InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'General Discussion | Travel' started by uggboy, Mar 29, 2013.
| Print Topic
|| Boeing CEO Urges FAA To Let 787 Fly Again ||
Quickly and safely please.
I think the FAA understands the gravity of the situation & the public understands Boeing's stake in this, no news here.
While the public understands Boeing's stake in this, it's another matter what the public will choose to fly, based on the history of the 787. Regarding the FAA, they are interested to let this beautiful plane fly, but it's also of great interest to be sure and safe. While Boeing wants to make sure their plane flies and yes, they're CEO is spot on here, it's a different matter to get pushed and give the OK's too early.
Indeed, but IMHO it's better to be safe than sorry. <<Please NO pushing>>
Do you think the Chicago/Seattle interested parties will read a "no pushing" sign?
Let's just say, I wouldn't hold my breath. [ but please, even when they think about business/money first, reputations and passengers are at stake too ]
I've heard a variety of public perceptions but let's hope that moderate minds will prevail given the hard work so many professional minds, by industry, contractors & regulatory agencies, are investing in this issue today.
Boeing has a very big stake in making sure that they don't have any other public problems with the 787. They know that if they push and fly too soon and, as a result, have an issue, it will haunt them for years to come.
I suspect Boeing may be one of the most conservative in making sure the fix is right.
It compiles. Let's ship it.
It'd be so neat to have those working on the battery issue posting here about how it is to be under the public glare as they do generally technical & hard-to-understand work, anonymously as not to compromise their own identity and while still observing all common sense, press sensitivity, security, trade secrets and all that legal jazz.
Best line yet!
Sent from my iPad using milepoint
I'd like to think that too, but if that's the case, why all the begging from Boeing for the feds to let the plane back in the air? We all know the plane will fly again, probably sooner rather than later, but if Boeing wants to reassure the public the plane is safe, they've got to know that all this begging and pleading will have NO effect on the government, and may have the opposite effect on the public from the one they (Boeing) are seeking.
That would be incredibly interesting, but likely impossible to do while maintaining the things quoted.
I doubt most people have any idea what kind of plane they are on. I find people often have only a vague idea that there is some sort of new plane around, which they think is maybe called the "Dreamliner" and is very big, maybe double-decker, maybe holding several hundred people. Some of them remember some details; those are the ones who think it holds 380 people.
That's a line I haven't heard in a while! (Along with "Shove some more cotton in the kludge alarms," and the perennial favorite "Close enough for government work.")
I agree with you that we'd enjoy it, but the reality is that I'm sure they are very aware that anything they say could cause very unpleasant repercussions, both for themselves and their employer. Almost any details would violate employment terms and be likely to be misinterpreted and lead to worse PR problems. It would take a lot of work to remain anonymous.
I suppose they could fictionalize it, changing the industry, the locale, the methodology, the time frame, and perhaps the technology.
Fellow Seattlite Mini Microsoft seems to have stayed anonymous all these years.
But yes, it's risky and unethical and would not seriously suggest that anyone do that.
One time, my mother told me she recently took a flight on the biggest plane she had ever seen, an AF 777. I told her that she had flown the same type of plane just the year before. She looked at me like I was from Mars. She couldn't tell a 747 from a DC-3.
Too many generalists on this blog who do not understand aviation or specifics of improvements that Boeing made.
1. First mistake many make is FIRE on an aircraft is not preventable. Engines catch fire and the process is shutdown(turn off) and even drop it in the ocean if needed.
2. Containment faults - every AIRPLANE ever made has safety issues which could have resulted in catastrophic failures unless the faults are contained to prevent worst case issues. Boeing re-design has eliminated a possible fire spreading not only within the battery but within a containment box.
FAA is under pressure from NTSB and Japan Ministry to slow down the approval process even though Boeing re-deisgn is an excellent slam dunk solution.
Personally, I would fly on a Boeing 787 than an Airbus A350 as Boeing has been superior in flight management systems.
Every new product in every industry will have hiccups as the 787 will have in-service problems as the many new technology systems need long term usage to work out nuisiances seen every day in this industry.
FAA should approve Boeing 787 battery design with 1-2 weeks and if not it's politics not engineering.
When politics(Congress) get involved in engineering issues it shows why the USA cannot implement health care or balance a budget. Idiots run the asylumn and then need citizen donations to re-elect these morons.
Yes, NTSB and FAA are run by midgets in aviation knowledge so go figure.
