Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5666239/

Topic: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-01-18 22:24:27 and read 16770 times.

There is an astonishingly strong critique of both the FAA and Boeing in today's Australian aviation media.....

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...tery-fires-burn-faa-and-media-too/

The basic argument is that all media statements by Boeing about the 787 from 2005-10 were misleading, and that the FAA certification process has become dysfunctional and incompetent.

And yes, the article really does introduce Lance Armstrong's name into the comparison.

If true, it raises serious questions as to whether the 787 program can be rendered safe at all.

[Edited 2013-01-18 22:30:31]

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: WesternA318
Posted 2013-01-19 00:59:04 and read 16479 times.

A fubulous writing in every respect!

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-19 01:11:50 and read 16400 times.

At least the 787 doesn't need EPO to start its engines.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-01-19 01:40:57 and read 16252 times.

The planetalking blog is well respected. Prior to the Qantas purchase of the 787, the PR media went crazy with hype in Australia.

I have to agree with this statement - considering they used fasteners from Home Depot -

"The roll out of the shell of a 787 in July 2007 that was purported to be the prototype that would fly by the end of September that year and be certified by late May 2008 was a willful, orchestrated and totally deceitful lie."

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: mariner
Posted 2013-01-19 02:11:05 and read 16073 times.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 5):
The planetalking blog is well respected. Prior to the Qantas purchase of the 787, the PR media went crazy with hype in Australia.

I'm Australian and I don't respect it.

I accept that Ben Sandilands is knowledgeable and well-informed, but he is hostage to his own very narrow agenda and his style is too hyperbolic for me and often too aggressive.

And it wasn't just the media that went crazy with hype about the 787 - some of the most respected people in the industry were getting pretty crazy, too.

mariner

[Edited 2013-01-19 02:19:41]

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: ZB052
Posted 2013-01-19 02:18:40 and read 16010 times.

Quoting koruman (Thread starter):

If true, it raises serious questions as to whether the 787 program can be rendered safe at all.

Seriously?

*Shakes Head*

Guess we'd better shut down every aviation regulation authority who are prepared to certify the '87 for operations(not just the FAA), as they are surely just as implicated in this as Boeing?

Total and utter nonsense.

[Edited 2013-01-19 02:19:39]

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: abba
Posted 2013-01-19 02:26:00 and read 15974 times.

The article is certainly way over the top. However, so was Boeing's PR also. And the one goes with the other. This is how the press works.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: KFlyer
Posted 2013-01-19 02:27:05 and read 15957 times.

Have to agree with mariner. If the 787 is to be rendered 'unsafe', and 'impossible' - that would mean the aircraft technology will never evolve beyond its current state. And by virtue, in a few years time that would push this industry into history as the current technology is not efficient enough to be competitive at sustained USD125+/bal fuel prices. In the same token, you would have never seen any hybrid or electric automobiles.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: traindoc
Posted 2013-01-19 02:38:19 and read 15890 times.

According to the Bloomberg website, the problem may be with the battery manufacturer and not Boeing. Apparently a bad batch of LI ion batteries from the Japanese manufacturer. Obviously, yet to be confirmed. And by the way, the A350 will also rely on LI ion batteries for it's design.

Time to stop the hysterics and await the facts!

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2013-01-19 02:41:59 and read 15880 times.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 5):

The planetalking blog is well respected.

Err no. I saw the source and I knew I shouldn't read it, but I did and saw exactly what I expected.

I agree with most of what Mariner said. He may know something about the airline business (or he may not), but throughout his body of work he has demonstrated a complete lack of clue about anything technical or related to certification. He writes with plenty of bluff and bluster and confidence, and I can see why the layman would believe it.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: koruman
Posted 2013-01-19 02:43:06 and read 15862 times.

The issue about safety appears to be this: is it reasonable for the FAA to delegate back to the manufacturer the responsibility for oversight of key areas?

By the way, what did happen to the prototype shell from 2007 with the Home Depot fasteners?

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2013-01-19 02:54:05 and read 15788 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
By the way, what did happen to the prototype shell from 2007 with the Home Depot fasteners?

There was no prototype. ZA001 flew as part of the test program. The temporary fasteners were replaced as intended. As for being "home depot", was that actually the case or just the colloquial expression used to describe the temporary fasteners?

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-19 02:57:14 and read 15768 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 13):
As for being "home depot", was that actually the case or just the colloquial expression used to describe the temporary fasteners?

"Flightblogger has learned that many of the temporary fasteners, which were painted red and installed in place of flightworthy parts, were purchased from run-of-the-mill chain hardware stores, including Home Depot and Ace Hardware.

The use of hardware store parts has been confirmed by multiple sources working directly with the aircraft at assembly sites in both Everett, Wa. and Charleston, S.C."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...emporary-fasteners-causing-ma.html

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-01-19 03:07:07 and read 15683 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 13):
As for being "home depot", was that actually the case
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/11/the-little-fast/

" In 2007, facing a big shortage, Boeing bought temporary fasteners from Home Depot and Ace Hardware so assembly work could continue while more suppliers were lined up."


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...emporary-fasteners-causing-ma.html

Flightblogger has learned that many of the temporary fasteners, which were painted red and installed in place of flightworthy parts, were purchased from run-of-the-mill chain hardware stores, including Home Depot and Ace Hardware.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2013-01-19 03:13:15 and read 15643 times.

Quoting flood (Reply 14):
were purchased from run-of-the-mill chain hardware stores, including Home Depot and Ace Hardware.

Fair enough. It was too long ago for me to remember the detail. And I shouldn't have been lazy and not checked myself.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: BE77
Posted 2013-01-19 03:17:52 and read 15610 times.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 10):
According to the Bloomberg website, the problem may be with the battery manufacturer and not Boeing.

I agree waiting for the hysterics to go away!
Keep in mnd though that in every case it was Boeing that selected all their suppliers, and is therefor the problem is with Boeing for not picking a better supplier for that component. Boeing can absolutely hold the supplier accountable if that is the case.
However, all of the Boeing customers affected by this are certainly entitled to hold Boeing acocuntable.

For most of us, if we were on a flight affected by the the battery supplier, we're not going to hold either Boeing or the battery manufacturer accountable, but it is the airline we will expect to respond to the problem - since that's who promised us (in a contract) the trip which makes them 100% accountable to us.

