Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Has Taken Its Battery Certification Flight

Posted by timothy on from the could-barely-lift-all-those-AAs dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Boeing just flew the flight it needed to certify the improved battery housing on its 787 Dreamliner, whose battery woes have marred the next generation plane's launch. Here is Flight Aware's live data map, showing the path of BOE272, the test flight from Friday afternoon. On Thursday, Bloomberg reported that the 787's recertification flight was pending. A Boeing news release stated yesterday that the '...flight departed from Paine Field in Everett, Wash. at 10:39 a.m. Pacific with a crew of 11 onboard, including two representatives from the FAA. The airplane flew for 1 hours and 49 minutes, landing back at Paine Field at 12:28 p.m. Pacific.'"

92 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. No way! by Anarchy24 · · Score: 1

    People can quote all the safety statistics they want about flying - I prefer to keep my feet on terra firma, tyvm. I hate flying on any plane as it is... but I wouldn't ever step foot on this thing!

    1. Re:No way! by Hamsterdan · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know walking is slower than flying :)

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    2. Re:No way! by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These days? Not so much...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:No way! by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, just about any of the commercial crafts are safe. The real issue is how are the airlines doing their maintenance. US airlines used to be the best. Now, they are offshoring and I think that they are an issue. For example, I grew up on American Airlines. BUT, they are now offshoring this to China. Recall the seats that were not fastened? That was the Chinese company. Scary. Very scary.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:No way! by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I hate flying to , but even I know that I'm more likely to die in the car on the way to the airport than flying in the plane. But the drive doesn't bother me - the flight does. I suppose it doesn't matter how many times someone tells you flying is safe , that primitive part of your brain is telling you that there's just something fundamentally wrong about travelling in a metal tube 7 miles up at 500mph surrounded by 50 tons of fuel. ;o)

    5. Re:No way! by nametaken · · Score: 1

      I'm just curious, how does an airline offshore their maintenance to China? It seems like this is the sort of thing they have to be prepared to do for any plane in the fleet at most major hubs, no?

      Or are we just talking about major retrofits, and only for planes that are in suitable condition for long overseas flights?

    6. Re:No way! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you really want a list of all the maintenance fuckups caused by unionised American maintenance companies and groups? Like the unauthorised manner of engine change that ultimately caused the downing of AA 191?

      The problem isn't outsourcing, it never has been - but as always, it's a good excuse for those who want to bang the nationalistic drum.

    7. Re:No way! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      For scheduled maintenance, airlines fly their aircraft to major maintenance bases around the world - if they do their own maintenance, that's usually one of their hubs.

    8. Re:No way! by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No one has a perfect record but generally American workers have a better record. One thing that helps is that if you screw something up then 7 or 8 years down the road it causes a problem it will come back on you. They keep records of work done that is stamped by journeymen mechanics and that record stays for the life of the aircraft. Generally with overseas contractors your chance of actually putting the mechanic responsible in jail is nil. I do depot level work and I know that I and my fellow mechanics obsess over safety to the point that it often causes clashes with supervisors who push for speed. I've seen multiple times that a mechanic refused to stamp something because he didn't feel comfortable with it and no amount of pressure would persuade them to do it. Many is the time is that I've heard "It's my fucking stamp and I'm not going to jail for your ass!"

    9. Re:No way! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm usually terrified until we reach cruising altitude. Your best chance of dying is on takeoff as that is when the aircraft is most vulnerable to a failure.

    10. Re:No way! by starling · · Score: 1

      I have good news for you - the 787 is a plastic tube, not metal.

    11. Re:No way! by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      One way or another, we're all flying.

    12. Re:No way! by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      And bicycling is faster.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    13. Re:No way! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Tell you what, why dont we meet in shanghai. Call me when you arrive, Im taking a plane.

    14. Re:No way! by ThisIsSaei · · Score: 2

      I'll take that bet. Digital representations count.

    15. Re:No way! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but isn't it far less economically viable to fly a plane all the way to China for maintenance instead of to somewhere in the middle of the US? You have to pay a pilot to fly all of those hours there and back, and you're wasting a whole lot of fuel to get there. When you do it in the US, you can have a normal flight to that particular airport, or nearby if it's not already a hub at a major airport, and a route back out from that airport to whichever route the plane is going on afterwords.

