koruman
Topic Author
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:24 am

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]
 
WesternA318
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:55 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:59 am

A fubulous writing in every respect!
Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 20153
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:11 am

At least the 787 doesn't need EPO to start its engines.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7046
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:40 am

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."
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:11 am

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]
aeternum nauta
 
ZB052
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:13 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:18 am

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]
 
abba
Posts: 1382
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:26 am

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.
 
KFlyer
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:05 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:27 am

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.
The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
 
traindoc
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:35 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:38 am

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!
 
dynamicsguy
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:24 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:41 am

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.
 
koruman
Topic Author
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:43 am

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?
 
dynamicsguy
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:24 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:54 am

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?
 
flood
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:05 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:57 am

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
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7046
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:07 am

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.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
dynamicsguy
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:24 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:13 am

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.
 
BE77
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:15 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:17 am

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.
Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
 
Upperdeck
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:03 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:25 am

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.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:31 pm

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?
 
a380900
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:26 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:26 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:50 pm

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]
 
Upperdeck
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:03 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:00 pm

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!
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7046
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:07 pm

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/
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:17 pm

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]
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:08 pm

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.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7046
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:16 pm

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.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
F9Animal
Posts: 3652
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:21 pm

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.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18253
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:45 pm

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
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:55 pm

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?
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:13 pm

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.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Redd
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:30 pm

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.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:30 pm

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
 
lhrnue
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:31 pm

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."
 
airproxx
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:07 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:37 pm

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.
If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:41 pm

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.  .
 
F9Animal
Posts: 3652
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:42 pm

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.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:50 pm

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.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:54 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:18 pm

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]
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:19 pm

This comparison is hardly fair to Lance Armstrong  
 
HBGDS
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:09 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:25 pm

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.)
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 20153
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:28 pm

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]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:49 pm

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.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 20153
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:54 pm

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]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
ordwaw
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:55 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:38 pm

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.”
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 2980
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm

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.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:54 pm

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.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7046
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:17 am

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.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
FI642
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:48 am

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:19 am

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.
737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
 
ordwaw
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:55 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:23 am

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.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7046
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: 787 Program Compared To Lance Armstrong!

Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:45 am

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.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Acey559, Alexa [Bot], B6JFKH81, Bing [Bot], caribb, CONTACREW, dallas6940, dc10lover, DCA-ROCguy, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], GSPSPOT, guyanam, jagraham, kearnet, mtnwest1979, ordpark, precure787, ptharris, qf789, Sightseer, zkeoj and 188 guests