Boeing 787 Screamliner

[AdamSmith]

"There is an old saying that goes 'You can fool some people all the time, and all people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time'. Corporate India and Accountants, however, disagree with this truism..."

Continued at The Joke Called Indian Accounting Standards

[lookin]

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?

Can't speak for everyone but, for me, it's because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the 787's lead engineer, Mike Sinnett, said that Boeing's system had "computerized controls" and "multiple layers of protection that it thought would keep the batteries from overheating and contain any problem". And the regulators bought it.

This image, which is currently in the public domain, shows pretty clearly that Boeing thought wrong.

According to this article in the New York Times, all eight cells in the charred battery sustained varying degrees of thermal damage.

So, irrespective of what the 'experts' find in future weeks and months, there's clear evidence that Boeing has not successfully designed a battery that does not present a fire danger. Nor is it likely that the FAA will cut them much slack if they come back any time soon with an "All fixed now!" pronouncement.

The Times article goes on to report that the very procedures the FAA uses to certify aircraft safety are now headed for a federal investigation and for Senate hearings.

Again, there just does not appear to be anything the 'experts' can find that will cause the FAA to re-certify the 787 anytime soon.

And, the longer it drags out, the more damage is done to the reputation of the aircraft, the reputation of the company, and perhaps the whole concept of massive outsourcing.

If there could be something - anything - that the 'experts' could find to circumvent this process, I'd be delighted to hear it.

All that said, if I were given the opportunity for a free trip in a 787 today, I'd take it. Either Bangkok or Rio would do. But I think it will be quite a long time before I'll have that opportunity. This has moved from the area of 'expert' findings to one of public perception and political cover.

That's my admittedly non-expert opinion anyway and one which I would be only too happy to have proved wrong.

[RA1]

AS can no doubt explain how and why engineers rely upon computerized solutions better than I can but the pictures above do not exclude the "protection circuits" from "frying" that battery. Perhaps you will notice that the battery box, a safety device, did contain the battery, which is what it was designed to do.

I am not an apologist for Boeing or anyone else but I realize in this modern world there are plenty of problems that are sometimes not immediately explainable. I also believe that our system, while not perfect by any means, will surmount these problems. I think you are inclined to wait and see, also.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest rimchair]

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?

Best regards,

RA1

Because LaHood doesn't want to look hapless again?

[Guest rimchair]

People have such short memories. We had these incidents with the 777 and the first Airbus. Any time there is a jump in technology there are things that go wrong. It is usually a short time span to sort out what is the problem and then everyone forgets about it.

So will be the case with this airplane.

I am scheduled on one January 31 and I fully expect the plane to be flying and I am not the least bit worried.

""By now, we're all familiar with the woes of the 787 caused by lithium-ion battery fires. But what about the woes of the people who are supposed to be traveling on one of these Dreamliners in the near future?

Here is a summary of each airline's alternate schedules and 787 replacement plans (info with which I've recently become intimately familliar since my day job is running anemergency air-travel assistance company). This can change quickly, of course, so I highly recommend keeping an eye on Airline Route, which has been on top of all the changes.""

http://www.cntraveler.com/daily-traveler/2013/01/787-dreamliner-passenger-rerouting-flight-schedules-012213

[lookin]

I think you are inclined to wait and see, also.

Actually, I'd love to see this all fixed up and behind us sooner rather than later. My only horse in this race is to see whether or not I can define the problem correctly.

As I said earlier, and probably too often, I think the problem has gone well beyond hardware issues, and is now a matter of navigating a regulatory and political system in which they have created embarrassment and mistrust.

I expect Boeing is as skilled as anyone at doing this, but I doubt they have any idea how long it will take them, even after the hardware issues are run to ground.

As you say, I am not only inclined to wait, but will probably take the liberty of remaining nearly supine.

[RA1]

lookin-

I think I missed the thrust of your first post. I was thinking of how to solve the technical problems and you were suggesting political problems. In my personal experience, the manufacturers and the FAA take turns being embarrassed about their decisions and results. Therefore, if "outsiders" meaning various politicians keep their interference to a minimum, the solution will be forthcoming sooner rather than later. It is "expected" that the NTSB will horn in with their two cents worth but that may not be as much of a hindrance as some others might be.

