Donkey 497. Your point is well taken. My father-in-law, now long since retired, was Head of Production Research at one of the UKs major manufacturers back in the 60,70s and when told about this was horrified. He said there would have been no attempt to "marry" the parts but a complete re-analysis of the drawings, fabrication techniques and material studies before ensuring that the offending section - always assuming only one was incorrect - was remanufactured or altered to match spec. I can only assume that that joint in the airframe is now carrying an undesigned pre-load.
I would like to know that airframe number.
I recall a chinesse saying about "I wish you not to live in intresting times". At a times I think it is right.
Isn't the Boeing 787 situation similar to the A380 problems with the poorly design wiring? Definitely history repeating itself.. And also if computers failed to produce good matching components, should we trust them on the estimation of all the other features that make the 787 so innovative, or are we going to see more surprises during flight testing?
I think the saying was intended more as a curse "May you live in Interesting Times...." rather than a hope of peace and quiet.
Quote:
Isn't the Boeing 787 situation similar to the A380 problems with the poorly design wiring? Definitely history repeating itself.. And also if computers failed to produce good matching components, should we trust them on the estimation of all the other features that make the 787 so innovative, or are we going to see more surprises during flight testing?
I don't think the two are directly comparable and I really wouldn't look to the computers as a source of blame. At the end of the day, they are only a tool in the hands of the Design Engineers and Drafters. I would suspect that the real root cause of both Airbus and Boeing problems is down to holes in the design process. I would also suspect that these holes are attributable to the length of the product design and life cycle. As the life cycle has stretched out for existing designs, there is now a severe lack of personnel in each organisation who have been involved in the development of a brand new design.
It is inevitable that during design of a new product that details are overlooked and snags occur as a result. However, if you have been involved in a similar development previously, you know what to look out for & what was missed the last time & either correct these omissions or allow for them to be worked on at a later time. The problem occurs when you have a long time between product developments the guys who come up through the organisation during the design process tend to either be near retirement age, have moved on or into management positions before the next development comes up, so you lose their experience. The guys who have moved on are no longer available to you, The guys in management have largely lost their design skills and have forgotten the details and minutiaie of the process and the few left who are nearing retirement are usually not considered for the new project as they won't be available for the duration of the work. There's also very few companies who have a formalised method of passing on or making available to the next project any lessons learned from the previous work.
What makes matters worse at the present time (& probably for the next decade or so) is that there was a great reduction in the numbers of engineering graduates in the late 80's and 90's due to a focus on Accountancy & other service sector careers (overhead generating jobs) coupled with an up tunr in their pay rates whilst Engineering rates took a nose dive & are still playing catch-up. As a result, there are relatively few engineers of my own age who have amassed a significant level of experience, but are still intimitely involved in the design process and who are involved in educating the next generation of practicing Engineers.
There are a whole load of graduates coming through, but they lack experience and in some cases the degree courses that award a (5 year) Masters level now, lack some of the course content that was in my basic (3 year) Batchelors degree, never mind the Honours part of the course.
Net result:
Loads of fresh new computer drivers who lack the experience to know if & when they are getting bad results from their PC or if they are setting things up incorrectly.
Too few guys left in charge with hands on knowledge to effectively manage & nurture the new intake.
Much of the best of the experienced personnel is walking out the door for higher paid jobs in management using none of their engineering expertise.
The remaining experienced are largely being passed over when it comes to setting up the project in the first instance so there is a bigger chance of things being missed.
One consolation and potential advantage that Airbus has however, is that they have an overlap between the A380 development and the development work for the A400 Military and also the A350 Civilain Projects. They just need to find a way to take experiences & personnel from the A380 project and feed them into these other two projects. However, this is not an approach which is conducive to initial cost reduction, but does contribute to significant cost savings towards the end of development, certification & through life. As a result up front cosst rise which the accountants oppose as it makes the balance sheet costs for personnel look slightly expensive over one or two years (& lower cost over the remainder of the project) rather than sort of OK/passable over ten to fifteen years.
I will now put my soapbox away until next year, but as Interpreter says, I'd really like to know the Hull number for the parts that kicked off this discussion.