    16. Re:No way! by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      First off, The pilot, walt lux, of that was a close friends of our family. My dad and he would ssched together on the DC-10 of that time. In fact, Walt had allowed me to jump on that particular aircraft.
      Secondly, the engine swap was not in the books, BUT ALL of the airlines did it that way. In fact, DC showed many of the companies how to shortcut that. American did NOT develop it.
      Third, the Chinese (and other maintenance bases such as the one in Columbia) have screwed up a number of things royally. US Airways has had more than their fair share of issues from the Colombian hub.

      In addition, the Chinnese themselves beat their nationalistic drums such as saying that they do not want to be dependant on ANYTHING from the west. Even to this day, unless the work is done in China, they reoutinely block every item. It is only a matter of time before China will raise the tariffs on Tesla and tell them if they will turn over a lot of IP that they will drop it.
      It is sad when ppl like you are willing to scream that others are being nationalistic when the fuck-ups make the news, while you ignore and even uphold China's ability to block western goods.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    17. Re:No way! by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but isn't it far less economically viable to fly a plane all the way to China for maintenance instead of to somewhere in the middle of the US?

      Wherever you perform the maintenance, you're going to have to fly there. If you have more than two brain cells to rub together, you ensure that the last revenue flight the plane makes before maintenance brings it close to the maintenance depot, wherever in the world that may happen to be.

    18. Re:No way! by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Exactly. In fact, where American went to, is the same place that most of the Chinese national airlines, ESP. CHINA AIRLINES (worst record GOING) use. They have had issue after issue after issue. And with those seats, Horton was busy blaming the unions and then it turned out that it was the Chinese group.

      This is no different than the AA flights that fly the Latin American routes, Either Carty or Aprey had started using the Colombian base for those aircraft's. Then they have seen a rash of accidents that was attributed to the pilots. Consider AA's rigorous flight training (unless they have changed that over the last 20 years), I seriously doubt that it was pilot error.

      I know that US Airways uses the Colombian base as well, BUT, I am hopeful that Parker will move from the Chinese maintenance to Colombian, or better yet, bring back the base that was just shut down in Sept. Heck, Parker learned under Crandal so it would be nice if he takes it back to how he ran the airline. Heck, he would be smart to create an airline that is nothing but a single class of business class and run it on the profitable routes that has plenty of traffic. Then convert the first class on all of the domestics to have the same seats and fringes as that airline has. With such an approach, I think that they could capture what AA (and other US national airlines) was.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    19. Re:No way! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      CHINA AIRLINES (worst record GOING)

      Nope. That honor would go to Air France, with almost as many wrecks as American and United combined.

      And if you want to bitch about maintenance, the repair work that caused Japan Airlines 123 to crash was performed at the Boeing factory in Washington. But all that shit happened a long time ago. The only places wrecking airplanes regularly these days are in Africa, Russia, Brazil, Pakistan, India, and a few other backwater countries.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:No way! by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      You're probably not really afraid of the metal tube, altitude, speed, or fuel. As you noted, those are "reasonable" (i.e., based on reasons) arguments - but as you also noted they're not really true so there's something more emotional going on. You're probably afraid of the loss of control coupled with the "mystery" behind it all - knowing how aerodynamics works at the abstract level is a poor answer to the feeling in your head that it just doesn't seem like it should work, or be safe.

      I recommend going to your local general aviation airport and doing a "intro flight" in a small plane with an instructor. Most flight schools will let you fly a plane (of course with instruction from a pilot also at the controls!) for about half an hour for $70. Even if you have no interest in being a pilot, I can hardly think of a more exhilarating way to spend $70. And it takes a lot of the mystery out of it - flying makes more "sense" when you can feel the aerodynamic forces that respond to your movement of the yoke, just like the brake pedal or the wheel in a car letting you "feel" the car and the road. And since you're with an instructor who has a duplicate set of controls, they won't let you "mess it up" and you can do as much or as little as you (and they) are comfortable with.

      I'd say bring a camera to catch some really incredible views, but I only got about 2 shots off in the 90 seconds free I had between performing the takeoff (yes, first time in a small plane, let alone at the controls, and I took it off the ground) and getting the controls back after the climb-out.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    21. Re:No way! by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      when's the last time you flew a 737 to china from the US?

      Duh. If a plane can't fly to China, you're not going to do maintenance there, are you?

