Slashdot Mirror
FAA To Investigate 787 Dreamliner
Dupple sends word from the BBC that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration will be conducting a safety review of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner after a number of incidents have called the aircraft's hardiness into question. "An electrical fire, a brake problem, a fuel spill and cracks in the cockpit's windshield have affected Dreamliner flights in the past week. ... The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is one of the most advanced aeroplanes ever created. Much of it is made from very strong, light carbon-fibre composite material. However, a spate of technical issues has hurt its image. On Friday, two new problems were found, adding to Boeing's woes." A spokesman for Boeing said they were "absolutely confident in the reliability and performance of the 787," and were cooperating fully with the FAA's investigation. The 787 went into service in 2011, and 50 have been delivered to various airlines since then, with hundreds more on order. Qatar Airways has received five of them, and it has criticized Boeing for manufacturing faults.
plagued with shortcuts.
I wonder if the manufacturing and quality problems has anything to do with the change on this plane that it is made all over the world, by tons of suppliers, then all moved to a common location for final assembly. This is a departure from the way Boeing has done manufacture in the past where most things are done under one roof.
How well does carbon fiber burn? I would think the large surface area would make a LOVELY torch.
HaHa! Sincerely Airbus
It seems that most revoloutionary aircraft have nearly sunk the parent company. The 787 hasn't come close to sinking Boeing, so one can conclude that it's not good enough.
Sillyness aside, new aircraft always have teeting problems (the A380 blew up an engine during flight) and this is a particularly new and unusual aircraft. So, expect lots of teeting problems.
They'll probably be great when all those are ironed out.
That said, I've never seen an explanation as to how to do the equivalent of replacing a skin panel when the skyfood loading truck reverses into the plane.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's really not that big of a deal. I've had all of those problems on a SINGLE TRIP in the embraer. (Ok, the electrical issue was caught before it was an actual fire, but still). It's a new type, this kind of stuff happens.
They'll no doubt find the problems, but more are likely to occur. Whether Boeing is able to maintain a good image for the airplane is another question.
You either build a radical new airframe with cutting edge materials and do it in-house OR you radically outsource your operation to cut costs building a traditional airframe. Boeing chose to do both. This is the result.
The really new technology is the carbon fibre used in the aircraft. Not seen any reports of faults with that yet though.
Balanced information:
U.S. regulators say Boeing 787 is safe but needs review.
FAA Orders Review Of Boeing 787 Dreamliner quote: "... we are confident about the safety of this aircraft, but we are concerned about these incidents."
A bigger issue: When composite burns it releases poisons. I haven't seen any discussion of Boeing's view of that. Here is a PDF file: Postcrash Health Hazards from Burning Aircraft Composites.
There is NO intent in saying that to imply that a 787 might crash. But if there is a runway or other accident, would passengers be less likely to survive?
USA quality made in China, put together by average Joe who thinks he's a rocket scientist.
haha and its a good morning :)
None of the above.
They're buying their batteries from a DELL supplier.
"When composite burns it releases poisons. "
unlike everything else?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Everything that goes on a plane is made not to burn. I'm sure they tried to light a mock fuselage on fire to see what happens.
Please download the latest firmware release available for your airplane from the Boeing support website and retest.
Why do they ever bother with these quotes - what else are they expected to say? As Mandy Rice Davies once said when asked to comment about a Lord denying he had anything to do with her, "Well, he would, wouldn't he"
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
The 787 is having problems because of the bloated feature creep that went into its design. It will eventually be seen as a classic example of 2nd System Effect.
Instead of the Dreamliner, maybe we should start calling it the 787 Screamliner?
I start my day by inhaling the fumes of jet fuel and aluminum, myself. Would never touch that composite smoke, unless it came from carpet, upholstery, and cabin interior plastics.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If the outside of the plane starts burning, then the people that were inside probably don't have many worries left.
You seem to be under the impression fires in composite aircraft pose a risk of poisoning or harming passengers.
It's not that simple though. Composites (FRP) are made from a fiber and a resin, which can be thought of like a glue. Most plastics can be used as a resin. On an aircraft, they use many different resins in different places as they are tailored to the local requirements. Also, these plastics are subjected to a number of tests that are used to determine toxicity in a few reasonable ways; most of them concentrate on what happens when we burn the plastic.
Near passengers, they have requirements ensuring the parts are self-extinguishing in a short (1 minute) time frame and have no toxicity in their smoke (The flammability test is UL 94, V0 is a typical requirement; I forget the smoke and toxicity test numbers I've used). So the plastic that holds your luggage above your head is made of a less weight-efficient material because it must meet design requirements focused on passenger safety in the event of a cabin fire. And of course, in the middle of the wing, it doesn't much matter if the smoke from a fire would make a passenger sick--passengers aren't anywhere near there--but fuel is probably nearby, so the design requirements and fail-safe measures for flammability and smoke are different there and in other zones of the aircraft.