As is often the case, the MSM is overplaying this whole issue. So, add them to the list of hinderers.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

I risk insulting friends and shibboleths that I subscribe to alike. But excelsior:

The certification process is broken, beyond what the popular press has any notion of. That is a technical assertion, not a political or even business one. The fix will be some time in coming. If Boeing's current mess can contribute to that fixing, I with many more worthy will be grateful. I have said why before: that the FAA being a gummint org cannnot afford to keep up with the (at first money-losing) technological advancements that product manufacturers have to engineer and manufacture into their products to stay competitive.

[RA1]

I, for one, am not insulted. What is, is. If I had any solution to the technical, business or political problems Boeing is facing (along with the whole world in a sense) I would not hide them under a bushel basket, so to speak.

The bottom line is it is tiresome for the MSM and other nay sayers to try to exploit things of which they know little.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

The bottom line is it is tiresome for the MSM and other nay sayers to try to exploit things of which they know little.

How else would they procure eyeballs, in this day and age of reigning public ignorance?

The last mainstream paper capable of reporting complex business and technology stories accurately and with right emphasis on all the moving parts no matter how condensed the column inches allotted, namely The Wall Street Journal, alas looks to be slowly senescing under current ownership. Sic transit gloria.

[Guest rimchair]

The hapless LaHood says bye-bye! (And we are all applauding?)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, the only Republican still left in President Barack Obama's first-term Cabinet, says he plans to leave the Obama administration.

The former congressman from Illinois says in an interview with The Associated Press that he intends to remain at the department until his successor is confirmed.

LaHood has helped the Obama administration steer through a number of safety measures and highway projects during the past four years. His record has included steps to curb distracted driving, promote high-speed rail projects and improve roads and bridges.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates also was a Republican.

LaHood says he will not run for public office in his home state of Illinois, saying he believes "you should go out while they're applauding."!

[AdamSmith]

A little bit more balanced view. Harsh without being hysterical.

Boeing 787: The biggest lemon in history?

Far from it. In fact, many of the concerns over the new aircraft are vastly overstated.

By Cyrus Sanati, contributor

FORTUNE -- The recent worries over the safety and soundness of Boeing's new 787
aircraft appear vastly overblown. The unfortunate series of technical
glitches that occurred this week are not only minor in nature, but are
also cheap to fix—that is, if any system-wide repair is even necessary.
That doesn't mean Boeing is out of the woods.

It hasn't been the greatest week for Boeing (BA).

The aircraft maker saw its stock tumble as much as 7% at one point this
week due to three separate technical incidents involving its relatively
brand new 787 aircraft. The first incident Monday morning involved a
fire breaking out on a Japanese Air Line (JAL) aircraft that was sitting
empty on the tarmac in Boston. The next day another JAL 787 in Boston
was forced to turn back to the gate after its pilots discovered a fuel
leak. And if that weren't enough, an All Nippon Airways 787 in Japan was
forced to cancel its flight when the pilots received an error message
related to the aircraft's braking system.

While a fire on board an aircraft and a leaky fuel system are
concerning— especially given how sensitive the public can be about
mechanical issues on an aircraft—the way the incidents have been
portrayed have set off an unnecessary panic in general and among
investors. For example, preliminary reports by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) indicate that the fire broke out in
one of the aircraft's two lithium-ion batteries, which are only engaged
when the plane is on the ground and never in flight. The fire was small,
creeping only two feet from its source, making it far from the raging
inferno of people's nightmares.

The auxiliary battery may have overheated due to faulty wiring
causing it to overheat. United Air Lines, the only US carrier to fly the
new aircraft, reported that the wiring to lithium-ion batteries on one
of its six brand new 787s was done improperly. If this turns out to be
the root cause of the fire, then it would be a quick and cheap fix.

Still, this isn't the first time that Boeing has had troubles with
its "revolutionary" aircraft. Indeed, the Dreamliner program has been
marred by a number of annoying technical glitches and hiccups since its
inception a decade ago. But past troubles as well as those that occurred
this week were all mechanical in nature and were not linked to the
aircraft's radical design. Indeed, if a more fundamental design flaw was
suspected in any way the Federal Aviation Administration would have
grounded all 787s. An investigation is underway however.

This is an important difference because mechanical flaws are usually
cheap and easy to solve while design flaws are potentially devastating.
For example, a design flaw could force a potential recall of the 49 or
so 787s that are already in use. It would also mean going back to the
drawing board—a very expensive drawing board—to recalibrate a jet that
is already three years behind on its original delivery schedule.

