If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm JF Mezei wrote: On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on ZA004. They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this, along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for certification. So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and reassemble the number of 787s already built. A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013 More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are obsessed. I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes on offer from Airbus and Boeing. So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11- hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week. It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare -- but definitely a headache. Dreamliner catches fire at airport It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well. After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of water to frustrated passengers. Eventually we disembarked. A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the flight was eventually canceled. We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air travel started. It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering issues with the Dreamliner on Monday. A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers disembarked. Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's cooperating with investigators. As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles. But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left the gate. We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA. More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after our scheduled departure. But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were unfolding. Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system. But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the airplane is safe to fly." Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often have "growing pains." But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly like to forget. After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that. -- http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/busine...r-los-angeles/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On 1/10/2013 3:02 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often have "growing pains." Exactly! The list of aircraft that had to endure a year or three of teething problems before going on to give decades of excellent service is long and filled with many famous civil and military aircraft. The title of this thread is pure nonsense. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Jan 10, 6:46*pm, Vaughn wrote:
On 1/10/2013 3:02 PM, Transition Zone wrote: Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often have "growing pains." Exactly! *The list of aircraft that had to endure a year or three of teething problems before going on to give decades of excellent service is long and filled with many famous civil and military aircraft. The title of this thread is pure nonsense. The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out, too. In this case, back up mechanisms didn't seem like they were there. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
"Transition Zone" wrote in message
news:4de25f69-93af-479e-88c6- The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out, too. In this case, back up mechanisms didn't seem like they were there. This isn't the first problem with Lithium batteries: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On 1/25/2013 6:17 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out, The A300 was certainly a candidate for grounding after one lost a vertical stabilizer in 2001 for no apparent reason. Vital parts failing, falling off, and causing a plane crash with 100% fatalities sounds a whole lot more difficult to fix that the 787's electrical problem. What saved the A300 from grounding? It had been in service since the late 70's, and therefore had an extensive record of safe service, and there were hundreds in use so grounding them would have caused worldwide travel disruption. None of that is true of the 787. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
Vaughn wrote:
On 1/25/2013 6:17 PM, Transition Zone wrote: The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out, The A300 was certainly a candidate for grounding after one lost a vertical stabilizer in 2001 for no apparent reason. Vital parts failing, falling off, and causing a plane crash with 100% fatalities sounds a whole lot more difficult to fix that the 787's electrical problem. The fact that the NTSB enquiry showed that the fust officer had overstressed the stabilizer by aggressive alternate full rudder inputs at a relatively high airspeed was a pretty good candidate for an 'apparent reason' as was the fact that the A300 had flown into the wake turbulence of a JAL 747-400 Bottom line is that the pilot overstressed the airframe as his use of alternate full rudder inputs resulted in large angle of sideslip which tore off the stabilizer. The loads imposed by the sideslip were more than double the design limits. The FAA airframe engineer stated that for any aircraft " a maneuver with alternating rudder inputs was an extreme maneuver and that, if the maneuver were performed, loads would build that would exceed the current requirements. He further stated that, if two sets of alternating rudder inputs were performed, a series of dynamic maneuvers would start that could lead the airplane into a severe dynamic situation where, at the proper frequency, this continued application of this surface would allow the motion of the airplane to build up to the point where the sideslip would become excessive and overload the airplane " The flight data recorder and CVR showed exactly such a sequence of rudder inputs was made. Keith |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On 1/26/2013 8:18 AM, Keith W wrote:
Bottom line is that the pilot overstressed the airframe as his use of alternate full rudder inputs resulted in large angle of sideslip which tore off the stabilizer. The loads imposed by the sideslip were more than double the design limits. None of which excuses the design. Pilots are taught from day one that full deflection of flight controls is generally permissible below a certain magic "maneuvering speed" without causing harm to the airframe. Given that the accident flight was in the climb phase, that plane was almost certainly below that speed. So this turned out to be a flight limitation that the pilots hadn't been told about and was nowhere in the flight manual. This DESIGN DEFECT was "fixed" by changing the flight manual to add new flight limitations and retraining pilots. To be fair, I know of no other similar accidents since then. Going back to my central point, the A300 easily survived that negative publicity, as will the 787. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:02:16 PM UTC-5, Transition Zone wrote:
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500 Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm JF Mezei wrote: On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on ZA004. They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this, along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for certification. So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and reassemble the number of 787s already built. A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013 More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are obsessed. I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes on offer from Airbus and Boeing. So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11- hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week. It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare -- but definitely a headache. Dreamliner catches fire at airport It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well. After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of water to frustrated passengers. Eventually we disembarked. A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the flight was eventually canceled. We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air travel started. It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering issues with the Dreamliner on Monday. A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers disembarked. Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's cooperating with investigators. As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles. But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left the gate. We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA. More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after our scheduled departure. But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were unfolding. Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system. But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the airplane is safe to fly." Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often have "growing pains." But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly like to forget. After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that. -- http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/busine...r-los-angeles/ Boeing located their Dreamliner Manufacturing facility in North Charleston, S.C. to circumvent the pressure being leveraged at them by the IAMAW (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers). By sidestepping their responsibility of duly compensating labor and talent, they have now gotten what they've paid for. There is a long history in South Carolina of thought indoctrination which leads to subservience. This tradition finds it's roots all the way back to slavery, and cotton-picking. After the emancipation, share-cropping was prevalent which was really a different name for almost the same arrangement. Eventually, after decades... textile production became the dominant livelihood. Still, though, the factories held their workers on a short leash, even telling them when to go to bed, what to wear, when to pray and where to live. Again, not much of a transition. Today, in 2012 there is a multitude of industry in South Carolina, but, there remains a vestige of philosophy that the worker is the property of the man, that he keeps his mouth shut and asks no questions. Unions are seen *by workers* as inherently bad, yet they can't really tell you why beyond what they're told to think. So good luck Boeing. You are a great corporation, and yes, carbon-fiber was the right move. When you finally transition to the blended-body design and electric propulsion you will have come full circle. Just remember... you get what you pay for. Also, I really question the implementation of JATO bottles for this design and mission. Whatever dude, use ammonium perchlorate for best results. Good night and good luck. -- Mark |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad
news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787 aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of battery problems." Vaughn |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:01:51 PM UTC-5, Vaughn wrote:
I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787 aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of battery problems." Vaughn 1. In no way can one call this ship a failure. It is simply still "teething". 2. Lithium batteries are safe and appropriate. Anything will catch fire, including a rock, if you put enough voltage to it. The industries are still learning how to integrate their BMS with their batteries without having to learn it empirically. "The BMS designers may have used Mosfets or Relay contactors. Where the BMS control elements are Mosfets they require sizing for load current and thermal management. If the designers got that wrong, the N Mosfets could burn out with collateral damage to the PCB, possibly causing a short circuit on the board. Relay contactors are more robust and generally the power path is not through the BMS PCB. BMS design for large format batteries such as those on the Dreamliner requires a conservative approach including secondary cell-by-cell overvoltage protection. According to Ken, this requires an understanding of the full aircraft system, something that may have been tough to come by before the aircraft was operational." http://www.engineering.com/Electroni...reamliner.aspx -- Mark (Post submitted from Dunkin' Doughnuts) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATC failure in Memphis | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 77 | October 11th 07 03:50 PM |
The Failure of FAA Diversity | FAA Civil Rights | Piloting | 35 | October 9th 07 06:32 PM |
The FAA Failure | FAA Civil Rights | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 8th 07 05:57 PM |
Failure #10 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 7 | April 13th 05 02:49 AM |
Another Bush Failure | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 8 | July 3rd 04 02:23 AM |