Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

FAA Grounds 787s

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

FAA Grounds 787s

Old 4th Feb 2013, 10:56
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,589
Paxboy has got it right. When you outsource anything, make sure that you have in-house the capability to specify and check what the outsourcer is up to.
One Engineering Co that I used to work for then added up the costs of the proper supervision of outsourcers that it did - and decided that for any Novel design, it would do all the detailed spec and design in house, thereby equipping it with the capability to specify and check what the outsourced producer was up to.......
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 11:15
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 93
I'm a bit confused about the relevance of outsourcing to this specific issue (battery meltdowns).

Does Boeing make the batteries and/or chargers on any of their airplanes?
fizz57 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 11:25
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
@fizz57

It's not that simple, just NOT the battery. And this kind of battery isn't also simple at all.

To my knowledge, there are 4 companies involved for 787 batteries :

- GS YUASA (J), cells
- Kanto Aircraft Instrument (J), PCB for balancing/monitoring
- THALES (F), battery housing/assembling
- Securaplane (USA), charger

All have to work together to make it work....
hetfield is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 11:26
  #604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 27
Battery = kinetic energy = potential threat.
Only if you drop it.

I think you meant:

Battery = potential energy = potential threat.
netstruggler is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 12:03
  #605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 165
No, potential energy is what the battery has before you drop it (becoming kinetic energy on the way down).

Chemical energy is my bid.

Last edited by Mk 1; 4th Feb 2013 at 12:04.
Mk 1 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 13:19
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 676
JAL wants to discuss 787 grounding compensation with Boeing
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 13:25
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Age: 68
Posts: 93
Potential/Chemical Energy?

Strictly speaking, both are right. "Potential" energy describes a group of energy types where some action, e.g. striking a match or dropping an object, is required to "release" the energy. Thus, I would describe the type of energy as chemical potential energy. In fairness, this is usually abbreviated to just chemical energy.

Sorry for the thread drift. Back to Boeing's woes.....
StainesFS is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 14:10
  #608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Briefly......

John Farley....

Quote...
My reading of the article is that it suggests it is very dangerous to outsource the design, development and manufacture of elements of a complex system before the interactions between the various elements are completely understood. Indeed it queries whether you (cannot) even write a decent outsourcing contract until all the interactions are understood.

my underline.

Is that your meaning? Did you mean "can write"?

Picky? Perhaps. My complaint is that the thrust of the article implies Boeing screwed it up, for reasons the author outlines.

They did not. Not so far as can be determined. It is not inherently "very dangerous" to outsource or modularize. The author goes to great pains to explain what is obvious; that there is risk in building complex systems.

Enough.....

Last edited by Lyman; 4th Feb 2013 at 14:14.
Lyman is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 16:24
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,136
My complaint is that the thrust of the article implies Boeing screwed it up, for reasons the author outlines.

They did not. Not so far as can be determined
Erm,
Jim Albaugh interview & lecture:
One bracing lesson that Albaugh was unusually candid about: the 787's global outsourcing strategy — specifically intended to slash Boeing's costs — backfired completely.

"We spent a lot more money in trying to recover than we ever would have spent if we'd tried to keep the key technologies closer to home," Albaugh told his large audience of students and faculty.

Boeing was forced to compensate, support or buy out the partners it brought in to share the cost of the new jet's development, and now bears the brunt of additional costs due to the delays.
Good enough for me...
It is not inherently "very dangerous" to outsource or modularize.
It is when you don't do it right as some posters have quite clearly pointed out.

As to the batteries and overall electrical system, as hetfield points out, it is complicated, made more complicated by a worldwide supply chain besides being cutting edge technology. Not only that, it was not among the first problems to surface, fuselage sections not mating properly, wrong fasteners used, lack of fasteners and some structural concerns all came first and were show stoppers at the time. Boeing had to focus on these problems as testing, certification and customer deliveries slipped away to some unknown time in the future... Were there any early signs (red flags) that there might be problems with batteries or the electrical system? Hmm...
Turbine D is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 16:36
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
hetfield, and I, I believe, are discussing SAFETY, as are almost all the others here.

The author, John Farley and yourself are talking money. Business.

