FAA Grounds 787s
Michael O'Leary's "it's regulatory crap" comment on the 787 issue
Ryanair CEO: Boeing 787 Problems 'Regulatory Crap' - Yahoo! Finance
Ryanair CEO: Boeing 787 Problems 'Regulatory Crap' - Yahoo! Finance
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me if I missed a post that discussed this, but what exactly are these two Boeing test flights going to test? Will they just confirm that the changes to the system work as planned, or with they also induce various failures to test how the new system reacts? And if the latter, how far along will that go? Will they actually test if the containment box and venting system work as designed in flight?
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will they actually test if the containment box and venting system work as designed in flight?
Excuse me if I missed a post that discussed this, but what exactly are these two Boeing test flights going to test?
There might be two test flights after all. Quote from yesterday´s Reuters article:
Boeing plans 787 battery test flights for end of week: sources | Reuters
The testing regimen set by the FAA requires one flight test. But Boeing plans to conduct two flights: One for its own purposes and a second to gather data to submit for FAA approval, according to the sources, who spoke on condition that they not be named.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more fodder...
U.S. officials rebuked Boeing for comments its executives made at a media briefing in Tokyo earlier this month on plans to get the grounded 787 Dreamliner flying again.
Boeing faulted by NTSB for comments on 787 fix | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
U.S. officials rebuked Boeing for comments its executives made at a media briefing in Tokyo earlier this month on plans to get the grounded 787 Dreamliner flying again.
Boeing faulted by NTSB for comments on 787 fix | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volunteers?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 in 10 million....didn't NASA managers give those odds for the Space Shuttle exploding? Remind me again what the odds were of a battery fire in the first place.
Quoting odds like this is nonsense
Quoting odds like this is nonsense
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: here
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB sending clear signal to Boeing
Bean counters should not rush into solutions for the sake of airplane image or whatso ever is their goal. I believe NTSB officials with safety minded is calling for bat system modification guided by rootcause of incident. I quote from a japan newspaper.
"Mr. Sinnett said that all of their testing and analysis has concluded the only way a thermal runaway could occur is through overcharging. Boeing’s original designs have four layers of protection against overcharging. A review of data stored on the flight data recorder showed that the system had been “properly charged.”
i am quoting this because Boeing and his beancounters seem to divert from the objective: SAFETY FIRST
1 did thermal runaway really occur?
2 is the thermal runaway due to overcharging?
3 does "system properly charged" = no thermal runaway?
in the mood to get the airplane quickly back into air some hints for solution are being lost. I believe thorough investigations will definitely pave the way for getting the dreamliner back into service for comfort and safe flights.
in case I mistakenly judge please feel free to comment on this. thanks...
"Mr. Sinnett said that all of their testing and analysis has concluded the only way a thermal runaway could occur is through overcharging. Boeing’s original designs have four layers of protection against overcharging. A review of data stored on the flight data recorder showed that the system had been “properly charged.”
i am quoting this because Boeing and his beancounters seem to divert from the objective: SAFETY FIRST
1 did thermal runaway really occur?
2 is the thermal runaway due to overcharging?
3 does "system properly charged" = no thermal runaway?
in the mood to get the airplane quickly back into air some hints for solution are being lost. I believe thorough investigations will definitely pave the way for getting the dreamliner back into service for comfort and safe flights.
in case I mistakenly judge please feel free to comment on this. thanks...
Interesting. Rumour had it this was indeed one of the things that did the MD-11 in for major passenger operators. It was, of course, all fully certified by the FAA and everything, but amazingly quickly ended up as a cargo hauler, and there was a lot of asset value lost by the initial large purchasers who prematurely retired it.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Boeing is going to reduce outsourcing, they have learned their lesson"
"The 787 production rate is planned to double from five jets per month to 10 per month by year end."
"Boeing said Friday it will lay off some 800 machinists by the end of this year as workforce needs on its newest jet programs, the 787 Dreamliner and 747-8 jumbo jet, are reduced.
Company spokesman Doug Alder said that other reductions will be made through attrition so that the total number of positions cut this year will be between 2,000 and 2,300."