    22. Re:No way! by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh. No.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2012/10/03/american-airlines-seats/1610189/

      The work in question was either done in-house by American Airlines employees or in a contractor's facility in North Carolina. Unless North Carolina is now part of China, your fear mongering is just that.

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    23. Re:No way! by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 1

      Ah, Air France. Flight 447? An Etihad Airways pilot with 520 hours of experience flying planes was able to handle a very similar situation with no loss of life. But hey, the west is best

      http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5722038/

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    24. Re:No way! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I flew from New York City to Boston a few weeks ago. The flight I was on was cancelled, the one after it was full, the one after that was cancelled, and so I finally got on the one after that. I arrived at the airport at 1pm and at my destination at 9:30pm. A bicycle wouldn't have been faster, but a bus would. So would a train in theory, but the reason I was taking the plane at all was that the train line was out of action all day due to a derailment.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    25. Re:No way! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Unless North Carolina is now part of China

      I guess that's one way of settling the national debt...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:No way! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      When you are talking about tens of millions for a C or D check, the cost of the flight to the maintenance base is a minor factor.

    27. Re:No way! by jamesh · · Score: 1

      You're probably not really afraid of the metal tube, altitude, speed, or fuel. As you noted, those are "reasonable" (i.e., based on reasons) arguments - but as you also noted they're not really true so there's something more emotional going on. You're probably afraid of the loss of control coupled with the "mystery" behind it all - knowing how aerodynamics works at the abstract level is a poor answer to the feeling in your head that it just doesn't seem like it should work, or be safe.

      The thing that scares me is the knowledge that if something goes wrong I may have some time to contemplate my impending doom, as compared to an oncoming car crossing into my lane. That, the possibility that if a fire started there isn't a lot of places I can go to avoid it - the smoke goes pretty much everywhere.

      But you're right, it's not really a rational fear

    28. Re:No way! by quenda · · Score: 1

      I hate flying to , but even I know that I'm more likely to die in the car on the way to the airport than flying in the plane.

      Sorry, not true. Flying is far safer than driving the same distance, but roughly the same risk per hour as driving.
      Takeoff is far more dangerous per minute than driving, so you are right to be nervous. But once it settles into a cruising altitude, relax.

    29. Re:No way! by Guppy · · Score: 1

      Do you really want a list of all the maintenance fuckups caused by unionised American maintenance companies and groups? Like the unauthorised manner of engine change that ultimately caused the downing of AA 191?

      A telling point of the example of AA-191, is that it dates to 1979. I'm not sure that reaching that far back for an incident occurring nearly 34 years ago makes the point intended. Given the amount of time that has passed since something so spectacular has happened, it might even serve as a counterexample as to how successful the current system is as preventing similar incidents.

    30. Re:No way! by jittles · · Score: 1

      I used to work down the flight line for a company that does scheduled maintenance for airlines and freight companies. FedEx seems to do all their maintenance there. They also seem to do more maintenance for foreign airlines than domestic.

    31. Re:No way! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      447 was so many factors were EVERYTHING went wrong. Tired captain that was just woke up right at the tail-end of issues. You had a junior FO along with an even more junior IO (weird that AF allows such junior pilots on international routes rather than keeping them domestic in Europe). Then you had no feedback going to the FO so that the IO who was losing it was actually killing the speed. That downage was a case of so many thing that could wrong, and they did. Sad.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    32. Re:No way! by ColdSam · · Score: 1

      That same day a bus crashed while driving from NYC to Boston and those passengers never reached their destination. In other words, your anecdote is meaningless - planes are still faster than buses.

    33. Re:No way! by sjames · · Score: 1

      This, 1000 times. Without a strong union, a supervisor could easily threaten a tech into signing off.

  2. I wont be a guinea pig by JoeyRox · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Anybody who's followed the travails of the 787 knows that Boeing still hasn't root caused the issue. Aside from better separation of cells, nothing has been done to prevent future batteries from failing and melting. There is a backup battery, and a Ram Air Turbine for critical flight control, but considering how poorly engineered and conceived the battery system has turned out to be I don't trust the general engineering of the plane.

    1. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Give me a break. The plane is solid. And as to this battery, it is in a strong case that vents to the outside. If you are up in the air, then it will go out on its own. If down by the ground, not a problem.