But while it is unlikely to be a design flaw, Boeing shouldn't get
off easily. All the mechanical issues that have marred the 787 program
over the years have now become inexcusable. All this talk about the
aircraft having to "work out the kinks" or having "teething issues" and
such is getting old. Could you imagine if an automaker told its
customers that the small fire and fuel leakage on their new car was
normal because it's new and was simply "working out the kinks?"

The original source of the 787's delays and technical difficulties
laid in Boeing's disastrous plan to outsource the aircraft's production
and some of its design across dozens of suppliers
from around the globe. Boeing learned the hard way that without
control over the critical parts of its supply chain it left itself
vulnerable to a number of annoying issues, such as delays. It also had
to deal with quality control issues as parts arrived that weren't up to
snuff while others simply didn't fit right.

Boeing has taken back full control of the production process in the
US but it still relies on foreign suppliers, like GS Yuasa, the maker of
the 787s lithium-ion batteries, to deliver a quality product to them.
Boeing needs to step up its quality assurance on its assembly line now
before it ramps up production this year to 10 planes per month. If not,
then all these little hiccups could give the aircraft the unfair
reputation of being Boeing's big fat lemon.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/11/boeing-787-the-biggest-lemon-in-history/?iid=obnetwork

[RA1]

"Could you imagine if an automaker tolds its' customers that the small fire and fuel leakage on their new car was normal because it is new and was simply 'working out the kinks'?" Isn't that what Ford told its customers in essence about the Pinto? What about Chevrolet and the Corvair? One of these is now collectible and the other junk.

I think many would be surprised to learn of the huge number of technical problems had by all car manufacturers, only some of which result in large, well publicized recalls. Virtually all of them are found after the car fleet has been in the hands of customers for quite a while.

No excuse for any of the above but it is what it is.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

Perhaps one of the reasons the Forbes article is so relatively serene is that it was written nearly three weeks ago, before the NTSB got its mitts on the innards of the miscreant battery. They've since confirmed 'thermal runaway' in at least three of the eight cells in the battery. Although the problem may have started in only one of the cells, Boeing's lead engineer had stated that 'protective circuitry' was in place to prevent problems from affecting more than one cell, and he was clearly wrong.

It's easy to see why Boeing wanted to use lithium ion batteries, as they offer a couple of key advantages. First, relative to their size and weight, they put out a lot of power and this is important in a design where weight and space are at a premium. Second, they can be made up as flat, flexible 'pouches' and rolled or folded into a wide variety of sizes and shapes which is important when trying to stuff batteries into whatever nooks and crannies are available in a tightly packed airplane.

But a key downside to lithium ion batteries, as Boeing, Sony, Lenovo and others have found to their misfortune is that, when an internal short develops, all hell breaks loose. This can take the form of a toasty laptop, molten plastic, or, in Boeing's case, 'spewing electrolytes'.

Spewing Electrolytes, Batman! Will it ever fly?

It seems that Boeing decided, back in 2005, to use cobalt oxide as the cathode in its lithium ion batteries, as it provided the highest power for the weight and size. While there are today safer materials, they will weigh more and, probably much more important, take up more space. And, since Boeing has designed its adjoining subsystems around the present battery, replacing it with one that's larger and heavier will almost certainly require a redesign of at least some of the surrounding subsystems to make room for a larger battery.

And, if that's the case, a recall seems likely.

Maybe an easier fix would be to put a safer, less powerful battery in the existing space and either make do, or supplement it with a secondary battery somewhere else. Maybe in the pilot's cup holder.

In any event, as quoted in the article linked above, "[boeing] has formed teams consisting of hundreds of engineering and technical experts who are working around the clock with the sole focus of resolving the issue and returning the 787 fleet to flight status."

As well they should.

[Guest rimchair]

Elon Musk speaks, and Boeing has rebuffed his offer of assistance.

The founder of Tesla Motors has said the batteries used by Boeing in its Dreamliner aircraft are 'inherently unsafe' - after it emerged that an airline replaced the batteries ten times before all 787s were grounded.

Boeing was placed under increasing pressure today after it emerged the plane manufacturer knew of previous problems with the batteries.