In the paper you cited, note that the focus was on emergency response personnel. If as a passenger you're exposed to such an explosion, respiration of the fibers that carry potentially toxic plastics isn't the top concern - if you're inhaling that, I would be wondering what punched a hole in the fuselage and how many people are dead. The respiration and other hazards are a big deal to a ground crew or fire department who would put out non-crash-related fires. But the words in bold, "A bigger issue: When composite burns it releases poisons," are easy to misinterpret as a major passenger safety hazard unique to this aircraft.
Didn't Washington State pass a referendum in the last election to legalize the use of pot?
Considering that Boeing is in Washington State wonder how that affects quality control in the manufacture of these planes?
It might explain Microsoft though.......
Part of that race to the bottom.
Does a two month strike by the union result in a 3 year delay? In a word, no. If you look a little closer, you'll see that non-Boeing suppliers had a major impact on schedule.
"... we are confident about the safety of this aircraft, but we are concerned about these incidents."
Unless the wings were about to fall off they couldn't say anything stronger. That's the way it works when your biggest national aircraft manufacturer has a problem. The FAA don't want to cause panic or lost sales, but at the same time need to cover themselves if something does happen.
So basically we can't tell anything from their statement, and assuming their obviously biased opinion is "balanced" isn't so smart.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
to Dreamliner's problems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF_P77VEPKA
They don't have a choice in the matter: either they co-operate or the 787's certification is revoked.
Why do PR lackeys come off with this same line every time?
You realize that airliners have been using composites from one degree to another since the 80s? Also, many of the interior and insulating materials release toxic fumes when they burn. Its trading one hazard for another.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100364929/Boeing_Confident_About_787_Despite_039Teething_Problems039
al-Baker is a notorious public complainer, but even he is defending the problems being found on the new plane:
"Of course there will be teething problems from time to time, but this is foreseen with any new aircraft program," Qatar Airways' Akbar al-Baker told reporters in Doha on Wednesday.
Qatar Airways is the largest customer of the Dreamliner in the Middle East with an order for up to 60 of the aircraft -- 30 firm orders plus an option on acquiring 30 more. It currently has a fleet of five 787 jets.
In this video clip taped for the CNBC documentary “Dreamliner, Inside the World’s Most Anticipated Airline,” CNBC's Phil LeBeau shows how building a 787 Dreamliner is a well-choreographed, but challenge-packed ballet of man and machine where the plane's seven major sections are hoisted and fastened together. The documentary debuted in 2011.
"Since the first issues we had with our newly delivered airplanes, we've had no other technical issues with the fleet of five Dreamliners we are operating now," Baker added.
I'm not sure. The correct method would be for Boeing to make sure the public understood all the issues before they started building 787s. Now they risk public relations hassles.
I flew on them to and from Australia to the US. Well worth the cost to get on one, but on the return trip, we were delayed for 4 hours due to some engine problem. They did fix it, and we were back in the air, but the experience, and other subsequent reports, makes me nervous about them. I hope they get the problems resolved, as they really are a joy to fly on for long trips.
BOOP!
Straw man, go take a seat in the corner, dunce.
Between those and cracks in the Airbus 380 carbon wing, I'm not sure which is safer.
Granted, I've never even worked in a union myself
Nor have I but I'd dealt directly with them almost daily at times. I've had wrenches thrown at me because I dared to produce a stopwatch. (I'm an industrial engineer - that's what we do) I don't hate unions but I think they've forgotten their real purpose and have become far too adversarial with the companies.
But honestly, if a German union and all its workers were suddenly transported here, with all the time off and other benefits they receive, can you imagine anything but mortal conflict with US management?
The benefits any pay for workers in certain unions such as the UAW are second to none. I've seen guys with no college degree who make upwards of $80-100K+ for an assembly line job. Until very recently average wages of a GM worker was $39.69/hour and benefits tacked another $33.58/hour on top of that. We're not talking about specialty skilled labor here either. Guys with little to no special skills used to be able to get jobs that paid far better than the requirements of the job dictated. That has proven to be unsustainable.
Blue collar America has taken an incredible beating with a huge decline in standard of living over the last 30 years, today's auto workers are lucky to make half of what their fathers did.
Their fathers got a deal that was out of line with what could actually be sustained by the profits of the companies. Blue collar america is simply experiencing a reversion to the mean. They've had a good run for a while and now the bill has come due.
With the 787, Boeing went from being an engineering firm to an assembly firm. They outsourced the various pieces to a bunch of third parties and then assembled them in house to create the final product. Oddly enough, the various parts that were never tested as a complete system are now having problems.
Nobody could have seen that coming....
I am almost certain that if they do an after the fact accounting of what they will end up spending on fixing all of these issues, they are going to realize that they spent as much, if not more than they would have spent if they had done it all in house.