Morally and contractually, everyone is accountable for what they promise, regardless of who in their supply chain is involved. The normal way is to have Force Majeure clauses in the agreements / contracts to cover things that you really can't control. Like everything else, this gets negotiated.

More than once I've had to change suppliers because they couldn't deliver because their suppliers couldn't deliver. The suppliers who got a second chance later were usually the ones who told me the minute they knew about it and helped me find an alternative - basically owning up to their responsibility / accountability. Of course it has also happened to me where a supplier failed to deliver, so I had to fess up to the clients and do whatever I could to keep them going, even if it meant calling a competitor and handing over the job.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: upperdeck
Posted 2013-01-19 03:25:56 and read 15572 times.

I think the post title is inaccurate. The article doesn't compare the 787 to Armstrong at all, it merely points out that the aviation media were made to look like fools by Boeing in the same way that Armstrong made the sports journalists look like fools also.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-01-19 04:31:28 and read 15079 times.

We are talking about a/c which fly millions of pax around the world every day, these a/c must meet standards applied and approved by governments around the world, so in order, I could care less about Boeing PR, they are a salesman like all others. In addition to the customer being satisfied in the credibility of the sales pitch we also have the government regulators stamp of approval on the basic safety claims that the salesman can make, we now have consumer protection laws for everything.

1. Since the FAA as claimed in the article was incompetetnt and complicit is not doing their job, is any government anywhere in the world grounding US registered or FAA certified a/c for additional testing and or certification that they are safe?

2. Is the belief that the incompetence of the USA inspection body limited only to one type of a/c, the 787? Usually when someone is incompetent it is across the board, not limited to one particular product or region, so has any government proposed a 24 hour grounding for all other FAA certified a/c in their nation to do mandatory inspections to verify certifications done by the FAA since design of and outsourcing of the Dreamliner was commenced?
Example do we perform evacuation test, engine out test, smoke drills, and other emergency related test on all 737's, 777's, 767's, 747's and 748's delivered since the outsourcing?

I mean if I follow the logic of the article and public safety is a concern, am I wrong in mandating that the world governments follow this through to the logical conclusion, lets remember, all of the regulatory bodies around the world do not take part in the testing and certification of USA designed a/c, they review the documents from the FAA and if they have concerns those are passed on to be answered and in some cases modifications are put in place. So if we cannot rely on the recent work of the FAA, until they regain their credibility, do we not owe it to our pax to ensure that we do all that is necessary to keep them safe?

So in a nutshell, are we to throw the entire FAA under the bus for incompetence of just throw the FAA under the bus for incompetence on the 787 and they are perfectly fine in everything else that they have done and are doing?

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: a380900
Posted 2013-01-19 05:26:10 and read 14329 times.

Quoting koruman (Thread starter):
If true, it raises serious questions as to whether the 787 program can be rendered safe at all.

It's commentary. It's not true or untrue. His facts are true. I had never truly realized how the FAA screwed up on the Eclipse 500 but now that I think of it... Plus the 7/8/07 roll out is the symbol that something was very wrong at the helm of the Boeing company for the 787 program.

Quoting mariner (Reply 6):
And it wasn't just the media that went crazy with hype about the 787 - some of the most respected people in the industry were getting pretty crazy, too.

That's because people tend to believe in institutions until they crumble. They will tend to have faith in them way longer than they deserve because of conservatism. The mere proof of them being dysfuntional will not persuade anyone that they must be change. They have to run their course and collapse.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 10):
Time to stop the hysterics and await the facts!

Yes. Nobody can criticize Boeing unless three 787 crash into the sea and the 787 is abandoned as ill conceived. I mean seriously guys? What has to happen before one can get a little hysterical about this program and criticize Boeing? It was on the wrong track since the shark tail drawing and the empty shell roll out is the absolute proof of the unprofessional manner in which it was conducted (7/8/7 ? Give me a break!).

So for 10 years now (and more with the sonic cruiser joke), Boeing is playing catch-up with Airbus while being unwilling to invest what was required in a new, history making type (the unwillingness to invest of its own pocket is what explained the out of control outsourcing). But we on airliners.net who dare pointing that out are jingoistic. What's jingoistic is not being able to see how wrong this program went.

So I agree with a lot of what's said on this article. It is the harsh reality of a company that has lost its bearing when it comes to innovation.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-19 07:50:42 and read 12369 times.

As to Mr. Sandlands allegations of corruption: if one reads the Wall Street Journal article he references, one would find that is standard operating procedure for the FAA (and, I expect, EASA, as well) as they do not have the money or the staff to independently develop and test everything.

Mark Rosenker, former head of the NTSB and a CBS analyst, stated in an interview that he doesn't believe the FAA cut any corners in certifying this airplane: "Who knows more about the aircraft than the manufacturer itself?"

That being said, I expect these incidents with the battery (which was a new form of technology) will result in even closer collaboration between the OEMs and the Regulatory Agencies, especially when new systems or technologies are being introduced.

[Edited 2013-01-19 08:42:40]

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: upperdeck
Posted 2013-01-19 08:00:16 and read 12201 times.

Airproxx - you need to start quoting sources! From what source do you believe the A380 has 'terrific' dispatch reliability problems?? Did you read EASA's report into AF447?? Yes the pitot tubes froze up when the pilots decided to fly straight into a supercell, but the sheer volume of pilot errors makes me cringe!

I would agree with many of your comments about Boeing's 'morals' IF they had recommended the grounding of the 787 themselves, but they didn't, the FAA did it for them!

I must admit you don't put your points across like someone who's a 'pro' in the aviation industry!

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-01-19 08:07:53 and read 12100 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
I guess maybe by Airbus and Virgin Australia fans.

Ah, the old - he's an airbus fanboi technique...

Two recent examples to prove you not fully accurate...

Those of us who are more than around 180 cms tall may take some convincing, but the bean counters will no doubt be thrilled by getting up to 236 seats to sell in a jet that currently maxes out at 220 passengers.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...-pack-more-seats-into-its-a321neo/

He also called the new virgin australia aircraft " every bit as intolerably uncomfortable in economy class as airline bean counters can render them within the safety rules relating to the maximum permissible passenger loads in each family of misery tubes".

