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?

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.

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?

JAA has been the former European one... The Japanese is called JCAB ;)

EEngr
 

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.

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.

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! :)

Momoe:
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? :rolleyes:

Except the Comet was grounded until they understood the failure mode(s) and only flew again after major modifications.

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.

"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:ugh:
Do you really think the 787 battery problem can be compared to the loss of three Comets and all on board? Really now:=

not yet...................

That is true. Ultimately the CEO is the accountable manager for regulatory/safety/quality. Something many often don't realise.

Seem to be quite a few Boeing shareholders posting here, ;)

Wrong icon. Try :{

RCav8or posted Google "B737 rudder reversal" for a triumph of profits over safety

Who did the electrical on 787?

It wasn't Lucas was it? :eek:

LASJhawk;

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.

No, but Lucas did do the FADEC computer for the Trent 1000.

Aero Engine Controls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.