(sarc) Why would we want to handle the future of our company in house? It is so much more profitable for our share holders if we derive operational synergies by engaging our trusted partners to collaborate with us on this monumentous undertaking. As our friends in Redmond have shown us, it is not done until SP1. The 787 is a true, 21st century airliner. We can leverage agile development methodologies to push numerous, incremental improvements to key systems once the product has been successfully launched. (/sarc)
... or a LACK OF WHITE PEOPLE...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AosiFvIzZMA
What a sick joke. People are going to DIE when one of these white elephants CRASHES, due to flaws caused by giving jobs to unqualified, unintelligent NON-WHITE INVADERS, over white people.
Let's just hope that all the white cretins on Slashdot who use the word 'racist' against their own people, while their own countries are being destroyed by third world invaders, are on that plane when it crashes.
After all - you 'want' 'diversity', don't you? The T.V. told you! The Electric Jew told you, and you must obey...
They are big-time technology whores. British whores; and that means they are infected with 25 STDs, probably not AIDS and they will "muddle through" licking your dicks with herpes.
So, that was the obligatory whore analogy and thank god, the rest of the aircraft had serious German input and took the British shrapnel.
Wikipedia:
"In a preliminary investigation report of the engine failure of Qantas Flight QF32, released 3 December 2010, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau outlined safety actions taken already, including the issuing of a safety recommendation about potential engine problems with the Trent 900.[15] The safety recommendation relates to a possible manufacturing issue with a misaligned counterbore in some pressured oil pipes, which could lead to fatigue cracking, oil leakage, oil fire, and engine failure.[16]"
That's what you get from a nation that is in a state of irony and cynical jokes 100% of time.
Boeing did not enough testing and FAA shifts the blame on them. That's 100% OK. Why should the million-dollars per month "executives" get away with "ahh FAA said it was good. Blame it on that 80k/year government engineer who approved our flying shitball".
The PHBs are consciously risking lives because they know their life is secured with a golden parachute that deploys when they fuck up. The current RR CEO should have been hanged for neglicence on Trent 900 testing, but guess what ? He got a bonus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_900#Notable_incidents
"Born in Blantyre, Malawi,[1] Rose earned his MA degree in psychology from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland in 1975. Before joining Rolls-Royce, he had a career in banking with the First National Bank of Chicago and Security Pacific.[2]"
"Rose joined the company in 1984 and held a number of roles. He served as Director of Corporate Development from 1989 to 1994, and in February 1993 assumed the role of President and Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce Inc, responsible for Rolls-Royce activities in North America. On 1 January 1995 he became Managing Director of the Aerospace Group until he finally became the Chief Executive of the company on 1 May 1996[3] after serving on its Board of directors for four years. On 30 September 2010 he announced his decision to retire from Rolls-Royce and his position of Chief Executive. He left his post at the end of March 2011 with John Rishton taking over the Chief Executive position."
Experienced coders of all ages are in high demand everywhere. Note the word "experienced", though.
when plastics in the interior cabin burn they release toxics as well. So what is your point, exactly?
Huh? There are 787 (Dreamliner) services between Aus and US? Nope. You're thinking of the A380 or 777. The 787 only started flying passengers in Oct 2012 with a Japanese airline (ANA).
Boeing has had other problems in quality and reliability.
In 2005, FIA (run by Boeing) was canceled. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Imagery_Architecture) - The New York Times called it "perhaps the most spectacular and expensive failure in the 50-year history of American spy satellite projects."
(http://www.space.com/16077-nasa-space-telescopes-failed-nro-program.html) - "But Boeing quickly ran into troubles on the highly ambitious and complex FIA program, which fell years behind schedule and overran its budget by billions of dollars."
In 2011, the SBI Net program was canceled. (http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/homeland-security-cancels-boeing-border-fence-program/article_0257faa8-203d-11e0-9d4b-00127992bc8b.html) - "It was originally envisioned to stretch the 1,969-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico but initial phases of the $1 billion project took longer than anticipated to complete and covered just a small portion, 53 miles, since the project began."
In 2011, the "Joint Tactical Radio System" project, run by Boeing, was canceled. (http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/dod-cancels-jtrs-gmr-long-live-jtrs-gmr/2011-10-17) - ""Based on growth in the unit procurement costs, I am terminating the program," Kendall wrote. DoD estimates placed the total cost of JTRS GMR at $19.5 billion."
(http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2009-08-06-boeing-side_N.htm ) - more recent problems with Boeing. For example, "V-22 Osprey. The tilt-rotor aircraft, made in partnership with Bell Helicopter, is under congressional scrutiny because of concerns about its high cost of operation, reliability and safety" and "Joint Tactical Radio System Cluster 1. Boeing's management of the project for the military was so bad it received a stop-work order from the Defense Department. Eventually, the program was restructured rather than canceled but with Boeing in a diminished role."
What's going on with Boeing?
As if you didn't make your own apples-to-oranges comparison by comparing planes to automobiles.
You're hand waving and arguing about distinctions without a difference.