      Any real issues with this plane has been the fact that Boeing did NOT build it themselves. .Sadly, they allowed their board to be composed of others outside of the aviation industry, who were more business idiots than engineers.
      Regardless, I trust the craft, but think that it was expensive. Hopefully, next time, Boeing will revert back to how they do things.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly, this issue was a bad battery design, a design not even done by boeing. If they replaced it with a standard lead acid it would have been flying already. The problem is the extra weight by multiple larger heavier batteries. So they fixed this version. Being the design it is it wull probably have future issues but the plane itself is safe. You dont think your laptop or tablet is going to catch fire do you. But that has happened too.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think it was even a bad battery design. It was wired incorrectly. After reading the book "Airframe," I understand why Boeing hasn't hyped this more. They can't shit on their customers, so they have to keep their mouths shut lest they lose sales to the people they are (rightfully) blaming.

    4. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. The plane is solid. And as to this battery, it is in a strong case that vents to the outside.

      I'm guessing they didn't actually set it on fire on this 'certification' flight and prove they can land safely at the maximum allowed ETOPS range?

    5. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I'm not particularly troubled. The transition from lead-acid to NiCd followed a similar trajectory.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      So the plane is safe so long as the battery doesn't catch fire - again - and get hot enough to burn through its containment box. Hmm , let me think about that definition of "safe" for a moment....

    7. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by Sanhedran · · Score: 1

      On what grounds do you trust an aircraft largely designed by, as you put it, "business idiots" rather than engineers? The largest topic in engineering ethics is the natural conflict between corporate interest and safe design.

      I don't trust "engineers" who can't even find the root cause of battery issues, and I certainly wouldn't trust my life to them.

    8. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, but the fact that this aircraft was "not built by Boeing" have nothing to do with the issues that have shown up thus far - no Boeing aircraft have flown with a battery system designed or built by Boeing, it's always been an item that's been outsourced (same for Airbus).

      The fastener issues were 100% Boeings direct fault (hey, let's ignore the fastener suppliers lead time and assume they can fill any order we want in an mpossible time - wait, no, they can't. Arse. Let's use off the shelf non-aviation grade fasteners then and replace them before the plane flies! Oops, that just cost us months of extra work....).

      The side of body issues were a Boeing design fault.

      The electrical panel fire was a Boeing design issue.

      None of the issues the aircraft has thus far seen has been the result of a part that was outsourced when before it hadn't.

      Spirit builds the entire 737 fuselage as an outsourced process, no issues there...

      Thousands of suppliers provide major components of the 777, no issues there.

    9. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by khallow · · Score: 2

      So the plane is safe so long as the battery doesn't catch fire - again - and get hot enough to burn through its containment box. Hmm , let me think about that definition of "safe" for a moment....

      Where is it going to get the energy to get hot enough to burn through the containment box? There's only so much energy in that battery. Build a box to contain that and that's it - as long as the fools who can't wire batteries correctly don't figure out a way past that.

    10. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I don't blame you. It most likely is not going to cause a crash but a fire on board like that is never anything to instill trust. I can't believe they didn't catch this long before the release to service of this aircraft. Some people need to be fired, from the top down.

    11. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by isorox · · Score: 1

      some people need to be fired, from the top down.

      score +5 Funny

    12. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Assume that it catchs fire. That is the SAME assumption that Boeing has made. That is why they not have the battery in the equivalence of a fireproof safe, where there is a value that allows for pressure to spill outwards. IOW, if it explodes or catches fire, it will be directed OUTWARD, not inward. That is safe.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Where is it going to get the energy to get hot enough to burn through the containment box? There's only so much energy in that battery. Build a box to contain that and that's it - as long as the fools who can't wire batteries correctly don't figure out a way past that.

      I would assume; well actually, I know that the battery is there for a reason. In the first few thousand hours of flights we have already had several failures. What is the chance that some time soonish the batteries burn out when they are needed. How do you feel about your fly by wire plane if the servos aren't working?

      This is quite apart form the fact that having a battery like this in a place with no fire extinguisher seems like bad design to me.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    14. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by Xylantiel · · Score: 3, Informative

      No - the plane is safe even if the battery catches fire. My understanding of the comment is that safe failure is the result of the change in design. With the previous design, battery failure by fire could endanger the aircraft. With the new design battery failure by fire does not endanger the aircraft. This is how subsystem failure is managed in aircraft. Whether or not a failure endangers the craft has huge implications for how its safety is evaluated.

