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 10th Jul 2013, 18:50
  #1941 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Age: 79
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But MBA programmes make one a deeper and more comprehensive thinker (so their ads say). Isn't that why the ratio of engineers who get MBA's to MBA's who go on to get engineering degrees is so lopsided?

Last edited by kilomikedelta; 10th Jul 2013 at 22:22.
kilomikedelta is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 02:16
  #1942 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I guess nobody remembers the good old days. NiCads had the same kind of problems in the beginning, going into thermal runaway.

If we applied the same logic, we would still be flying unpressurized turboprops and radials, after all that De Havilland Comet didn't work out too well at first.
LASJayhawk is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 13:38
  #1943 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the 'Good old days', the manufacturers bottomed out the cause of the problem and then carried on.

Following the Comet crashes, DH built a fuselage sized tank and ran endless pressurisation cycles, when the inevitable happened they gained an understanding of the cause.

Boeing tweaked some software parameters on the charging algorithms, built a steel box round the battery and carried on: Root cause of the problem still unknown.

'Good old days' not looking too shabby now are they?
Momoe is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 18:55
  #1944 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Japanese JAA
JAA has been the former European one... The Japanese is called JCAB
Volume is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 19:37
  #1945 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EEngr

The changes interfered with Boeing's strategy to push engineering tasks out to subcontractors. But only for a while. By the time I left, they were back on track outsourcing everything..
This would be like the alleged findings of their audit of the contractor producing the bearstraps for the 737NG as described in "on a wing and a prayer"?

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with outsourcing. But there is a corollary and that is that some of the costs that you save get eaten up by the increased inspection and audit requirements of subcontractor parts, services, materials supply chain and QA. There is no free lunch.
Pinkman is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 22:06
  #1946 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Age: 79
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with outsourcing. But there is a corollary and that is that some of the costs that you save get eaten up by the increased inspection and audit requirements of subcontractor parts, services, materials supply chain and QA. There is no free lunch.
You are correct about the no free lunch but what about when the costs exceed the savings? Boeing's managers did the latest Harvard Business Review wheeze about outsourcing and wound up with how many years of delay for a first flight (viz. wrong fasteners, outsourced parts that don't fit together etc.)?

MBA's don't know their anal sphincter from page four when it comes to engineering (especially those whose first degree was in engineering and sold out).

An engineer's iron ring (in Canada) is a constant reminder to graduates of their responsibility to the public.

An MBA's focus is compensation, career path and promises of shareholder value. They have no professional body to ensure any responsibility to anything.

When you reject professionalism, there's very little left for future generations.
kilomikedelta is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 22:07
  #1947 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IIRC: 2 comets were lost at takeoff DeH introduced fixes.
They lost 2 more in flight and introduced fixes for anything they could think of. After the 3rd in flight hull loss, they tried the water tank. ( I might have one to many in there??)

Even though this looks like a "best guess" kind of fix, it includes measures to prevent hull loss in the event of another failure. So it will either:
1) not happen again
2) happen again to a random a/c
3) happen again to the same a/c

If 3 happens, it will turn out to be something "goofy" like bad bonding in the HF radio system or antenna.

my 2 cents, and overpriced at that!
LASJayhawk is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 22:14
  #1948 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Placerville, CA
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Momoe:
In the 'Good old days', the manufacturers bottomed out the cause of the problem and then carried on.

Following the Comet crashes, DH built a fuselage sized tank and ran endless pressurisation cycles, when the inevitable happened they gained an understanding of the cause.

Boeing tweaked some software parameters on the charging algorithms, built a steel box round the battery and carried on: Root cause of the problem still unknown.

'Good old days' not looking too shabby now are they?
So DH built a single test tank and waited a long time. Boeing has installed a test tank in each plane in the fleet. Sounds more efficient, right?

Last edited by inetdog; 11th Jul 2013 at 22:14. Reason: speling
inetdog is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 22:31
  #1949 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,462
Received 135 Likes on 73 Posts
So DH built a single test tank and waited a long time. Boeing has installed a test tank in each plane in the fleet. Sounds more efficient, right?
Except the Comet was grounded until they understood the failure mode(s) and only flew again after major modifications.
TURIN is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 23:33
  #1950 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AFAIK:
They lost 2 hulls do to "pilot error" and they made some mods.

They lost 1 hull when the wings came off and made some mods ( artificial feel aka Arthur Q)

They then lost 3 more hulls to inflight breakup THEN grounded the fleet.

Tough trying something new in aviation, isn't it.
LASJayhawk is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 00:14
  #1951 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: USA, Vermont
Age: 79
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Except the Comet was grounded until they understood the failure mode(s) and only flew again after major modifications."

After losing three planes and all on board, I would certainly hope so
Do you really think the 787 battery problem can be compared to the loss of three Comets and all on board? Really now
RCav8or is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 08:06
  #1952 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
not yet...................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 08:21
  #1953 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
An MBA's focus is compensation, career path and promises of shareholder value. They have no professional body to ensure any responsibility to anything.
That is true. Ultimately the CEO is the accountable manager for regulatory/safety/quality. Something many often don't realise.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2013, 15:11
  #1954 (permalink)  

More than just an ATCO
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 74
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seem to be quite a few Boeing shareholders posting here,
Lon More is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 02:37
  #1955 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Seem to be quite a few Boeing shareholders posting here,
Wrong icon. Try
EEngr is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 04:54
  #1956 (permalink)  

More than just an ATCO
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 74
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RCav8or posted
"Except the Comet was grounded until they understood the failure mode(s) and only flew again after major modifications."

After losing three planes and all on board, I would certainly hope so
Do you really think the 787 battery problem can be compared to the loss of three Comets and all on board? Really now
Google "B737 rudder reversal" for a triumph of profits over safety
Lon More is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 02:38
  #1957 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who did the electrical on 787?

It wasn't Lucas was it?
LASJayhawk is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2013, 23:39
  #1958 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Age: 79
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LASJhawk;

It wasn't Lucas was it?
Good one!

It appears you are close to the generation who experienced the wonders of Lucas 'engineering'.

Lucas now is owned by the Blackstone Group whose principals we all know are at the cutting edge of electrical engineering.

No, Lucas didn't do the 787 electrical design. It was outsourced by Boeing to Thales who outsourced it to Securaplane who are owned by Meggitt who are owned by the 3i group. I've probably missed a number of corporate intermediaries but the corporate lawyers and MBA's I'm sure were orgasmic about their fees in arranging all that because it created the epitome of engineering excellence.

No matter, it will take decades of lawsuits to sort out who screwed up and by then we will all be dead or demented.

Boeing may not survive but their law firms will.

Last edited by kilomikedelta; 14th Jul 2013 at 23:46.
kilomikedelta is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2013, 00:39
  #1959 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Apple Maggot Quarantine Area
Age: 47
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who did the electrical on 787?

It wasn't Lucas was it?
No, but Lucas did do the FADEC computer for the Trent 1000.

Aero Engine Controls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
slacktide is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2013, 10:03
  #1960 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AFAIK, Lucas went T.U. ...........the bones became Delphi...went T.U again...I don't think that anything is made by "lucas"in the UK.
anyone who has had the misfotune to own a diesel with a Delphi injector-pump,will not need any further info.
Maybe the Lucas Aerospace division was /is an independent company.

riches to rags in less than40 years.

Signs are, Boeing is being raped in the same fashion.
cockney steve is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.