Your first point is valid, but is also a byproduct of a BB. I se no problem in that, knowing how few people who comment are really well informed. Those people usually are seeking knowledge and are expressing explicit thoughts of users. Rather like the Airplane pilot whose self-appointed expertise attempts to diagnose a fault. Trying to find a fault based on pilot diagnosis is the bane of many airplane mechanics lives. I have dealt with that first hand, paying the price for pilot 'insight'. As almost all pilots know, they're operators, nor more qualified to judge faults than is the typical PC user qualified to judge an IPU fault.
Your second point is humorous. One thing Boeing is NOT noted for is superior flight management systems. Why? Boeing does not make FMS, nor have they innovated as a user. The suppliers who make such systems provide quite similar solutions to airframers, who leapfrog each other as they update their equipment. Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, Thales and Universal are names prominent in the supplier list. The B787 has several suppliers but the FMS core is supplied by Rockwell Collins.
Many people think Boeing is itself advanced in this respect because of two factors. First, Boeing funds a large amount of research in airspace use, ATC functions and approach optimization, among other things. Much of that is significantly funded by the US Government under DARPA and others, just as the technological basis for the 'more electric' architecture came from Boeings government funded failed bid for the JSF. Second, Boeing promotes itself as the leader, claiming the B767 had the first FMS. That is false. The first installation was in the Lockheed Tristar, provided by Honeywell. Subsequently the same technology was put in the B767, which put it to very good use.
As a note on the FMS issue. Prior to the advent of light flat panel displays that modernized the visual presentation of FMS displays the largest innovation was the laser gyro, which permitted the aircraft to navigate by internal reference without external signals. All FMS since the beginning have been multi-source units that can use whatever signals are available to aid the INS, from Loran, VOR, NDB, GPS or any other signals. As sources become disused, such as NDB and Loran, for all practical purposes, the FMS continues with whatever signals now exist, these days including GLONASS too. Those developments have benefitted everyone from passengers to airframers, but they were not part of airframers innovation.
Finally, the precursor of all those IFR capabilities were 'colored airways' designed by the US Post Office to help guide airmail deliveries. While those were VFR only, the US Commerce Department made enhancements to permit IFR flying. Then Elmer Sperry invented the autopilot.
Throughout the history of avionics development it is difficult to find an area where Boeing itself ever was a leader technologically. Even in FBW they have been a slow follower. That has been explicitly by design because Boeing has not been known for the ability to forge successful new technologies. The greatest Boeing commercial success, that really established then in civil aviation leadership, was the B707. In that case, as in others, they simply avoided the early learning curve and built a massively successful follower. That was only possible because Pratt & Whitney, formerly part of Boeing itself (as was UA), made a turbojet engine that did not make the same mistakes as the earlier ones.
Boeing has been superior without question. But not in any new technology. It has benn spectacular in copying and improving other companies innovations.
Sent from my iPad using milepoint
Especially one that is called MilePoint.
1. What is a BB?
2. You misinterpreted me in claiming I said Boeing designed teh Flight Management System. Boeing is the end integrator and purchases the Flight Management System and then integrates into the airplane system architecture. Yes, the FMS is Boeing.
Boeing has written the specification of what the FMS must be capaable of performing and it's ability to run Hardware-In-Loop bench tests, airplane simulation modeling, and extensive flight testing as I stated above make it superior to Airbus A350.
Yes, a supplier is deisgning and testing at component level but system integration into the airplane system environment is Boeing.
As for the BMS(Battery Management System) built by Thales, the high specs are by Boeing and it has been modified with improvements abaove and beyond what the FAA requires. Battery itself has been cell wrapped to prevent thermal runaway. ANd, extensive laboratory tests of excessive heat inside the box and external high power susceptibility tests have been conducted with data showing SUPERB results.
Look at the head of the NTSB and FAA, as these are NOT qualified engineering minds leading safety but merely political figureheads.
This is the case with many agencies of the federal government. I don't think it has any bearing on what happens with the 787.
What do you mean no bearing on 787?
Whole issue is safety for airworthiness of the 787...not aircrafts in general.
I am only aware of 3 agencies: FAA, NTSB, Japan Ministry
Boeing has FAA convinced the re-design EXCEEDS the safety issues with the battery.
Boeing has performed several flight tests with the new battery design and along with extensive laboratory results have presented this data to the FAA for review.
FAA is going slowly due to NTSB and Congress meddling.
from an engineering perspective the Battery Management System re-design has nailed the problem and FAA will have to allow planes back in service not later than May1 but probably by April 15.
Would you mind sharing what qualifies you to make such definitive statements? Are you involved in the design and testing?