    15. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      The De Havilland was solid except it's flawed fatiguing around its square window design. The DC-10 was solid except for its flawed cargo door design. The 737 was solid except for its flawed rudder design that lead to in-flight hardovers. When each of these solid planes crashed into the solid earth it wasn't the earth that shattered into a million pieces.

    16. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      No - the plane is safe even if the battery catches fire.

      Because the plane doesn't actually need the battery or anything. They just put it in there for grins.

      Now, the odds of both engines failing and the battery failing at the same time so you lose electrical power are small, but the battery is there for a reason.

    17. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by khallow · · Score: 1

      What is the chance that some time soonish the batteries burn out when they are needed. How do you feel about your fly by wire plane if the servos aren't working?

      In flight, the engines provide the power. Past that, I don't know, though I think the plane has a mechanical backup in case the entire electrical system fails.

    18. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by bored · · Score: 2

      having a battery like this in a place with no fire extinguisher

      Uh, once a LCO battery goes, your not putting it out with a "fire extinguisher". These things are nasty, and the lithium itself burns so hot that its damn hard to contain it.

      Check out https://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/airbus-examines-lithium-battery-safety-fire-suppression/

    19. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Basically, the battery is now in a fireproof box with a door that opens to the outside. IOW, any explosion will send it OUT of the plane, not inside. What is interesting is that the normal way for a pressured aircraft's door open is INWARD. That way, the door is secured and incapable of opening when under pressure. THis door opens outwards. If pressure builds up, their is a check value to vent it to the outside. If it explodes, then the blast blows the door and the energy is directed outward.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    20. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      They found out. What is being looked at, is how to address it quickly, while they work on the long term solution. FAA is a BITCH to get things through. It can take years for changes. As such, what is needed is a re-working of the battery system with loads of testing. The patch that went in, pretty much guarentees that if ANYTHING goes wrong with this battery, the plane is safe. Ideally, it would be used even with say a tesla battery system.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    21. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by DuBois · · Score: 1

      If they replaced it with a standard lead acid it would have been flying already.

      Few large airplanes use lead-acid batteries anymore. NiCad is pretty standard for anything larger than a Cessna 210.

      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    22. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Total BS.
      The way Boeing aircraft design has always worked is that engineers come up with CATIA designs that craftsman start implementing. As this is put together, the engineers crawl in and amongst the air frame and checks how things will go. I assume that Airbus does the same. Many times, parts get re-engineered as the engineers play with them and see what happens. In this case, it was because of the outsourcing that they could NOT do things that way. It was basically, a waterfall approach to design rather than iterative approach.

      Now, who forced this? The executives who outsource 50% of the aircraft. How much is normally outsourced? Less than 10% of a Boeing aircraft is outsourced beyond the plant and the local companies. And when it came to the airframe, NONE of it was outsourced in the past (save fasteners and metal, but all was local production so that Boeing could keep control of it). This was the FIRST time that Boeing has outsourced anything out of their control WRT airframe. The problem was NOT that the fasteners were not aircraft grade. The outsourcing was.
      The issue was that Boeing's engineers were used to their mechanics BUT, they were dealing with mechanics in China, japan, etc. And over there, they did NOT understand how to do countersunk on specific dimensions by the instructions that the engineers gave them. Basically, the engineer and mechanics at Boeing had worked together for so long, that it showed a weakness in how information is passed. So, correct fasteners, BUT, the holes were every so slighting mis-aligned due to inferior craftsmanship overseas.

      You mention the electrical panel fire which would be the P100. That was a piece that was outsourced to a subsidiary of EADS. They left a wrench inside that caused the fire when it shorted.
      The side of body issue with a problem with Fuju heavy's inability to do the work in the same way that Boeing was used to. So now, when the stringers come in from fuji, sections are cut away by Boeing, with the exception of one stringer. In that case, it is carrying an extra 25-50 some odd kgs. Does not sound like Much, but Boeing (and companies like Airbus) work on getting kgs knocked off.

