cheap fare competitors to enter their domestic market. A 'sale and leaseback' is just a (fairly expensive) finantial gimmick to clear debt from the airline's books. For reasons comprehensible only to accounting geeks, the leases aren't counted as debt on the finantial statement.

This has nothing what-so-ever to do with the 787/ 788's current problems. It's strictly a finantial move probably (I would guess) intended to clear the way for a large capital infusion by the Indian government &/or a restructuring (yet again) of its debt to the state controled banks.