FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Turbine D
My first step upon being given an office, a budget, and a staff would be to develop an in house synthesis of a generic product similar in scope and timeline that I could use henceforth as a model, to create a standard; I would not waste my time on a one off. Once spent, the investment better payoff well beyond its limited near term value. It would have a label, an identity.
This is the 'organic'. Consider its corollary, 'stem cell'. The secrecy involved would be paramount.
You would not understand my choice of support staff and peers. You are an engineer.
Once created, sequestered, and given life, we have an organic model of an in house product, a 'Back up Battery', with a history, a code, and a workable method for a production line. But at this point, the Battery is an icon, not a battery.
My night time work would be to become more fluent in Japanese, and customs. The schedule would be superhuman. And I will have fallen in love with the project, literally. So too would my staff....
What I have created in 6-8 months will be completely applicable to other discrete products and systems, and if successful, will be the germ of further development, history, and growth....
The hardest work is the foundation. And the most rewarding. We can build a "battery" now, as well as can our affiliate, sole source, or successful bidder.
The key is leadership, and the leader serves. If it is not intuitive, it cannot be done. And nothing is impossible.
Next?
My first step upon being given an office, a budget, and a staff would be to develop an in house synthesis of a generic product similar in scope and timeline that I could use henceforth as a model, to create a standard; I would not waste my time on a one off. Once spent, the investment better payoff well beyond its limited near term value. It would have a label, an identity.
This is the 'organic'. Consider its corollary, 'stem cell'. The secrecy involved would be paramount.
You would not understand my choice of support staff and peers. You are an engineer.
Once created, sequestered, and given life, we have an organic model of an in house product, a 'Back up Battery', with a history, a code, and a workable method for a production line. But at this point, the Battery is an icon, not a battery.
My night time work would be to become more fluent in Japanese, and customs. The schedule would be superhuman. And I will have fallen in love with the project, literally. So too would my staff....
What I have created in 6-8 months will be completely applicable to other discrete products and systems, and if successful, will be the germ of further development, history, and growth....
The hardest work is the foundation. And the most rewarding. We can build a "battery" now, as well as can our affiliate, sole source, or successful bidder.
The key is leadership, and the leader serves. If it is not intuitive, it cannot be done. And nothing is impossible.
Next?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman,
What I have given you so far is industrial real world, not hypothetical or academic theory, it is what is used and if used properly, will most often ensure a situation such as what Boeing is experiencing doesn't happen in a "blue moon". Much of what you suggest is a given, we know how to do business with the Japanese and their business customs, we don't have 6-8 months to fool around.
Do you want to go on, or are we wasting time here?
What I have given you so far is industrial real world, not hypothetical or academic theory, it is what is used and if used properly, will most often ensure a situation such as what Boeing is experiencing doesn't happen in a "blue moon". Much of what you suggest is a given, we know how to do business with the Japanese and their business customs, we don't have 6-8 months to fool around.
Do you want to go on, or are we wasting time here?
Last edited by Turbine D; 5th Feb 2013 at 00:34.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter643,
Thanks for the article, it gets at the essence of root cause of the problem, it's not rocket science, it's the systems, the procedures, the organizational arrangements that are in place that preclude things like this from happening...
Thanks for the article, it gets at the essence of root cause of the problem, it's not rocket science, it's the systems, the procedures, the organizational arrangements that are in place that preclude things like this from happening...
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TurbineD
Again the scold. Are you assuming Boeing cannot have done the simple things you list? We see the problem in different ways. Boeing's crisis is not in reading specifications off a standard drill sheet.....
Boeing's crisis is in leadership, and in a lack of innovative ways to do new things in command, in design, in bold new approaches.
You cannot out Boeing, Boeing. Their failure was in confidence, fossilized corporate structure, and an obeisance to archaic methods and approach. They were not up to the work. Their imagination was held captive by a weak underlayment of identity....
As this is a technical forum, you prevail, my approach is less quantitative, and I was fearful you would not accept my way.
It took Boeing eight years to build what is a troubled and iconoclastic icon of how to fumble, and kick the ball whilst trying to recover it.
It took NASA the same eight years to go to the moon.
Boeing did it your way....Everything Boeing did stank of fear. it still does.
Leadership. Boeing have lots of good engineers.
Each time you build a Battery, you start over and build something else. Everyone's job in Aerospace needs be concurrent, not repetitious and formulaic the goal is an Aircraft, a unified and very nearly living thing.
Someone needs to see the gestalt, not the parts.
Be well
Again the scold. Are you assuming Boeing cannot have done the simple things you list? We see the problem in different ways. Boeing's crisis is not in reading specifications off a standard drill sheet.....