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...-truly-big-news-about-the-737-max/

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-19 08:17:31 and read 12135 times.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 24):
Ah, the old - he's an airbus fanboi technique...


Richard Aboulafia is considered a Boeing fanboi by a not-insignificant part of the forum because of his body of work predominately being positive towards Boeing and negative against Airbus. And yet I am sure I can find cases where he has spoken well of Airbus if I looked.

Anyway, I recommend folks read the WSJ article, instead.

[Edited 2013-01-19 08:42:02]

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-01-19 09:08:34 and read 11397 times.

The FAA’s certification process had by the time it dealt with the 787 moved from real independent testing and certification of projects to oversight of the processes. This outsourcing of the certification processes to the actual beneficiaries of the process is incompatible with the purpose and intent of testing and certification.

From article

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):

The issue about safety appears to be this: is it reasonable for the FAA to delegate back to the manufacturer the responsibility for oversight of key areas?


I think the article is commenting on the AR (Authorized Representative) program and delegated authority. It is where the FAA delegates the subject matter expertise to the manufacturer to ensure compliance with the FARs. To further review delegated authority read 8100.51B.

Fundamentally it makes sense when you have people with the most subject matter knowledge reviewing for compliance with the FARs. Conspiracy theorists will say it is a corrupt setup that produces inferior products. I say it results in a process that is manageable and produces the safest airplanes.

It is easy to forget how disastrous how bad a prominently entry into service was in the late 1980 s with a new airplane having 4 fatal crashes in the first 5 years of service. The oversight authority was influenced by political reasons and suspicious accident findings were published. Independent review is not going to always be better.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-01-19 09:16:10 and read 11292 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Mark Rosenker, former head of the NTSB and a CBS analyst, stated in an interview that he doesn't believe the FAA cut any corners in certifying this airplane: "Who knows more about the aircraft than the manufacturer itself?"

And the investment banks said the same thing about banking.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-19 09:21:33 and read 11502 times.

I think the top brass at Boeing should be lynched for all of their terrible decisions lately. I think it is time to replace the CEO. Alan would have never let things get this way. McNerney and his buddies need to go back to 3M. Tape and glue wont fix the mess they created. There have been numerous lies and deceit by the Boeing Chicago crew.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: mariner
Posted 2013-01-19 09:45:10 and read 11206 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
Richard Aboulafia is considered a Boeing fanboi by a not-insignificant part of the forum because of his body of work predominately being positive towards Boeing and negative against Airbus. And yet I am sure I can find cases where he has spoken well of Airbus if I looked.

I'm one of those who consider Richard Aboulafia an aggressive Boeing fan-boy and I've never seen much positive that he's written about Airbus.

But he is the first commentator to put the 787 hysteria into perspective, describing it in one simple, exact phrase: "the drug like rush of the 787."

Metaphorically, many aeronauts still crack a woody just thinking about the 787.

mariner

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-19 09:55:45 and read 11202 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 26):
It is easy to forget how disastrous how bad a prominently entry into service was in the late 1980 s with a new airplane having 4 fatal crashes in the first 5 years of service. The oversight authority was influenced by political reasons and suspicious accident findings were published. Independent review is not going to always be better.

I assume you mean the A320 and the JAA (the precursor to EASA)?



Quoting BestWestern (Reply 27):
And the investment banks said the same thing about banking.

And the Banking Regulators were clearly far too close to the banks, themselves.

As I noted in this thread and the FAA Grounding thread (where I brought the WSJ article up for discussion), I do believe that there needs to be a deeper level of cooperation between the Regulatory Authorities (FAA, EASA, etc.) and the OEMs (Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, etc.), especially with new materials and technologies being introduced.

However, the suggestions that have been made inside and outside this forum that the FAA (and the JAA) are corrupt organizations more interested in advancing their country's aerospace manufacturers than advancing aerospace safety ring hollow to me based on the testimonials given by members of this forum with first-hand experience with certifying aerospace components and airframes with these agencies.



Quoting F9animal (Reply 28):
I think the top brass at Boeing should be lynched for all of their terrible decisions lately. I think it is time to replace the CEO. Alan would have never let things get this way.

You are evidently unaware that Alan Mulally, as CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes at the time, was directly involved in the decisions to outsource so much of the design of the 7E7 / 787.



Does anyone know what was the last Boeing commercial airline family and/or model where the batteries were completely designed in-house by Boeing engineers? Or what was the last Boeing commercial airline family and/or model where the batteries were manufactured by full-time Boeing employees?

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-01-19 10:13:04 and read 10877 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
However, the suggestions that have been made inside and outside this forum that the FAA (and the JAA) are corrupt organizations more interested in advancing their country's aerospace manufacturers than advancing aerospace safety ring hollow to me based on the testimonials given by members of this forum with first-hand experience with certifying aerospace components and airframes with these agencies.

I completely agree. The regulations are very strict and the Authorized Representatives are not swaying from them. The conspiracy theorists say the FAA is in bed with the manufacturer. As someone with such experience I can absolutely affirm that the regulation process is so much more robust than it was thirty or forty years ago. Certification plans that were a few pages based in sybjective engineering judgement have been replace with comprehensive fault trees and safety assessments that are hundreds of pages long. There is no way the FAA could be staffed with enough experts to review all the analysis that is performed with enough knowledge to understand it.

I try to ignore the conspiracy theorists and those who say certification is worse than it used to be sine those opinions are based on ignorance in my opinion. It is ten times more comprehensive now and the entry into service accident and significant event (diversion, inflight shutdown, etc) rates show it ( and yes i was referring to the A320 andJAA).The uniformed may not understand that and are certainly entitled o their opinion but the author of this article is certainly not well respected by me who has airplane design experience and knows what dealing with the FAA is like. In fact I spent 4 hours yesterday in a conference room with the FAA and know they still strictly oversee all aspects if aircraft development.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Redd
Posted 2013-01-19 10:30:15 and read 10580 times.

Quoting abba (Reply 8):
The article is certainly way over the top.

I agree, and it does not present any facts or references for its wild conclusions. Although it may be all 100% true, a 5th grader could write a better researched article. Heck, the Daily Mail could probably do better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI  
Quoting F9animal (Reply 28):
I think the top brass at Boeing should be lynched for all of their terrible decisions lately

Agree with this too 100%


The fact is that the FAA had in fact messed up many times before, take the rear cargo door issue on the DC-10. This 787 issue seems to have the same 'smell' as the rear cargo door issue. I remember there was this same issue during certification with a battery issue. And here it is creeping up after entry into service. Seems like the same thing, although I might be wrong.