      Basically, EVERY major issue was an outsource issue. It had to do with a lack of communication, combined with a different level of craftsmanship, and carefulness. Now, you appear to not want to look at facts, and that is fine. However, you have no rights to make up stuff that you obvious do NOT know.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    23. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Nope. First off, the design was NOT outsourced. Only manufacturing. Secondly, the 'blueprints' used by Boeing is Catia. That can do conversions, etc. Third, Boeing wanted LOADS of oversights. There was a battle within the company as well as 'partners' over this. Boeing is one for maintaining STRICT oversight. All of their local partners in Seattle (and in America) have Boeing with loads of oversight. They check EVERYTHING. That is why Boeing's have a top reputation. The 787 is ...... well, like a GE lightbulb, it has their name on it. I doubt that Boeing will EVER do this much outsourcing ever again. But that will depend on how much pressure Airbus puts on them by outsourcing as well. Apparently, Airbus wants to follow this pattern so as to sell more of their 350s. I think that are crazy if they go down that path, but that is their choice.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    24. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And yet, all of those issues were from the 50-70's design: the early days of pressurized commercial aircraft. The only aircraft that has had a real issue since then, has been Airbus with their lack of feedback to the pilots. They do not know what the other or the CPU is doing with it. That is why American grounded their Airbus A300's. Even now, American is apparently in discussions with Airbus on getting pilot feedback, but they want it for free. Airbus is saying otherwise, so it remains to be see what is going to happen. Considering that AA is coming out of a bankruptcy and this being funded freely by Europe govs (weird), I suspect that Parker will let it go through.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    25. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by monzie · · Score: 1

      My laptop does not fly. It does not carry 200+ passengers.

    26. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The battery manufacturer was exonerated. The problem turned out to be wiring done by Boeing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid its far far from "total BS".

      Both Boeing and Airbus do indeed use CATIA, but your version of build events is far from the way things have worked for the past couple of decades - the designers do virtual assemblies regularly. The first time there is any decent feed back from teh engineers on major parts is when the first aircraft is being assembled for real.

      Boeing actually forced brand (internally developed) new design software on all of its outsourced partners so they could be included in the virtual build process - the problem is, Boeing was trying to change too much for the 787 by changing both their design process and their build process at the same time (they were switching to a build process Airbus had used since the 1980s). Too many differences were found between the way the virtual build process worked and the physical build process worked...

      As for your outsourcing comments, you do realise that your 10% figure is three decades out of date? The 767 was 15% outsourced to Japanese partners, while the 777 touched 50% outsourced (major fuselage panels are prefabbed by partners and assembled by Boeing on the FAL), and both of those programmes are perfectly fine (the 777 beat a lot of deadlines in its design and build).

      Once again, the fastener issue is misunderstood - there are infact two entirely independent issues with the fasteners, one being the misuse of non-aviation grade fasteners to allow ZA001 and ZA002 to progress through the build process rather than stagnate in the FAL, and allowed Boeing to roll a "completed" 787 out for their 7/8/07 ceremony. These fasteners had to be drilled out and replaced when the aviation grade ones became available, and this cost time and money.

      The second, and much later, issue with the fasteners was the issue of them not being countersunk correctly, as you suggest. However, none of these parts that were affected came from China or Japan, they mostly came from the Global Aeronautica and Spirit plants in the US. Ironically, the only part which didn't have any countersunk fastener issues was the fuselage section from Japan.

      The electrical panel fire, on a part that was indeed outsourced, had nothing to do with the outsourcing - the fire was in ZA002, which had the panel in question assembled on site from the supplied parts rather than having the panel integrated as a whole. Any FOD issue was due to the FAL and not the outsourcing partner (it wasn't a wrench by the way, it is suspected to be metal filings from drilling as they never found any remains of the items which caused the arcing).

      The side of body issue had nothing to do with Fujis work - their product was supplied to the standard that Boeing required and signed off on in the design process. It was only later on that it was discovered that the design was in-adequate for the task and had to be amended - it was not a sub-optimally built part, it was a part that was designed and built to a standard that Boeing approved of.

      So no, I don't see any issues with the outsourcing itself.

    28. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yes, but is not Airbus's outsourcing mostly in Europe or is it global?

      And yeah, Boeing's 'outsourcing' to date was just local companies, not the BS that price was trying to claim. But it would be to Boeing's benefit to focus on automating production rather than on outsourcing like they have. Sadly, the Boeing execs were horrible over the last decade. Even now, the same set of bozo's are missing the boat with private space.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    29. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Except that there was only a single A300 equipped with fly by wire, and that machine was only used to test the system for A320.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    30. Re:I wont be a guinea pig by sjames · · Score: 1

      That is correct, it doesn't. If all else fails, the Ram Air Turbines will deploy and provide emergency power and hydraulic pressure sufficient to manually pilot the [plane (now a glider) to a landing.