All Nippon Airways (ANA) said it had to replace the batteries on its 787 aircraft ten times because they failed to charge properly or showed other problems.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270510/Boeing-Dreamliner-batteries-inherently-unsafe-says-Tesla-car-company-founder-emerges-airline-replaced-TEN-times-fleet-grounded.html#ixzz2JW14P9fx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Guest rimchair]

As KMEM reads Michael Crichton's "Airframe", methinks it is time he talks to his peeps:

The novel opens aboard Hong Kong-based Transpacific Airlines Flight 545, a Norton Aircraft-manufactured N-22 wide-body aircraft, flying from Hong Kong to Denver. An incident occurs on board the plane about a half-hour west of the California coast and the pilot requests an emergency landing at Los Angeles International Airport, stating that the plane encountered "severe turbulence" in flight. The pilot gives air traffic control conflicting information regarding the type and severity of injuries, but does inform them that crew members were hurt and "three passengers are dead."

The incident seems inexplicable. The N-22 is a plane with an excellent safety record and the pilot is highly trained, making the possibility of human error unlikely. Passengers and flight crew give concurring accounts of the circumstances of the disaster, and the most likely explanation turns out to be a technical problem that was thought to have been fixed years before. As the vice-president of Quality Assurance at Norton Aircraft, it is Casey Singleton's job to try to protect the design's (and Norton's) reputation, especially since it jeopardizes a crucial aircraft purchase deal with China. However, not only does she have to deal with a ratings-hungry media intent on assigning blame for the incident, she must also deal with Bob Richman, an arrogant and suspicious junior executive assigned to assist her. All the while, she has to navigate the murky politics of the factory union and try and soothe the tempers of disgruntled Norton workers who fear the fallout from the incident will bankrupt the company and cost them their jobs..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airframe_(novel)

[RA1]

Apparently gloats will do anything to keep this thread alive. I wonder if he read the book or even a synopsis. If so, he didn't understand it.

The story line is similar to an actual 747 flight that encountered turbulence which was caused by a captain's error. In the book the airframe damage is caused by the captain allowing an unauthorized person to "fly" the aircraft. The book could have benefited from some expert technical help. For instance, on the route described, the nearest the airliner would get to LAX would be Denver itself. Such a flight normally "coasts" in around the Aleutian Islands in Alaska. Not sure if gloats would benefit from any technical help himself.

The only similarity I see between this novel and the Boeing current situation is that the novel airliner did not in fact have any technical problem, something not yet proven with Boeing.

Like many novels, this one is mainly about the interplay among the various characters with the "usual" lack of good technical advice. Either a lack or the author failed to take advantage and used "poetic" license instead.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

As AS rereads 2001, hethinks it is time he disconnected his laptop and smartphone before they refuse to let him back in the house.

[RA1]

Too late.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest rimchair]

The Screamliner saga continues, with a single flight tomorrow of a recently painted 787. Who's livery is on this bird ??

"The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has given Boeing permission to conduct a ferry flight of a Dreamliner 787 tomorrow.

The one-time flight will have no passengers on board. The plane has been in Fort Worth, Tex., for painting as part of the production process and will be returning to the airplane manufacturers' Everett, Wash., factory.

The flight will be the first since the FAA and other agencies around the world grounded the 50-plane fleet Jan. 16. That came after a lithium-ion battery aboard an All Nippon Airways flight caught fire in Boston nine days earlier."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2013/02/06/boeing-dreamliner-ferry-flight/1897189/

[AdamSmith]

I think you should sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over.

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/HAL_eye.jpg"]http://www.daviddarling.info/images/HAL_eye.jpg[/url]

[RA1]

I think you should sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over.

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/HAL_eye.jpg"]http://www.daviddarling.info/images/HAL_eye.jpg[/url]

Perhaps you have the wrong order and a relative impossibility.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest rimchair]

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.

Best regards,

RA1

Okay Junior Bird Man, where is the 'fix', that is today (17JAN), or 'very, very soon'? The Screamliner claims (yet again) another casualty.

LOT has truly screwed itself betting on this aircraft. From your very own conservative / Murdoch owned / non-hysterical Wall St. Journal:

""WARSAW—No airline staked more on Boeing Co.'s BA -1.12% new 787 Dreamliner than LOT Polish Airlines SA, a troubled state-owned carrier that embraced the jet as means of gaining more lucrative, long-haul travelers. Now, its hopes for the plane threaten to turn into a nightmare. ""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906004578287963634247382.html

[TampaYankee]

This aircraft is going to be the cat's meow. Any large complex new technology system is going to have birthing issues. It is the nature of complexity and the finite limitations of human capacity. We can do great complex things but not overnight and not the first time out of the chute. We learn and refine as we go. So it is here, but ultimately this will be a magnificent advance in air transportation, nay sayers not withstanding.

[Guest hitoallusa]

I agree listen to the rocket scientist.. I think the problem will get resolved...