I hate to say I told you so, especially when it's something which is dumping from a great height on so many people, but the official explanation from Network Rail (& the Government) for today's chaos in the rail system due to repair & upgrades over running by 300% [and maybe more by the time they eventually finish] is a lack of qualified and experienced engineering personnel to carry out the work. You'd have thought that before ripping up one of the major transport arteries for the country, they'd have made sure that they had everything & everyone in place to do the job in the toime that they'd allowed themselves. Failing that, you'd hope that they would have told the rail companies that they weren't going to finish in time a bit quicker than just 4 hours before services were due to re-start.
If this performance keeps up and spreads throughout the UK , we'll be so deep in the brown stuff we'll all need snorkels.
There is a lack of quality Leadership in British life in general.
Flapping around in the wind, Alison Bell demonstates these fudgy, victim orientated attitudes very well.
British Airways plans to ground part of its fleet from October to cut costs and stem potential losses caused by the crippling price of fuel.
Confirmation of the move, from chief executive Willie Walsh, comes as analysts warn BA may only break even or worse for the next two years, despite having reported one of its best year’s trading last week.
The sudden reversal has been caused by rapidly rising fuel prices – jet fuel went through the $1,300-a-tonne mark last week – and sluggish demand.
BA has already selectively slashed fares across the Atlantic, offering returns to New York for £249, a base fare of £30 once taxes and fuel surcharges are stripped out. “It is a bloodbath,” said one industry executive.
Scheduled airlines rarely ground aircraft, preferring to keep their expensive fleets in the air, although Ryanair has kept planes on the ground during slack periods. Walsh said: “You should certainly expect us to do that this winter.”
The airline would park its oldest, least fuel-efficient aircraft. Walsh said this would be likely to include its older Boeing 747s, 767s and 737s.
BA last week reported strong annual results for 2007-8, hitting its long-held goal of a 10% profit margin, paying staff £35m in bonuses and the first dividend in seven years.
Walsh did not take his £700,000 bonus, saying it was not appropriate in the wake of the chaotic opening of Heathrow’s terminal 5.
The fall-out from the T5 debacle will dent BA’s figures this year. The company has guided analysts to expect a hit of a further £40m-£50m on top of the £18m in the last financial year.
Half of the hit would be in extra costs, half in lost revenue. Walsh told analysts that T5 was working smoothly, although the moves of additional flights to the terminal would still be later than first planned.
Fuel will be the biggest headache for BA. If oil continues at $120 a barrel, BA’s profits could be wiped out this year. Chris Avery, analyst at JP Morgan, said that if oil remained above $110 a barrel, “investors need to be very conscious that BA could make a loss for one or both of the next two years”.
BA is hoping tough times will help it take the lead in industry consolidation. Walsh said that he had resumed negotiations with American Airlines and Continental Airlines of the US with the aim of creating a transatlantic alliance.
Previous attempts have been rebuffed by American regulators, but Walsh said he was hopeful the difficult trading environment would clear the way for a deal. Pilots begin a legal challenge to BA’s plans to start an “airline within an airline” tomorrow. The company wants to start flights between Paris and New York next month with a new subsidiary called Open Skies.
The British Airline Pilots Association does not oppose the services, but is against the planned use of flight crews from outside the main BA pilot group.
Pilots voted in favour of striking over the issue earlier this year, but they have put the action on hold pending this week’s High Court challenge.
Difficult times ahead for all of us involved in aviation , not sure how BA's Open Skies offshoot stacks up now. Also heard rumour that the 318's from LCY may now be pushed back a couple of years.
Not too sure about these analysts though guessing the future oil prices, i've seen a few in the press saying we should expect $150 by the year end and a few more saying we should expect it to drop back to $100 by the year end.
It may be worse than one may think. When it's cheaper to not do something than to do it, those who do, won't. What about Leases, slots, leave, contracts, performance bonds and penalties? SharePrice? CEO perks? Where to park, maintain? She/it.
Also heard rumour that the 318's from LCY may now be pushed back a couple of years.
Interesting, saw a planning sheet showing start at end of Mar 2009, and then ob Friday saw that delivery dates are Jul 2009. So something doesn't add up.
$200 oil is still very cheap. 200/160= $1,25 per liter of oil.
1 barrel of oil produces as much energy as 12 workers during 1 year, and at $200 it is still cheaper than Coca Cola.
The problem is that we are used to cheap energy, and this cheap energy is essential especially for aviation. But with production stagnant at approx 85mb/day, and demand rising despite record prices, there might be some dark clouds ahead. And not just for 2009 and 2010.
787 bits "forced" together...
.
Linear Mode