      The battery does come in handy when the plane is on the ground with engines powered off.

  3. They still don't know the cause... by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and that does not reassure me, at all.

    1. Re:They still don't know the cause... by sribe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, hey, how are they supposed to ever figure out the cause if they can't put them all back in the air and get a few more instances to analyze? ;-)

    2. Re:They still don't know the cause... by JavaBear · · Score: 2

      a less than 2 hour flight, on a plane scheduled for 12+ hours, and where most battery incidents happened at the end of the flights?

      No. I'm not reassured at all, either.

    3. Re: They still don't know the cause... by FORTRANslinger · · Score: 1

      People figured out how the space shuttle blew into a billion fragments, but the "best" aerospace company in the world can't figure out why a couple of batteries went into meltdown...

      --
      I'm looking over the wall; and the're looking at me!
    4. Re: They still don't know the cause... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Boeing may be expert in many areas of engineering, but it appears lithium batteries is not one of them. Which I find worrying given they're betting not only the company but peoples lives on these things.

    5. Re:They still don't know the cause... by Sanhedran · · Score: 2

      Here's the cause - outsourcing design to their suppliers. A large number of disparate companies had leeway to determine how to make their product meet more general specifications. How is it surprising that we're now seeing poor results of the integration of these systems? And how exactly are you going to troubleshoot it? Boeing can use the delivery specifications all it wants, but any error or omissions (see: A7D brake scandal) will have you running in circles. Boeing needed to own the design top to bottom (as much as possible, anyway) to prevent corner cases. Now, they have a plane that's all corners. The scary part is, this is a common (as far as defect is concerned), somewhat repeatable problem with a generally basic system, and they can't figure it out. What other, more spurious problems are hiding that they have no clue about?

    6. Re: They still don't know the cause... by FORTRANslinger · · Score: 1

      Boeing are becoming "expert" in assembling aircraft components. But like many, many companies they are suffering from a severe lack of quality engineers to innovate and drive the company forwards in engineering. And as the baby-boomers continue to retire it is getting progressively worse. The up-and-coming "stars" with their shinny new degrees just can not cut it...

      --
      I'm looking over the wall; and the're looking at me!
    7. Re:They still don't know the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes they do. It was wired incorrectly, but then that's tantamount to calling your buyers idiots. Not good business. Instead, Boeing eats a shit sandwich, the battery compartment is reinforced so even if the airline miswires it and causes the battery to overheat, the problem is better contained, and the airlines keep buying new planes.

    8. Re:They still don't know the cause... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      Boeing flew the 787 for over 7,500 hours during certification, testing and route proving without this issue showing up - what would you have them do?

    9. Re:They still don't know the cause... by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Besides that Mayday air crash investigation needs material for new episodes
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(TV_series)

    10. Re:They still don't know the cause... by Solid+StaTe_1 · · Score: 1

      From TFA:
      "Japan's transport safety board said in a report that the battery for the aircraft's auxiliary power unit was incorrectly connected to the main battery that overheated.

      According to Reuters Boeing sources claim to have a fix to their battery problems that involves increasing the space between the lithium-ion battery cells."

      Which suggests that they don't know what the cause is. How does separating the cells fix an incorrect wiring problem?

      --
      Build a man a fire and you warm him for a day. Set a man on fire and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    11. Re:They still don't know the cause... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Clearly they didn't test it in real life conditions, i.e. a plane full of passengers mucking about with the entertainment system and afterwards the operators plugging it in to charge while forgetting to switch stuff off etc.

      Whatever they did it wasn't enough, which is an indication that they don't know how to properly test it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re: They still don't know the cause... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      So because there already safety issues we shouldn't be bothered about another? Yeah , great logic there pal.

    13. Re:They still don't know the cause... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what route proving is - a representative example of a passenger load flying in a representative cabin layout on a representative revenue route.

      You do realise that both batteries in the 787 that have had issues has nothing to do with passenger activity, right?