Boeing's crisis is in leadership, and in a lack of innovative ways to do new things in command, in design, in bold new approaches.
You cannot out Boeing, Boeing. Their failure was in confidence, fossilized corporate structure, and an obeisance to archaic methods and approach. They were not up to the work. Their imagination was held captive by a weak underlayment of identity....
As this is a technical forum, you prevail, my approach is less quantitative, and I was fearful you would not accept my way.
It took Boeing eight years to build what is a troubled and iconoclastic icon of how to fumble, and kick the ball whilst trying to recover it.
It took NASA the same eight years to go to the moon.
Boeing did it your way....Everything Boeing did stank of fear. it still does.
Leadership. Boeing have lots of good engineers.
Each time you build a Battery, you start over and build something else. Everyone's job in Aerospace needs be concurrent, not repetitious and formulaic the goal is an Aircraft, a unified and very nearly living thing.
Someone needs to see the gestalt, not the parts.
Be well
Last edited by Lyman; 5th Feb 2013 at 01:03.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman, there's an old joke (but also a truism) that used to say something along the lines of... the best airliner in the world would be designed by Lockheed, marketed by MD - and built by Boeing.
The last nail in the coffin of that old saw appears to be an aircraft that was designed by Boeing, marketed by Boeing, and built by no-one in particular...
The last nail in the coffin of that old saw appears to be an aircraft that was designed by Boeing, marketed by Boeing, and built by no-one in particular...
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ranger1
I think that's pretty close, but Boeing's Dream was hobbled before the ink was dry.
Outsourcing is fundamentally a political process, which means it is unpredictable, hazardous, and inordinately expensive. There are unknowns that resist mitigation, (Lithium?) and other problems that are merely costly. Vought.
I mean it when i say that leadership is the grail. Those who trust process are doves in the gunsight. Process is the first casualty on a rudderless ship.
I had the good fortune to reupholster the two front seats in an EC121 back in the day. The Connie is incomparable. I got to poke around a 747 long ago, in the shop. What a glorious beast.
Marketing is for people I simply do not understand, and cannot relate to. Which is weird, because my last twenty years have been leadership roles. Leadership is non verbal salesmanship. It is an intuitive journey; it can be learned, but it cannot be taught.
Thanks
I think that's pretty close, but Boeing's Dream was hobbled before the ink was dry.
Outsourcing is fundamentally a political process, which means it is unpredictable, hazardous, and inordinately expensive. There are unknowns that resist mitigation, (Lithium?) and other problems that are merely costly. Vought.
I mean it when i say that leadership is the grail. Those who trust process are doves in the gunsight. Process is the first casualty on a rudderless ship.
I had the good fortune to reupholster the two front seats in an EC121 back in the day. The Connie is incomparable. I got to poke around a 747 long ago, in the shop. What a glorious beast.
Marketing is for people I simply do not understand, and cannot relate to. Which is weird, because my last twenty years have been leadership roles. Leadership is non verbal salesmanship. It is an intuitive journey; it can be learned, but it cannot be taught.
Thanks
Last edited by Lyman; 5th Feb 2013 at 02:52.
3. Visit YUASA's battery plant,
Securaplane assemble the cells into a battery and provide the technology that prevent it going into overload -
Designed for rapid operator payback, Securaplane's main ship battery chargers significantly reduce battery and charger maintenance while eliminating the guess work of identifying and solving battery/charger problems. Our battery chargers are capable of charging various battery chemistries including NiCad, lead-acid and lithium. Our new, innovative battery chargers use advanced DC to DC conversion technology, patented charging algorithms, comprehensive diagnostics and fault isolation. The latest application of Securaplane's battery charger is for charging and managing the Boeing 787 main ship lithium battery used for APU start and electrical system support.
Old technology chargers typically gauge the charge time based solely according to the cell voltage. This has led to either over-charging or under-charging the battery, with resulting water loss and increased maintenance. Securaplane has developed a method for accurately detecting the inflection point which has eluded battery experts for years and is critical in reducing an overcharge condition. This patented method of charging ensures that the battery receives the optimum amount of charge for all temperature conditions combined with various battery states of charge.
Old technology chargers typically gauge the charge time based solely according to the cell voltage. This has led to either over-charging or under-charging the battery, with resulting water loss and increased maintenance. Securaplane has developed a method for accurately detecting the inflection point which has eluded battery experts for years and is critical in reducing an overcharge condition. This patented method of charging ensures that the battery receives the optimum amount of charge for all temperature conditions combined with various battery states of charge.