I believe there is a stark difference in the two topics.

Are they related? Definitely, but my takeaway is that HERE, safety is the issue.

Allow me to be the next one to claim the topic is OT.

And I apologize for bringing it up.
Lyman is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 16:45
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: montpellier
Posts: 3
Lyman !

There is a VERY strong link between money, business and safety !

Sincerly yours

Last edited by phil34160; 4th Feb 2013 at 16:46.
phil34160 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 16:48
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Are they related? Definitely, but my takeaway is that HERE, safety is the issue.
Lyman is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 17:00
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cleveland, OH
Age: 61
Posts: 2
Thought this article might be of interest, specifically how a Boeing engineer says that battery problems are just the surface of Boeing's problems with the electrical system. He says the main power panels are "Radio Shack" quality, made with cheap components and plastic parts that are prone to failure.

Boeing 787’s problems blamed on outsourcing, lack of oversight | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
Peter643 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 17:52
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,136
So Lyman,

Focusing on SAFETY,

For the 787 battery system, how do you ensure that safety will not be impinged upon when you outsource to four companies in three different countries in the world various components that make up the overall system?
Turbine D is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 18:51
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Risk Assessment. Risk/Benefit. Benefit assessment. Decision. Contract Language, development. Assurance, Performance. Warranty, Surety.

Request for Proposal, Request for Integrated Proposal.

Histories, Socio Cultural Analyses, Organizational parameters, Fluidity.

CRITICAL PATH. Organic Dispersal, Response Time, etc. Management authorities, scope, and perimeters, etc.

Funding Lock. Financials, Politicals, Risks.

Focal and geographical Leadership mechanism, ETC.
Response, Linkage, DATA,

Each division of the parent Company accompiishes all this subject to a synthesis prior to Contract by the Board, the Principals, and the Divisional leadership.

Boeing did all this, and much much more. This is SKELETAL.

No Company could do this but a gigantic Corporation like BOEING, the cost of the invisibles is prohibitive.
Lyman is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 19:06
  #616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: montpellier
Posts: 3
James Surowiecki: The Trouble with Boeing’s 787 : The New Yorker

no comment !
phil34160 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 19:26
  #617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Altrincham
Age: 53
Posts: 355
Are they still grounded?
donnlass is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 19:41
  #618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,639
Grounded? Can't even get ground power on.
TURIN is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 21:08
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Altrincham
Age: 53
Posts: 355


Class lol
donnlass is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 22:26
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,136
Lyman,

Some good content in your Post # 623. Lets me try to put an overall plan together and organize the steps involved. Lets use the battery outsource as the prime example. Lets assume Boeing had never done business with them before and YUASA may be or not a good source for the LiIon battery. Since Boeing does not design or produce LiIon batteries, the first chore would be to develop an outline of what is required of the battery, all the attributes, must and must nots.

Steps: (Pretend you are Boeing)

1. Identify the basic battery requirements and performance expectations.

2. Identify believed to be capable supplier/suppliers (YUASA) and others (single source justification required if more sources exist)

3. Visit YUASA's battery plant, meet with management personnel, include a plant tour, generally discuss the program.

4. Establish that YUASA has an ISO 9001 Certificate (Quality Systems Management Requirements) of Approval. (If not, find another supplier)

5. Establish a Proprietary Agreement to protect sensitive data needed to be shared by both parties, submit to YUASA for agreement.

6. Establish Terms & Conditions for a Purchase Order, submit to YUASA for agreement.

7. Upon approval of the PA and T&Cs by YUASA, furnish to YUASA the Boeing general quality procedures and the general process required to gain approval for the LiIon battery, establish YUASA can and will be capable and willing to proceed knowing these items.

8. Send a request for quote to YUASA for the battery identifying quantity to be purchased and scheduling/delivery information.

9. Upon receipt of the quote from YUASA, Boeing sourcing, quality engineering, value engineering, and systems integration meet to finalize go/no go, further negotiations, etc.

10. If a go, Boeing Sourcing issues a purchase order to YUASA (This is the Contract).

This is Part 1 of a multiple step process, the balance will follow in another posting.
Turbine D is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.