I'm waiting for the official report without much patience.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-19 10:30:49 and read 10599 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
The issue about safety appears to be this: is it reasonable for the FAA to delegate back to the manufacturer the responsibility for oversight of key areas?

Due to lack of government funding, the FAA basically performs a review function.. they tell Boeing which tests to do and what the acceptable results are.. They review the processes and procedures, the internal tests and the inspection criteria. When the ACSEP audits come, they are primarily verifying that the production system is adhering to documented policies, processes and procedures. During new a/p approvals, special FAA personnel are assigned to observe. There Boeing people responsible for auditing for the FAA and from personal experience they not only take their job seriously, but in many cases use tougher criteria than the FAA.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
You are evidently unaware that Alan Mulally, as CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes at the time, was directly involved in the decisions to outsource so much of the design of the 7E7 / 787.

Poor old Mullay was a great engineer, but got caught up in the Toyota manufacturing system as the be all and end all of manufacturing processes. While he encouraged the outsourcing, the folks in what was call Materiel, went whole hog without sufficient knowledge or oversight (my opinion).

However back to the article.. sounds like someone didn't get an invitation to something or other and decided to retaliate

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: lhrnue
Posted 2013-01-19 10:31:58 and read 10597 times.

I actually would love to see Jon's Flightblogger back these days to get some insight into Boeing.

I think that this article is quite good and the following statement I've cound't have said better.

"The roll out of the shell of a 787 in July 2007 that was purported to be the prototype that would fly by the end of September that year and be certified by late May 2008 was a willful, orchestrated and totally deceitful lie."

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: airproxx
Posted 2013-01-19 10:37:56 and read 10548 times.

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 23):
Airproxx - you need to start quoting sources! From what source do you believe the A380 has 'terrific' dispatch reliability problems??

My source is an internal source issued by my airline, and then published my many newspapers, one of them is "Les Echos" (not the stantard tabloid), here's the link:

http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-s...disponibilites-des-a380-505957.php

In french, but I guess you know how to use the translation tools on the Internet.

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 23):
Did you read EASA's report into AF447??

Yes I did, and it was a shame. Totally biased by the French EASA CEO to protect Airbus fellows. Nice source.

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 23):
Yes the pitot tubes froze up when the pilots decided to fly straight into a supercell, but the sheer volume of pilot errors makes me cringe!

You mean, just as did LH, and TAM pilots just minutes around the crash time? I see... Guess what, their aircraft didn't ditch into sea... So the crew responsibility isn't really obvious here... But I guess this is another subject.

I maintain my points, whatever you like it or not.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-01-19 10:41:15 and read 10464 times.

Quoting airproxx (Reply 38):
I maintain my points, whatever you like it or not.

But without proper backing up of your claims, they are just flame-bait. Nothing more. And if you think the AF447-report was a cover-up, again back it up with your evidence. Or again it is just flame-bait.  .

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-19 10:42:54 and read 10439 times.

I read the post. I thought it was well written, and very interesting. He does not hold back any punches, and seems very emotional about air safety. I think he brings up excellent points, and has left me wondering how much Boeing has covered up. I got flamed to higb heavens for bringing attention to a 787 that was almost lost during a test flight. I was told it was not a fire, but an arc. I was told that the plane was never in danger. But, my source who is a high up at Boeing backs the account. Boeing has downplayed every incident, and has done a good job of keeping the truth wrapped. Fact is, the airplane is grounded now, and I hope that Boeing gets it right this time. No quick fixes... Thorough examination, acceptable fixes, and additional bugs fixed. If the plane goes back to the air and continues to be a media disaster frenzy, I fear the program will face dire consequences. I want nothing more to see this plane be successful. The only way I see that happening is by removing the current CEO and other top brass. They have really given Boeing enough black eyes.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-19 10:50:21 and read 10348 times.

Even if the Regulatory Authorities had all the money and manpower they wanted, how would it make the procedures fundamentally different?

Is there the expectation that the FAA should have independently designed, built and tested the battery subsystem? Or even the entire electrical system? Maybe the FAA should have built their own flyable 787 and tested every system independently.

The WSJ article notes that the FAA recognized early on that the 787's batteries created a new level of risk:

Quote:
Regulators recognized early that the Dreamliner's rechargeable lithium-ion batteries presented new and special potential hazards. The officials and Boeing understood that mitigating those dangers posed broad technical and policy questions.

The FAA and Boeing spent years developing special protections in case the batteries, their chargers or associated wiring went haywire. The mandated safeguards included hardware and software able to automatically disconnect batteries from the onboard electrical grid in case of unexpected problems; and additional protections to prevent overheating or overcharging even if the automatic-disconnect system failed.

Robert Francis, former vice chairman of the NTSB, did note in the interview that senior FAA officials should have decided 'there's a lot we don't know yet about this technology" and "they should have done something differently." However, he also noted "this is the standard way to certify aircraft" and the authors of the article did note the process has been effective over the years, making the FAA and U.S. airlines global leaders in devising ways to track incidents and in-service safety problems, in order to verify that the original design assumptions were correct.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-19 10:54:33 and read 10297 times.

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 37):
that was purported to be the prototype

Way back then we had a major discussion on the term "prototype"... European continental, British, and Americans have subtly different definitions. The variances ran from proof of concept one off model to first of a production run.

Jon writing for an British publication at that time used Queen's English and definitions.

splitting those hairs again is a waste of time.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-19 11:18:18 and read 10000 times.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 40):
I got flamed to higb heavens for bringing attention to a 787 that was almost lost during a test flight. I was told it was not a fire, but an arc. I was told that the plane was never in danger. But, my source who is a high up at Boeing backs the account.

And others with direct knowledge of the incident - and who spoke with those aboard the plane and therefore had direct experience with the incident - claim the plane wasn't "minutes from falling out of the sky" and also reported that failed systems were coming back online as the plane was on final and during the runway rollout after touchdown.

I'm inclined to believe the statements of those who were there than I am "unnamed sources". *shrug*

[Edited 2013-01-19 11:20:50]

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-19 11:19:05 and read 10012 times.