Lets see, which is more likely to fail? 15 year old technology that is in use in billions of devices or brand new charger that makes it impossible, by design, for batteries to every explode?
Last edited by peter we; 5th Feb 2013 at 07:34.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Peter's quote
and continues to elude, it seems..
Securaplane has developed a method for .. .. which has eluded battery experts for years
Last edited by golfyankeesierra; 5th Feb 2013 at 07:42.
Actually the 787 is, at least conceptually, marketed by McDonnell Douglas. The rot set in when Boeing CEO Phil Condit (lifelong Boeing guy, worked up through engineering, programme management and sales; PPL since he was a teenager - an all-round aviation pro) got replaced by Harry S, with a Corporate America background, Sundstrand, McDonnell Douglas, etc. At Mac's he presided over their demise, including sales falling off a cliff, until what was left got sold to Boeing. Then he manages to get in charge at Boeing, and starts to change them to McDD ways. Apparently part of his reign was a clearout of what were seen as the Condit style supporters (ie those who understood what they were doing), the move to outsourcing, the downplaying of in-house engineering skills, etc. This was all at the time the 787 programme was getting going. Although he later moved on himself, the style of the team for the future, including the marketing-knows-all way, was set.
Last edited by WHBM; 5th Feb 2013 at 09:00.
R1. So true. But Lockheed also built good toys that were fun to fly. Pretty much worked as advertised. The Long Beach cable company also had some darn good simple engineering that just worked, not fancy, just good stuff.
Lyman - "Gestalt"? Seriously? Boeings marketing division and the rest of the top down program that ensued coupled with the bean counter's influence on programs that then had inadequate project risk mitigation from overzealousness or hubris got this company right where it is now. A telling indicator of the impending issues was the repositioning of the corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. Now, Boeing is diversified company, but that change was a clear point of departure from the core values that had been historical points of some corporate pride. There are good engineers in the company, grounded in both conservative design and rational evolutionary change. The program has been smoking something else for a while, but within their structure they have the competency to rectify these defects. Too much emphasis on Gestalt and a loss of the practical grounded engineering input into the design is more likely to be a root cause.
PS: NASA pretty much outsourced the space shuttle program... and more or less lost control of the QA of that due to the complexity and inadequacy of management systems related to risk management, attention getting with STS107. TBC has some prior examples of pitfalls from the course they have undertaken.
Lyman - "Gestalt"? Seriously? Boeings marketing division and the rest of the top down program that ensued coupled with the bean counter's influence on programs that then had inadequate project risk mitigation from overzealousness or hubris got this company right where it is now. A telling indicator of the impending issues was the repositioning of the corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. Now, Boeing is diversified company, but that change was a clear point of departure from the core values that had been historical points of some corporate pride. There are good engineers in the company, grounded in both conservative design and rational evolutionary change. The program has been smoking something else for a while, but within their structure they have the competency to rectify these defects. Too much emphasis on Gestalt and a loss of the practical grounded engineering input into the design is more likely to be a root cause.
PS: NASA pretty much outsourced the space shuttle program... and more or less lost control of the QA of that due to the complexity and inadequacy of management systems related to risk management, attention getting with STS107. TBC has some prior examples of pitfalls from the course they have undertaken.
Last edited by fdr; 5th Feb 2013 at 09:30.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@turbine D......All this bullcrap !- the great Victorian engineering miracles were done on a handshake and trust!
The fact is, the complete battery sub-assembly is provided by THALES
As far as the customer (Boeing) is concerned, the box-contents are irrelevant, PROVIDED it "does what it says on the tin"...the onus is surely on Thales and the regulatory body ,to make sure this is the case?
Which leads to SECURAPLANE (ironic?)....their job was to supply a plug 'n play interface between the "screamliner's" electrical supplies/demands and Thales' "5-minute box of energy"
However you pass the parcel, waffle and apportion blame, the fact is, the interface between these 3 groups failed to work.
As the Securaplane device is INTERPOSED between the aircraft and the "energy-box" I suggest that it failed miserably in it's duty to protect, manage and monitor the use and availability of that resource.
The Lithium Cobalt cells are "fragile" technology..for safety, they should ONLY operate in the mid-area of their capacity-range...charging towards ultimate capacity can lead to instability, discharging to low level has the same effect.
THE VERY FACT THAT SO MANY OVER-DISCHARGED UNITS HAVE BEEN CHANGED WOULD SEEM TO CORROBORATE MY ASSERTION
SECURAPLANE'S UNIT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE APPLICATION.
Wether this is due to Boeings failure to accurately specify what it needed, or Securaplane's lack of understanding the battery technology it was supposed to be taking-care of is another issue.
