noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jan 16, 2014 0:37:54 GMT 1
The same batteries which have been identified as contributing to (if not causing) air freighter crashes when carried as cargo All lithium batteries are not the same, the chemistry can be different. The 787 batteries are of a comparatively old type, arguably not the safest. Freighters however are exposed to higher risks because of the large amount of flammable material they may carry. The stricter new regulations are welcome. Is this episode not a warning that priorities are being changed too far from safety to profit? (I raise this having experienced recent damage to my new car, which seems to be exacerbated by the very thin metal of the body shell.) In an effort to make planes cheaper to run, are design techniques pushing the boundaries of theory vs practice? Are modern planes, ie the fuselage etc, cheaper to build? Is an A350 stronger than an A330? Or is a greater up front cost acceptable in the light of long-term financial gains? How does the price of an A350 compare with that of an A330? Is an A330 cheaper to buy but more expensive to run? Usual rambling thoughts/questions (This thread has triggered my post, but my examples are all Airbus in a Boeing thread, although they apply equally. If putting these questions here is deemed inappropriate would the mods mind moving it?) |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jan 16, 2014 0:55:28 GMT 1
I think noistar raises a range of important issues. We could discuss them in a new dedicated thread.
|
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jan 16, 2014 0:56:18 GMT 1
I have two family members who work for Boeing and one of them works on fixing all of the problems associated with installing parts from different manufactures from all over the world. Both of them have said that they will not fly on a 787 until it has no issues for several years of service. The one says there are just too many unresolved issued going on with the 787s that are being pushed out the door to meet contractual deadlines to avoid financial penalties to the airlines. I will wait until he says it should be OK to fly in a 787 before I fly in one. Life is just too short as it is. Interesting issue raised here. All I see are media posts about international (non-Airbus) manufacturers becoming involved in Airbus projects, presumably because they are the (cheapest?) and best. Isn't this more of the American attitude towards things non-American, rather than an issue in itself? I would be very concerned if Boeing's manufacturing techniques fail to adequately co-ordinate the design decisions |
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jan 16, 2014 12:08:24 GMT 1
I have two family members who work for Boeing and one of them works on fixing all of the problems associated with installing parts from different manufactures from all over the world. Both of them have said that they will not fly on a 787 until it has no issues for several years of service. The one says there are just too many unresolved issued going on with the 787s that are being pushed out the door to meet contractual deadlines to avoid financial penalties to the airlines. I will wait until he says it should be OK to fly in a 787 before I fly in one. Life is just too short as it is. Interesting issue raised here. All I see are media posts about international (non-Airbus) manufacturers becoming involved in Airbus projects, presumably because they are the (cheapest?) and best. Isn't this more of the American attitude towards things non-American, rather than an issue in itself? I would be very concerned if Boeing's manufacturing techniques fail to adequately co-ordinate the design decisions It is hardly re-assuring when company employees are too scared to use their own company's, indeed their own, products, because they have yet to be convinced they are safe! Are the initial customers to be treated as beta-testers? Presumably the top-man at Boeing doesn't share their fear of the company's products.  |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jan 16, 2014 12:16:52 GMT 1
Comments on outsourcing from inside a company tend to be overly negative for obvious reasons. The 787 supply chain proved very difficult to manage, but other companies in many lines of business provide more encouraging exemples.
International outsourcing does make it more difficult to monitor a supply chain - especially in case of design changes - and to enforce quality requirements. Airframers therefore develop new sophisticated cooperative tools to share information flows with all suppliers, and these methods have been shown to be efficient when properly implemented. The development of the A350 - by contrast with the A380 - seems to be an outstanding exemple so far.
So, as long as suppliers are carefully selected, I think that the additional complexity coming with a worldwide supply chain is manageable with an adequate input from the airframer. As regards the 787, Boeing may initially not have adequately assessed the efforts required for a successful management of such a complex project, and should not be expected to repeat the same mistakes again.