Boeing plans to layoff machinists | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
"The 787 production rate is planned to double from five jets per month to 10 per month by year end."
"Boeing said Friday it will lay off some 800 machinists by the end of this year as workforce needs on its newest jet programs, the 787 Dreamliner and 747-8 jumbo jet, are reduced.
Company spokesman Doug Alder said that other reductions will be made through attrition so that the total number of positions cut this year will be between 2,000 and 2,300."
Boeing plans to layoff machinists | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
FlightPathOBN:
It looks like Boeing is trying to mount a PR initiative against the NTSB's cautious approach. After all, its the FAA that will have to give the thumbs up/down on flight resumption. The NTSB's input is advisory. So if they are taking the cautious approach by saying 'We're not sure', Boeing is saying, 'We know. Trust us.'
U.S. officials rebuked Boeing for comments
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go with the odds thing again
Unfortunately with the 787 the chance of battery thermal run away was considerably less than 1 in 10 million (do not know if this is a real probability, it is just what I have read on this thread) It appears the actual chances of a battery failure were down to 1 in 100 thousand. and it seems the contingency for a battery failure, i.e. the containment box had a probability of failure of 100% (in the event of a battery fire) which makes the possibility of a battery fire bringing down the plane an unacceptably high risk which is why the FAA grounded the bird. Hopefully Boeing can get these probabilities back up to where they belong, i.e. 1 in 10 million for the batteries and perhaps 1 in 100 million for the box so the chances of a battery failure and a box failure at the same time bringing down the 787 is so remote that it will probably never occur during the life of the plane.
Last edited by Cool Guys; 23rd Mar 2013 at 01:55. Reason: corrected grammar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Placerville, CA
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool Guys:
A lot of people do take the easy way out and say that if the chance of one engine failing it 1 in a million then the chance of two engines failing is 1 in a trillion. That does not take into account that whatever improbable occurrence caused one failure is very likely to cause a second failure at the same time. (As in the flock of geese.)
The meltdown of the US financial derivatives market was not predicted because the SEC statistical experts evaluating the risk assumed that the chances of one mortgage defaulting was independent of the chance of another mortgage defaulting. Instead common causal factors hit them all at once.
Even though the chances of a twin engine blade failure is so high the chances of hitting a flock of grease [sic] and knocking out both engines is probably less than 1 in 10 trillion, ...
The meltdown of the US financial derivatives market was not predicted because the SEC statistical experts evaluating the risk assumed that the chances of one mortgage defaulting was independent of the chance of another mortgage defaulting. Instead common causal factors hit them all at once.
Paxing All Over The World
FlightPathOBN
"Boeing is going to reduce outsourcing, they have learned their lesson" (source ?)
The problem is, I suggest, that they did NOT learn the lesson.
Outsorcing is very complex and requires VERY good managers. Airbus Industrie (the first company name) started in 1970, so they have decades of experiences of making it work.
Boeing started large scale outsourcing with a complex new development and, it appears, made a series of mistakes. If they now pull away from outsourcing, they will have learnt nothing. They had the chance to learn from others and implement outsourcing and development slowly - perhaps with the 73NG range or a new 76 - but they chose to go the fast route and have failed. No one need be surprised.
I am not a particularly advocate of outsourcing but the fault is not outsourcing - but Boeing management and the company will be paying for this for a decade.
"Boeing is going to reduce outsourcing, they have learned their lesson" (source ?)
The problem is, I suggest, that they did NOT learn the lesson.
Outsorcing is very complex and requires VERY good managers. Airbus Industrie (the first company name) started in 1970, so they have decades of experiences of making it work.
Boeing started large scale outsourcing with a complex new development and, it appears, made a series of mistakes. If they now pull away from outsourcing, they will have learnt nothing. They had the chance to learn from others and implement outsourcing and development slowly - perhaps with the 73NG range or a new 76 - but they chose to go the fast route and have failed. No one need be surprised.
I am not a particularly advocate of outsourcing but the fault is not outsourcing - but Boeing management and the company will be paying for this for a decade.
Last edited by PAXboy; 23rd Mar 2013 at 02:10.