To the poster who suggested that a main-battery discharge may well be unmonitored....NO!....It's inconcievable and absurd to suggest that an unlimited current -draw in total-faliure mode would be OK....so you're suggesting that it's better to avert the power-failure crash and substitute on-board fire instead?
The fact is, the complete battery sub-assembly is provided by THALES
As far as the customer (Boeing) is concerned, the box-contents are irrelevant, PROVIDED it "does what it says on the tin"...the onus is surely on Thales and the regulatory body ,to make sure this is the case?
Which leads to SECURAPLANE (ironic?)....their job was to supply a plug 'n play interface between the "screamliner's" electrical supplies/demands and Thales' "5-minute box of energy"
However you pass the parcel, waffle and apportion blame, the fact is, the interface between these 3 groups failed to work.
As the Securaplane device is INTERPOSED between the aircraft and the "energy-box" I suggest that it failed miserably in it's duty to protect, manage and monitor the use and availability of that resource.
The Lithium Cobalt cells are "fragile" technology..for safety, they should ONLY operate in the mid-area of their capacity-range...charging towards ultimate capacity can lead to instability, discharging to low level has the same effect.
THE VERY FACT THAT SO MANY OVER-DISCHARGED UNITS HAVE BEEN CHANGED WOULD SEEM TO CORROBORATE MY ASSERTION
SECURAPLANE'S UNIT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE APPLICATION.
Wether this is due to Boeings failure to accurately specify what it needed, or Securaplane's lack of understanding the battery technology it was supposed to be taking-care of is another issue.
To the poster who suggested that a main-battery discharge may well be unmonitored....NO!....It's inconcievable and absurd to suggest that an unlimited current -draw in total-faliure mode would be OK....so you're suggesting that it's better to avert the power-failure crash and substitute on-board fire instead?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW- I think the fantastic fuel-efficiency and, hopefully, low maintenance of Composite construction, should make this aircraft an absolute winner.
The sheer cost ramifications of the fundamental design flaw in the electrical-system, COULD wipe all that out.
As an aside....there didn't look to be much spare room in the battery-rack for an alternative, lower energy-density technology!
Size/weight although an issue, must be seen in context...
it's effectively a very posh and expensive car battery,
there are only 2 on the entire aircraft.
the weight/bulk difference between proven, robust technology and the Li Co. is miniscule in proportion to the overall aircraft weight/size.
This is the only cutting-edge technology on board which has such disastrous failure mode.
Any competent engineer , left to his own concience, would have prepared a fallback position , in case this EXPERIMENT was a failure.
It was, they haven't , therefore conclusion....office of clueless,arrogant, airhead fxxxwits refused to countenance they could , just maybe, be wrong.
Culpable" management" wants the rough end of a pineapple shoved up their ass and shown the door...they've risked thousands of livelihoods and hundreds of lives.
Just my opinion , of course, so if i'm wide of the mark, I'm awfully sorry, mister caring, coroporate Boeing exec , unlike you I'm retired, on a state pension and worth bugger all so don't bother to sue
The sheer cost ramifications of the fundamental design flaw in the electrical-system, COULD wipe all that out.
As an aside....there didn't look to be much spare room in the battery-rack for an alternative, lower energy-density technology!
Size/weight although an issue, must be seen in context...
it's effectively a very posh and expensive car battery,
there are only 2 on the entire aircraft.
the weight/bulk difference between proven, robust technology and the Li Co. is miniscule in proportion to the overall aircraft weight/size.
This is the only cutting-edge technology on board which has such disastrous failure mode.
Any competent engineer , left to his own concience, would have prepared a fallback position , in case this EXPERIMENT was a failure.
It was, they haven't , therefore conclusion....office of clueless,arrogant, airhead fxxxwits refused to countenance they could , just maybe, be wrong.
Culpable" management" wants the rough end of a pineapple shoved up their ass and shown the door...they've risked thousands of livelihoods and hundreds of lives.
Just my opinion , of course, so if i'm wide of the mark, I'm awfully sorry, mister caring, coroporate Boeing exec , unlike you I'm retired, on a state pension and worth bugger all so don't bother to sue
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many moons ago I knew people who worked for Airbus. And a few who worked for Boeing.
The Boeing guys, who worked under a strict hierarchy, were amazed that even junior Airbus people had the freedom to make suggestions and defend their ideas in front of top management.
Any connection?
.
The Boeing guys, who worked under a strict hierarchy, were amazed that even junior Airbus people had the freedom to make suggestions and defend their ideas in front of top management.
Any connection?
.