I also want to underscore the huge (and fortunate) increase in safety expectations over the years. The problems experienced by the 787 pale near those that were met by some of its predecessors. There is nothing like a trend to a trade-off in favour of savings against aircraft safety. On the contrary, increasing efforts are made in favour of aircraft safety, and aircraft are now much safer than they used to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Jan 16, 2014 14:04:21 GMT 1
Dear All, Just to clarify an error that has arisen when comment on the recent (Jan 14) recurrence of battery smoke in a B787 arose, the post above by noistar suggests that I have the family members at Boeing; I don't. This was part of my message below, posted on 787 general discussion thread that has been moved here by addasih: As always there are some interesting and strident posts via The Seattle Times community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?source_id=2022666851&source_name=mbase They have a not so reassuirng underbelly often re the 787: e.g. kn0man Purgatory 2132 comments January 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM Rating: [You must be signed in to rate this post.] (0) [You must be signed in to rate this post.] (0) Log in to report abuse I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the biggest problems with these new type of batteries the fact that once the exothermic runaway reaction begins, the components of the battery themselves are oxidizers-producing a self-sustaining reaction that doesn't require outside oxygen ? So all this fancy steel battery box does, is stop one cell from causing all the other cells from also going critical (and of course from burning a hole through the bottom of the airframe!) pnwest seattle 36 comments January 14, 2014 at 8:22 PM Rating: [You must be signed in to rate this post.] (1) [You must be signed in to rate this post.] (1) Log in to report abuse Aloha: Unfortuntely I would agree with you. Senior Boeing engineers were pushed to the limit trying to fix faulty 787 parts from overseas. They believed that Boeing promised too much too soon on the Dreamliner. The problems encountered on the 787 thru the mid '00s were normal for a new plane. But the company made promises on deliveries that could not be safely met. These were common beliefs of experienced engineers. Fortunately Boeing has been going after the real problem, SPEEA and IAM pensions, rather than fixing its irrelevant battery fires. How long will these fires continue? When will one happen in flight, say over the Pacific? Who will the company try to blame then? SPEEA and the IAM? If one does go down as a result of a fire is the company toast? What about Chicago's pensions? Well, they have parachutes..... aloha charlie Seattle, WA 375 comments January 14, 2014 at 6:58 PM Rating: [You must be signed in to rate this post.] (2) [You must be signed in to rate this post.] (1) Log in to report abuse I have two family members who work for Boeing and one of them works on fixing all of the problems associated with installing parts from different manufactures from all over the world. Both of them have said that they will not fly on a 787 until it has no issues for several years of service. The one says there are just too many unresolved issued going on with the 787s that are being pushed out the door to meet contractual deadlines to avoid financial penalties to the airlines. I will wait until he says it should be OK to fly in a 787 before I fly in one. Life is just too short as it is. Read more: a380.boards.net/thread/387/b787-general-discussion?page=27#ixzz2qZA9j9F0 |
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jan 16, 2014 15:58:18 GMT 1
Dear All, Just to clarify an error that has arisen when comment on the recent (Jan 14) recurrence of battery smoke in a B787 arose, the post above by noistar suggests that I have the family members at Boeing; I don't. This was part of my message below, posted on 787 general discussion thread that has been moved here by addasih: I apologise if my post was taken that way. I did not intend to infer that fanairbus was related to the people in question, but accept that my selection of what I considered the salient point may have given that impression. I hope you'll accept this as a sincere apology if you feel you have been slighted. |
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jan 16, 2014 16:27:08 GMT 1
Comments on outsourcing from inside a company tend to be overly negative for obvious reasons. The 787 supply chain proved very difficult to manage, but other companies in many lines of business provide more encouraging exemples. International outsourcing does make it more difficult to monitor a supply chain - especially in case of design changes - and to enforce quality requirements. Airframers therefore develop new sophisticated cooperative tools to share information flows with all suppliers, and these methods have been shown to be efficient when properly implemented. The development of the A350 - by contrast with the A380 - seems to be an outstanding exemple so far. So, as long as suppliers are carefully selected, I think that the additional complexity coming with a worldwide supply chain is manageable with an adequate input from the airframer. As regards the 787, Boeing may initially not have adequately assessed the efforts required for a successful management of such a complex project, and should not be expected to repeat the same mistakes again. I also want to underscore the huge (and fortunate) increase in safety expectations over the years. The problems experienced by the 787 pale near those that were met by some of its predecessors. There is nothing like a trend to a trade-off in favour of savings against aircraft safety. On the contrary, increasing efforts are made in favour of aircraft safety, and aircraft are now much safer than they used to be. The emphasis for new aircraft designs is reduced operator costs, ie profits. Money is what makes the world go round after all. Smaller seats, fuel efficient 'lighter' planes, are the order of the day. Airbus changed their choice of battery, following the Boeing experience and acknowledged an impact on seat-mileage (if that's the correct term). For a change of battery to have such an impact, surely indicates how close we are getting to the ultimate in the current context of aircraft construction. While aircraft may be safer, I do not expect a brand new design to have been in constant danger of catching fire in flight, due to design criteria. The fact there wasn't a catastrophic incident before Boeing were forced to take the matter seriously, must surely be regarded as good fortune. The current 'fix' of 'fire containment' is surely not the way forward. As an observer I can only consider such a solution as complacency at best. I accept your point that the modern aircraft safety situation is an improvement on the past, but we seem to be on a slippery slope if new designs lead to potentially lethal hardware being deemed safe, when safer, but heavier and therefore less-efficient, alternatives are available. Where does one draw the line between safe and not safe, when the criteria is efficiency? It does seem that Airbus are putting passenger safety (A350 battery change) and comfort (guidelines re no. of seats across, for instance) ahead of monetary concerns - or at least to a degree. What else is being done to make new aircraft designs economical, which may possibly come back to bite the manufacturers safety-wise? Were the A380 wing-rib-bracket cracks due to this phenomenon? Many points raised in ignorance by a self-confessed, non-professional aircraft enthusiast. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jan 16, 2014 19:48:23 GMT 1
I do not think aircraft manufacturers deliberately accept unnecessary safety risks, but every decision is a trade-off. No aircraft is 100 % safe, even on the ground !
Your immediate concern seems to be the 787, but I do not think any of its designers ever thought the aircraft might be exposed to fire risks as a consequence of battery-related problems, they just happened to overlook the need for some essential steps ... The fix certainly was more costly than any design change at an early stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Jan 16, 2014 19:56:40 GMT 1
Dear noistar,
Really it's no problem and an apology isn't needed. I just wanted to correct any misunderstanding that might have resulted in Boeing fans flooding me with Qs for my relatives!
Best wishes.
|
|