This comparison is hardly fair to Lance Armstrong  

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: HBGDS
Posted 2013-01-19 11:25:28 and read 9928 times.

Quoting a380900 (Reply 20):
Did the 777 ever had some? No.

Wow, nice to see we're up on our history. United had substantial dispatch issues. It's part of the deal with any new airliner.

As for the fastener business on 07/08/07, it would not be an issues if things had worked out and management had not been so brazen in promising an early first flight date. Heck, Concorde rolled out in December '67, but did not fly till 3/69. It never became the game changer it was suppose dto be, but at the time, it looked like it.

Let's keep a cool head. As a frenchy I like Airbus, but I'd like to fly the 787, so let's hope for the best (i.e. solving the problem.)

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-19 11:28:01 and read 9910 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
And others with direct knowledge of the incident - and who spoke with those aboard the plane and therefore had direct experience with the incident - claim the plane wasn't "minutes from falling out of the sky" and also reported that failed systems were coming back online as the plane was on final and during the runway rollout after touchdown.

Unless the plane breaks apart I don't know how it could falling out of the sky anyway. Even without power (worst case scenario) and with standby instruments only it's just like a giant, controllable glider.

[Edited 2013-01-19 11:55:04]

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-01-19 11:49:02 and read 9646 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 47):
Without power

But it wasn't without power. That's the thing, you have a RAT as a last defence, all modern airliners have this, and in the so called fire there were these pesty batteries that now go up in smoke.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-19 11:54:27 and read 9573 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 48):
But it wasn't without power.

Exactly, that was my point. It cannot fall out of the sky, unless it breaks apart.

[Edited 2013-01-19 11:56:33]

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: ordwaw
Posted 2013-01-19 14:38:57 and read 8076 times.

Another interesting article … This one from current issue of Forbes magazine … Steve Denning, a respected author and a management guru is using Boeing and the 787 Program as an example of a deeper disease gnawing at the US economy – Flawed decisions by the corporate C-suites (focusing on short term gains as opposed on sustainability and continued growth). Outsourcing is greatly criticized, and suggested as a means for potential short term growth but creating additional complexity, losing design, manufacturing and process ‘know how’, and as such limiting innovation in the long run.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveden...even-lessons-every-ceo-must-learn/

A few posters in this thread indicated, in Boeing’s defense for using new technologies, that without risk, there wouldn’t be innovation (and the bicycle would have been invented …) The linked article suggests that Boeing took upon too much risk at once, which is now backfiring at them … An innovative if not a revolutionary new airplane .. An innovative (but inappropriate) approach to supply chain, where not only manufacturing but also design was outsourced to multiple levels of suppliers.

There are a few interesting nuggets that caught my attention …

“The company was convinced by one or more management consulting firms to outsource design and production of the 787’s components. While this idea might make sense for sourcing coffeemakers, it was a nonsense approach to assembling perhaps the most complicated and potentially dangerous machines shy of nuclear reactors.”

“Parts didn’t fit together with others. Some suppliers subcontracted work to their suppliers and then shrugged at problems with assembly. When one part wasn’t available, the next one that depended on it couldn’t be attached and the global supply chain all but seized up.”

“There were multiple tiers of outsourced companies who were supposed to be making their designs consistent so that the parts fit together. And they didn’t fit together. If Boeing had taken full responsibility for the engineering and then had jobbed the parts out and gotten them made to print, their problems would have been a lot less severe. It seems like they had this brilliant idea of outsourcing a lot of engineering with the manufacturing. There’s almost nothing as complicated as a Dreamliner.”

“It didn’t help that the outsourcing plan included skipping the detailed blueprints the company would have normally prepared, and allowing vendors to come up with their own. Delivered components arrived with instructions and notes written in Chinese, Italian, and other languages.”

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-01-19 15:05:11 and read 7833 times.

We can compare 787 with Armstrong, only if it flew for 7 years without getting caught. 787 is grounded very quickly. I guess Li-on is the EPO. One question comes to my mind, if CFRP itself results in fuel efficiency why Boeing decided to put all flight controls on electricity, other than it is very innovative.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-19 15:54:57 and read 7407 times.

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 43):
Another interesting article. This one from current issue of Forbes magazine by Steve Denning

It's garbage journalism. Not because it takes a swing at the 787 and Boeing, but because he uses deeply flawed and incorrect examples from the 787 program to support his underlying point - that outsourcing is at the center of the 787's problems.

His premise:

Quote:
The company was convinced by one or more management consulting firms to outsource design and production of the 787's components. While this idea might make sense for sourcing coffeemakers, it was a nonsense approach to assembling perhaps the most complicated and potentially dangerous machines shy of nuclear reactors

His first example:

Quote:
Parts didn't fit together with others

His #1 example is the barrel mismatch which occurred between section 41 and 43 on ZA001 - the first fuselage join performed between partner sections in Everett. Even the slightest bit of research on this issue by Mr Denning would have told him several things worth knowing before he used this as his prime example...

1. The mismatched parts were made by Spirit in KS and one of the Japanese Heavy Industry partners. If we look back to the 777 as the last great example of "doing it right" by Boeing, we will see that Section 41 on the 777 is made by Spirit and Section 43 is made by one of the Japanese Heavy Industry partners. So outsourcing clearly was not the issue.

2. Even worse, Mr Denning implies it was a design flaw from a partner which caused the mismatch. This was not at all the case. The assembly tool which Spirit used to on Section 41 was not properly in place before installation of the section 41 floor beams, which resulted in the section being held in a slightly out-of-round shape by the beams themselves. The fix involved re-installing the floor beams with the section held in proper shape.

All of the above is information is very readily available, had Mr Denning wanted to know and publish the facts.

In my view, articles like this one are no different than people pointing to AF447 as an example of a design failure on the part of Airbus. It is nothing more than an opportunistic and self-serving pot-shot. It resonates with some segment of the population who either want to believe it or don't have the insight to know any better. In the case of Mr Denning, he may lack both insight and a desire to really know (and publish) the truth. Whatever the case, when a journalist fails to seek or deliberately obscures the truth in order to promote their own agenda, I can't find any better description for it than garbage journalism.



Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 44):
One question comes to my mind, if CFRP itself results in fuel efficiency why Boeing decided to put all flight controls on electricity

2 spoiler pairs on the 787 are electrically actuated. All other spoilers and all flight control surfaces are hydraulic, just like the 777, 767, 757, 747, 737, A320, A330 and A340. Only the A380 and soon the A350 have ventured very deep into electrically actuated primary flight control surfaces.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-01-19 17:17:30 and read 6820 times.

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 43):
Flawed decisions by the corporate C-suites (focusing on short term gains as opposed on sustainability and continued growth).

This is not a fault at Boeing, but at every western company that is anyway subject to the whims of the investment industry. They demand quarterly results better than the last, and companies cut corners to ensure quarterly results or met, often at the expense of long term sustainability.

To the banks and their algorithms, a company is only as good as its next paycheck. At least in Asia, vision and strategy count just as much as the next quarter.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: FI642
Posted 2013-01-19 17:19:18 and read 6823 times.

Unfortunately, few remember the issues with the 747, the grounding of the DC-10,
and many are forgetting the issues with the A330.

This is totally new technology, The envelope was pushed as far as possible.

Simply salacious journalism. No totally new technology is without issues.
While these are very published, No lives have been lost, and the issues
will be addressed.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: ordwaw
Posted 2013-01-19 19:23:10 and read 6182 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 45):
It's garbage journalism. Not because it takes a swing at the 787 and Boeing, but because he uses deeply flawed and incorrect examples from the 787 program to support his underlying point - that outsourcing is at the center of the 787's problems.

He never gave a specific example to support his claim of parts not fitting together. I understand that the Section 41 and 43 connections were the big news items and they were not caused by outsourcing as this had been proven approach from the 777 program.

I agree, however, with the general premise that Boeing embarked on too many risks with outsourcing the design and technology work on such a revolutionary new aircraft.

This is well supported by Boeing's own Jim Albaugh who said ...

" ... the 787's global outsourcing strategy — specifically intended to slash Boeing's costs — backfired completely. We spent a lot more money in trying to recover than we ever would have spent if we'd tried to keep the key technologies closer to home,"

http://seattletimes.com/html/sundaybuzz/2014125414_sundaybuzz06.html

Boeing was compared to other top innovative companies with state of the art supply chains, Apple, Dell, P&G, Coca-Cola, McD, Ford, and the key difference was that majority, if not all of them, first designed the product and supply chain, and then analyzed it, and step by step started looking and utilizing most effective sourcing mechanisms. Where here, Boeing decided pretty much to be the final integrator - outsourcing, design and manufacturing around the globe, which was impossible to manage, and ended up being more costly than having more functions in-house, especially very specific core functions like, for example, wind design.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 46):
Quoting ordwaw (Reply 43):
Flawed decisions by the corporate C-suites (focusing on short term gains as opposed on sustainability and continued growth).

This is not a fault at Boeing, but at every western company

Of course it is fault at Boeing. Which is also shared among thousands of other Western companies.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-01-19 19:45:48 and read 6040 times.

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 48):
Of course it is fault at Boeing. Which is also shared among thousands of other Western companies

Sorry, badly worded. I meant to say that this wasn't only a fault at Boeing but a fault of the system of corporate immediate return and NPV financing where year one and two make such a difference.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: teneriffe77
Posted 2013-01-19 19:48:48 and read 6043 times.

While we are on the subject of the 787 grounding, this isn't the first successful plane to be grounded early in it's service. The DC-6 had a temporary grounding early in it's life due to a fatal crash near Bryce Canyon and an emergency landing at gallup NM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_608

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-01-19 20:23:14 and read 5820 times.

Sometimes Ben is good, sometimes not so much. As with all media, use your own powers of scepticism and evaluat

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 31):
"The roll out of the shell of a 787 in July 2007 that was purported to be the prototype that would fly by the end of September that year and be certified by late May 2008 was a willful, orchestrated and totally deceitful lie."

I'm know I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't think the engineers thought up that idea.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Desh
Posted 2013-01-19 21:17:26 and read 5625 times.

Jeez - what does this guy have against fastners from Home Depot - its flipping fastener, if it meets specs , why not use it ? There are quite a few US homes standing because of stuff from Home Depot , they are a pretty good company.

IF plants run of parts , then that is a supply chain problem, not a design / engineering one ..

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: zippyjet
Posted 2013-01-19 21:22:50 and read 5580 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):

And these birds don't need organic bodily fluids extracted, mixed with a chemical cocktail and reintroduced into it's body. The Dreamliner's tail is for exhaust not for taking stuff up it. (Armstrong getting enhancing cocktails shot up his butt) I know on all the specials it says the sh*t is "mainlined" via the arm but I believe what he says as much as the claims by the birthers regarding our President.

For the Boeing it's The Dreamliner
For Armstrong it's Mainliner/mainlining

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: pl4nekr4zy
Posted 2013-01-19 22:31:01 and read 5251 times.

Quoting Desh (Reply 52):
Jeez - what does this guy have against fastners from Home Depot - its flipping fastener, if it meets specs , why not use it ?

Well that's the thing: they don't meet specs. Aviation parts usually have to conform to military specs. As such, most aviation hardware has an "AN" (Army/Navy) prefix. There may not be a discernible difference in quality between a Home Depot and an AN part, but technically, a Home Depot part wouldn't "meet specs".

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-01-19 22:52:48 and read 5216 times.

Quoting Desh (Reply 52):
its flipping fastener

My God, they were building an aircraft, not a tree house!

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Owleye
Posted 2013-01-19 23:47:06 and read 5092 times.

Once the truth will come out.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: BE77
Posted 2013-01-20 02:44:27 and read 4798 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 51):
I'm know I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't think the engineers thought up that idea.

I can only imagine the discussions in the lunchroom and at the pubs around town. Really, how many people involved would not have realised what was going on? This is one of the largest highly educated workforces in the world.
What is interesting was the near 100% loyalty - the background skepticism never reached a real critical mass until much later...but every technical person, and even most of the beancounters and junior suits must have known what was going on during the 'rollout'.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: airmagnac
Posted 2013-01-20 03:39:10 and read 4636 times.

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 43):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveden...even-lessons-every-ceo-must-learn/
Quoting CM (Reply 45):
he uses deeply flawed and incorrect examples from the 787 program to support his underlying point - that outsourcing is at the center of the 787's problems.