    14. Re:They still don't know the cause... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Whatever they did it was inadequate because it didn't find the problem the first time. One would hope they have improved their testing to cover this failure mode now, but it doesn't inspire confidence that they missed it the first time. Especially since the battery pack was known to be potentially dangerous and they had to get special permission to use lithium cells.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:They still don't know the cause... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You do realise that certification testing isn't supposed to find every design issue, every manufacturing issue and every materials issue? If it were, no aircraft would ever be certified, ever - the testing would be too costly and take decades.

  4. Imma corporate shill and trollmonger, OMG ponies! by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, Tesla would be smart to get their industrial strength, enterprise-ready, better-for-the-environment batteries FAA certified so that other aircraft manufacturers,such as Boeing, Airbus, and others, can license the patented technology and count that it will make Tesla, and its investors, more money.

    There, FTFY.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  5. Mathematically modeling rare events by popo · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has read Nicholas Nassim Taleb's "Black Swan" will immediately see the problem here. Rare events are almost impossible to predict mathematically with a small statistical set.

    Without a solid understanding of the underlying problem (which they still don't have) they are using "testing" to verify the stability of the electrical system. But testing will not and can not effectively assess risk.

    This is a disaster waiting to happen. Nothing has been solved.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re: Mathematically modeling rare events by FORTRANslinger · · Score: 2

      The design "flew" for hundreds of thousands of hours on the desktop simulation without any problems;-)

      --
      I'm looking over the wall; and the're looking at me!
  6. Bullshit by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The battery has not marred the plane's launch. In fact, the plane has been launched and in service for a while. Journalists are "historians" indeed - lol.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Bullshit by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      The battery has not marred the plane's launch. In fact, the plane has been launched and in service for a while.

      Being grounded for weeks due to a marked tendency to catch fire is the kind of thing that most people would consider to have marred its launch.

      I certainly don't plan to get on a Doomliner in the next couple of years.

    2. Re:Bullshit by tipo159 · · Score: 1

      The battery has not marred the plane's launch. In fact, the plane has been launched and in service for a while.

      Being grounded for weeks due to a marked tendency to catch fire is the kind of thing that most people would consider to have marred its launch.

      I certainly don't plan to get on a Doomliner in the next couple of years.

      The battery has not marred the plane's launch. Being three years late (and all of the issues that caused the delay) marred the plane's launch.

  7. Here is FlightAware's live data map by ShaunC · · Score: 1

    BOE272, since submitter apparently forgot that link.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:Here is FlightAware's live data map by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      Here's an even better site & link: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/boe272

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  8. Indeed by goldcd · · Score: 2

    It's not the flying part - it's the hitting the ground you should be scared of.
    I never used to have a problem with flying, and I'm still 'fine' with it - but I still remember with f'in terror a take-off I had from LHR.
    Go down the runway, nose up, we're going up - and then we drop like a stone for a few seconds on what I assume was an air-pocket. Seeing things on the ground getting significantly bigger whilst the nose is still pointing up is *not* a good feeling.
    Now the majority of my brain is reasonably comfortable with the idea there was never really a danger, but my lizard cortex takes a couple of G&Ts to completely silence now.

    1. Re:Indeed by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      I've had that happen twice, and both times I was listening to air traffic control and the crew on the headphones. What happened to me was they had another plane coming in for a landing in the opposite direction right above us, and the other plane was coming in too low, and our plane had to chop the throttles, and drop 500 feet because there was less than (the planned) 1000 feet between us and the plane above us! It's pretty f'n scary, you're right. All of the sudden the engines go from a roar to a whisper, and you drop like a stone for a few seconds, then it's Wide Open Throttle so we didn't end up in someone else's way!

      I still remember the shadow of the 747 going over us and feeling our plane struggle as we went through their turbulence!

      Looking backwards from my window, I could see it cross our path, and it was terrifying to think how close we really were to the other plane!

      The pilot made it sound like it was no big deal, but the pants they were a shittin' that day!

      It's crazy to fly past a busy airport and watch the planes take off and land from another plane. It looks like a busy freeway on ramp at rush hour!

      Cheers:)

  9. WARNING: BLIB Exhaust by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Easy fix. Sealed box for the battery, and a hose from each battery into some kind of manifold that vents to the outside. You've probably seen fighter jets that have "WARNING: APU Exhaust" on the side. Just have a similar warning for Burning Lithium-Ion Battery exhaust.

    I'm joking of course.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?