Last edited by toffeez; 5th Feb 2013 at 15:04.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One conclusion. A successful firm values its people.....No strong company with clear leadership would allow its associates to twist in the wind....
Without COHESION, corporate assets get scattered to the four winds....
NTSB and Boeing have fit a 787 for flight test and peritioned the FAA for waiver to fly.....
The claim is: "We have identified 'Thermal Runaway' and wish to test the system, (BATTERY)"
Ah, finally some consciousness of PROTOCOL....
Hello ECAM... FOX NEWS reports NTSB reference to "Thermal runaway" being the purpose of the test.. That is my info....such as it is.... please use caution...McNERNY has not "defended the BATTERY" as it implies in the BBC release. He has defended the "BATTERY TECHNOLOGY" this is the second alert from me, please be careful when reading these releases.
What is of primary importance, and " has not been referenced " is the mad rush to replace 150 batteries prior to any warnings that there was a problem, AT ALL
Without COHESION, corporate assets get scattered to the four winds....
NTSB and Boeing have fit a 787 for flight test and peritioned the FAA for waiver to fly.....
The claim is: "We have identified 'Thermal Runaway' and wish to test the system, (BATTERY)"
Ah, finally some consciousness of PROTOCOL....
Hello ECAM... FOX NEWS reports NTSB reference to "Thermal runaway" being the purpose of the test.. That is my info....such as it is....
please use caution...McNERNY has not "defended the BATTERY" as it implies in the BBC release. He has defended the "BATTERY TECHNOLOGY" this is the second alert from me, please be careful when reading these releases.What is of primary importance, and " has not been referenced " is the mad rush to replace 150 batteries prior to any warnings that there was a problem, AT ALL
Last edited by Lyman; 5th Feb 2013 at 16:59.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Dreamliner crisis: Boeing seeks test flight for 787
Battery charger? Curious there is no mention yet of what they're looking at.
Battery charger? Curious there is no mention yet of what they're looking at.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, in that time they had an on-board fire that killed the entire crew, an on-board explosion which almost killed the entire crew (and, if an oxygen sensor hadn't failed and lead to shorter delays between stirring the tank, would likely have happened while they were on the Moon and left them stranded), and cancelled it early before anyone did get killed in space. So it's possible a few corners were cut along the way.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From BoeingLand...
FAA faulted for outsourcing 787 safety checks to Boeing
"In a 2011 review, the inspector general of the Department of Transportation found the FAA in one case delegated some 90 percent of the determination for regulatory compliance for new aircraft design to outside representatives. The Inspector General’s Office would not identify the company, but the report focused on Boeing, Cessna Aircraft and Bombardier-Learjet."
FAA faulted for outsourcing 787 safety checks to Boeing | Boeing news | The Seattle Times
Few people realize that years ago, most of the US Govt agencies went to self-certification...
The EPA allows chemical companies to self-certify their chemicals for hazardous properties and effects on humans and the environment.
Makes sense, right?...
FAA faulted for outsourcing 787 safety checks to Boeing
"In a 2011 review, the inspector general of the Department of Transportation found the FAA in one case delegated some 90 percent of the determination for regulatory compliance for new aircraft design to outside representatives. The Inspector General’s Office would not identify the company, but the report focused on Boeing, Cessna Aircraft and Bombardier-Learjet."
FAA faulted for outsourcing 787 safety checks to Boeing | Boeing news | The Seattle Times
Few people realize that years ago, most of the US Govt agencies went to self-certification...
The EPA allows chemical companies to self-certify their chemicals for hazardous properties and effects on humans and the environment.
Makes sense, right?
...
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 5th Feb 2013 at 18:47.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep...Makes sense...just ask Captain Kubek of ValuJet 596...Sabre "self certified" those infamous O2 cylinders....Oops, sorry, can't ask her '
cause she died along with 109 others in the Everglades in May '96...
cause she died along with 109 others in the Everglades in May '96...
NTSB and Boeing have fit a 787 for flight test and peritioned the FAA for waiver to fly.....
The claim is: "We have identified 'Thermal Runaway' and wish to test the system, (BATTERY)"
The claim is: "We have identified 'Thermal Runaway' and wish to test the system, (BATTERY)"
True tests, to the 'coffin corners' of the performance and environment envelopes aren't likely to be run on flight tests. There are too many test cases, so the economics doesn't make sense. At best, Boeing might hope to spot a common load or charging anomaly using actual aircraft loads and systems that prior cert. tests overlooked. If so, an actual re-certification will still be a ways off.
On the other hand, Boeing does have some planes to be delivered in need of checkout flights. And the flight line in Everett is getting crowded. So perhaps they just want to move the inventory around.