Even worse than that IMO, because he is trying to fit something he obviously has no clue about - complex system design - into an agenda against offshoring. As if the supply chain issues are all the fault of foreigners, and bringing all design and manufacturing back to the good ol' US of A would prevent them  
The guy does have some good points, but lumping everything together in a charge against outsourcing and offshoring takes away any credibility of the article.

The OEMs are in the business of building airplanes, not APUs, air generation packs, hydraulic pipes & pumps, or jet engines. Each of those items (and many more) are extremely complex by themselves, and increasingly require specialized compagnies to deal with the latest technologiy advances. For example I guess Boeing could build its APUs, but they would not be nearly as performant as an APU built by a specialized company, that invests in specific R&D and also designs APUs for applications outside aerospace and can gain knowledge that way.
Also, the jet engine example is significant, because in a way OEMs have always outsourced engine design & manufacturing, without significant problems.

So I don't think outsourcing is a problem or source of design issues by itself, and certainly not a "new" source of safety issues.
The real problem is how the outsourcing is managed : where do we set the limit for design responsibility between the OEM and its suppliers, how much competence do we keep in-house to supervise the suppliers and how do we maintain that competence, and above all how do we reliably communicate the necessary information between them and the OEM, and analyze the dat to supervise the suppliers as required.
In my experience managers have become infatuated with "key parameter indicators", which basically quantify very specific aspects of work. These are useful to help process the mountains of information the managers have to deal with, but at the expense of the full view of what's going on. So you can end up with all indicators being green, while your program is spinning out of control.
(actually the eternal debates here on a-net about CASM fall exactly in this category : CASM is a useful parameter, but must be handled carefully when comparing different aircraft, and it is only one single aspect of airliner performance)


In the end it all comes down to this magnificent quote from

Quoting ordwaw (Reply 48):
http://seattletimes.com/html/sundaybuzz/2014125414_sundaybuzz06.html


Quoting :
That startlingly prescient 2001 paper focused on business economics. Where did a structures engineer get that kind of expertise?
"It's common sense," Hart-Smith said.


Amen to that !  

[Edited 2013-01-20 03:46:26]

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-20 08:34:45 and read 4236 times.

Quoting Desh (Reply 52):
Jeez - what does this guy have against fastners from Home Depot - its flipping fastener, if it meets specs, why not use it?
Quoting pl4nekr4zy (Reply 54):
Well that's the thing: they don't meet specs.

They didn't meet specs for flight. And Boeing did not fly ZA001 with those Home Depot-sourced fasteners installed. They were all removed and replaced with fasteners that met the proper specifications for use in flight.

As to why Boeing used those non-standard fasteners in the first place, Boeing overestimated how quickly Alcoa could produce sufficient quantities of the proper fasteners, even with Alcoa telling them they couldn't meet the schedule. As such, Boeing had to use alternate fasteners to put the 787 together in time for the 8 July 2007 ceremony.

Unfortunately for Boeing, many of those fasteners damaged the surrounding structure during the aircraft moves so when the proper fasteners were installed, the tolerances were off and Boeing had to re-work the holes to ensure proper fitting and tightening. The sheer number of holes that had to be re-worked significantly delayed the re-assembly process.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-20 10:46:13 and read 4014 times.

Quoting pl4nekr4zy (Reply 54):
Well that's the thing: they don't meet specs. Aviation parts usually have to conform to military specs. As such, most aviation hardware has an "AN" (Army/Navy) prefix. There may not be a discernible difference in quality between a Home Depot and an AN part, but technically, a Home Depot part wouldn't "meet specs".

Boeing has it's own specs.. BAC.. or BMS .. yes they still use some mil spec items.. like an AN960 washer.

the original problem was inexperience in purchasing where both Boeing (Everett), Boeing subs and second tier contractors all tried to use the same fastener manufacturers and exceeded their capability. In past programs Boeing purchasing frequenting bought all an dropped ship to the second tier.. as I recall in this case they had little stock on hand to perform the travelled work.

Every interim fastener was painted and recorded to ensure replacement.. the limited correct fasteners were utilized in places where future access was difficult or impossible. I was told years ago that the hardware store fasteners were of a smaller diameter so they would not bung up the holes and lead to use of oversized fasteners.. but that may have been his beer talking ..

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2013-01-20 20:32:35 and read 3661 times.

Quoting koruman (Reply 10):

The issue about safety appears to be this: is it reasonable for the FAA to delegate back to the manufacturer the responsibility for oversight of key areas?

Yes, it's reasonable, because there's no alternative. The FAA (nor any other regulator) has enough knowledge, manpower, or resources to do it all themselves. This has been the case since, at least, the 50's.

Quoting a380900 (Reply 18):
I had never truly realized how the FAA screwed up on the Eclipse 500 but now that I think of it...

In slight defense of the FAA folks who certified the 787, the Eclipse was a different certification office. The FAA carves the US up into regions and different Aircraft Certification Offices (ACOs) cover different manufacturers. Boeing and Eclipse were under different ACOs.

Quoting a380900 (Reply 18):
It was on the wrong track since the shark tail drawing

What was wrong with the shark tail? The A350 doesn't look like it's original concept drawings either but nobody's claiming that's an example of a program problem. Aircraft don't stay in constant configuration for years on end.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 23):

The FAA’s certification process had by the time it dealt with the 787 moved from real independent testing and certification of projects to oversight of the processes.

They haven't been doing full independent testing for decades...Boeing wrote a lot more of the 707 certification than they did the 787.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 25):
I think the top brass at Boeing should be lynched for all of their terrible decisions lately. I think it is time to replace the CEO.

You've asked for this before but have yet to explain how that would fix anything, given that the decisions that drove the 787 off the rails were all made before the current CEO came in and many of them were reversed (to the extent possible) since the current CEO arrived.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 25):
Alan would have never let things get this way.

Alan was integral in it being this way...he was present for all those decisions that, in hindsight, were such a terrible idea.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
However, the suggestions that have been made inside and outside this forum that the FAA (and the JAA) are corrupt organizations more interested in advancing their country's aerospace manufacturers than advancing aerospace safety ring hollow to me

As they should...those assertions are absolute nonsense and can only come from people who've never actually worked with the regulators.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 34):
I got flamed to higb heavens for bringing attention to a 787 that was almost lost during a test flight.

Yes, because it was a false claim.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 34):
I was told that the plane was never in danger. But, my source who is a high up at Boeing backs the account.

True. And, as discussed at length in that thread, your source was wrong. Multiple independent and closer sources confirmed that.

Quoting pl4nekr4zy (Reply 54):
Quoting Desh (Reply 52):
Jeez - what does this guy have against fastners from Home Depot - its flipping fastener, if it meets specs , why not use it ?

Well that's the thing: they don't meet specs.

The spec was "hold it together during the rollout." They met spec just fine. It's like using a ziptie or cleco to hold parts in place while you assemble other things...as long as it comes out and is replaced with flight-spec before it flies, it's all fine and (potentially) per process.

Tom.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: brons2
Posted 2013-01-21 08:02:49 and read 3277 times.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 8):
According to the Bloomberg website, the problem may be with the battery manufacturer and not Boeing

Boeing chose the subcontractor.

Boeing installs the battery, and integrates it into other systems on the aircraft.

Boeing is responsible for validation of successful operation and function.

Boeing is responsible for any sqwaks generated from B1 and customer acceptance flights.

Yea sure, blame it on the subcontractor - it's not like you had anything to do with it. :rolleyes:

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-21 10:57:23 and read 3040 times.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 62):
Boeing chose the subcontractor.

the contractor designs, builds and tests the components/assemblies... within Boeing's performance criteria.. The closest Boeing comes to design of these items is to specify the available space envelope

Many times the vendor units (like the battery and control hardware/software) are vendor proprietary and arrive in sealed units Boeing can not open or repair.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-21 11:35:20 and read 2966 times.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 62):
Yea sure, blame it on the subcontractor - it's not like you had anything to do with it.  

I take it then you believe Airbus has sole-responsibility for the crash of AF447 because the airframe was an A330. That they didn't manufacture the pitot tube and neither created the training curriculum for AF flight deck crew nor train said crew is of no bearing. It's an Airbus plane, it is therefore the fault of Airbus it went down.



Those arguing that this problem is because Boeing outsourced "too much" of the 787 design and production evidently are not aware of Boeing's history of outsourcing on a component and systems basis. I am not aware of Boeing ever having designed nor built the primary battery for any of their commercial jet airliners. Those parts have always been outsourced to external suppliers. Even if Boeing designed and built as much of the 787 in-house with union labor as they had the 707, they still would have gone elsewhere for those batteries.

[Edited 2013-01-21 11:49:59]

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: odwyerpw
Posted 2013-01-21 13:35:19 and read 2794 times.

What a stupid and inflammatory thread title. Makes no difference whether the OP was just citing an article... Not all garbage that the media spews needs to be regurgitated on airliners.net.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: tonystan
Posted 2013-01-21 15:33:15 and read 2674 times.

Basically this is about ethics and society in the US as a whole.

To be honest I'm not sure it can be focused purely on the states however!

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: brons2
Posted 2013-01-22 23:31:29 and read 2244 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 64):
I take it then you believe Airbus has sole-responsibility for the crash of AF447 because the airframe was an A330. That they didn't manufacture the pitot tube and neither created the training curriculum for AF flight deck crew nor train said crew is of no bearing. It's an Airbus plane, it is therefore the fault of Airbus it went down.

No, I don't think Airbus is directly responsible any more than Boeing is directly responsible for the battery problems.

However, the buck has to stop somewhere. You can throw the subcontrator under the bus but it's ultimately your responsibility to hold them accountable for the performance of their widget. In theory we'd all like to think that contractors are going to stick strictly to the contract terms, but in the real world, there has to be sufficient management of subcontractors by the hiring organization. That's one reason (among others) why outsourcing doesn't always work out to be cheaper in the long run, you're basically creating a management layer just for dealing with contractors. I should know, my organization will outsource anything that isn't tied down and I am the person who is in charge of demanding service from the contractors in one of our major areas of operations.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-22 23:40:19 and read 2219 times.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 67):
I should know

should but don't... you're in government where no contractor is expected to perform to contract specs or cost.. Sorry but profit oriented manufacturing companies are very different and subs know it. And occasionally they are sacked for failing.

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2013-01-23 06:54:42 and read 1941 times.

Quoting pl4nekr4zy (Reply 54):
Well that's the thing: they don't meet specs. Aviation parts usually have to conform to military specs. As such, most aviation hardware has an "AN" (Army/Navy) prefix. There may not be a discernible difference in quality between a Home Depot and an AN part, but technically, a Home Depot part wouldn't "meet specs".

Yeah, if they wanted better quality fasteners . . . they should have gone to Tacoma Screws. Although being a local re-tailer, they specialized in fasteners and may have provided better quality fastener that, although may not have "met spec", would have given less variability problems.

Even for finish nails, I find that certain retailers like Johnson are than Home Depot.

Quoting kanban (Reply 60):
. like an AN960 washer.

Ah . . . my own personal pet peeve. AN960 have not been allowed for new design in Boeing for a long time. There are other options available but those specs are a pain to read.

As for the Army and Navy spec . . . the government have obsoleted most if not all of these fastener spec and converted them to NASM specs. New design uses the NASM specs. It's just cheaper to maintain the NASM spec than the MIL spec, I suppose . . .

Often the Boeing spec are the same as the government spec except with some additional requirements.

bt

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-23 12:43:31 and read 1738 times.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 69):
Ah . . . my own personal pet peeve. AN960 have not been allowed for new design in Boeing for a long time. There are other options available but those specs are a pain to read.

agreed, however when I retired the existing engineering still called them out and they were stocked... With paper drawing that change would be impossible to make, with the computer drawings and parts lists, I suppose it's a press of a button.. so what is it today BACW?

Once saw a BAC spec (one pager) "same as mil spec xxxx"! sent it back .. the engineer was late completing a committed engineering release..

Topic: RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!
Username: brons2
Posted 2013-01-23 15:41:49 and read 1597 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 68):
should but don't... you're in government where no contractor is expected to perform to contract specs or cost

Ideologically motivated drivel, and not true I might add.

In fact there was a Fortune 20 company who got canned last year for failure to perform to the contract terms. The contract was re-let about a year ago, and the new vendor is currently in place, and doing a much better job.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/