Haha that is great.

 

Boeing is going to have to pay some serious money AGAIN for these mistakes. Hopefully it all gets fixed soon!

ANALOT of the airlines are not too happy with their LOT.

 

Jon

So the answer is you did not read the solution. They've redesigned the battery and the charger as well as refined the production and QA processes. The box, which you turn your nose up at, actually makes fire IMPOSSIBLE because oxygen is not present in the enclosure and it is vented.

 

You seem to have a pretty strong bias, I'm not sure why I'm bothering explaining this...

Well I think the problem is we don't know enough about these batteries to be able to characterize the difference the redesign, production, and QA will make.  Sure we can say it's "better" but from a safety standpoint that isn't really good enough.  So the actual safety is provided by the box, because we do understand what the box can do.

 

scott s.

.

So the answer is you did not read the solution. They've redesigned the battery and the charger as well as refined the production and QA processes. The box, which you turn your nose up at, actually makes fire IMPOSSIBLE because oxygen is not present in the enclosure and it is vented.

 

 

You seem to have a pretty strong bias, I'm not sure why I'm bothering explaining this...

Well I think the problem is we don't know enough about these batteries to be able to characterize the difference the redesign, production, and QA will make. Sure we can say it's "better" but from a safety standpoint that isn't really good enough. So the actual safety is provided by the box, because we do understand what the box can do.

 

scott s.

.

It's a comprehensive solution, all the elements work together. I don't know if even Boeing knows which element is most likely to prevent future failures, but they don't need to. This is the equivalent of throwing everything you've got at the problem in order to be absolutely certain it won't happen again. It's overkill.

It is a comprehensive solution and a good one at that.  The cause of a unknown problem requires "overkill" to ensure continued operation and safety.  Boeing has "over killed" this.  For individuals thinking that "hiding it in a box" is the fix, clearly shows they have never worked in the industry or on equipment that requires 0% down time.  Intermittent bugs sometimes can't be found, so re-design, replacement and then complete containment (overkill) works, as Boeing stated in the webcast.

RJ

Yes, good old Aviation know how......Overkill. 

 

I've been reading a lot about the launch of the DC-10 with it's cargo door problems as well as engine pod cracks, Another aircraft that was grounded by the FAA for a period of time. Fortunately today we haven't had a major accident to get things fixed and are more pro-active then we used to be.

Engine pod cracks were cause by incorrect procedures used to change engines on the DC-10 (a maintenance short cut which was not approved).  The Cargo door issue was a design flaw which could be duplicated, then fixed.   The battery issue on the 787 cannot be duplicated, so overkill is the only solution.

RJ

Well for me, I won't be flying on an aircraft that has a serious problem, such as this, that they haven't found the cause for, no matter how much overkill they put in. If they haven't found the cause, then they can't say it's fixed. I also don't think a single test flight is enough to test this. How many hours were these 2 planes in operation before this happened? Remember this battery design had problems during ground testing while still in development, that burnt down a building, that wasn't fully explained, yet was still certified. I'm sure Boeing went through a similar exercise then to get the certification, which was suppose to certify a fleet failure rate of 1 in 10000000 hours. yet it failed not once but twice, not counting the batteries ANA and JAL says they replaced in maintenance, since introduction. "Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me"

I watched the webcast and was struck by how well they were able to explain in non technical terms what their comprehensive solution is. Now I am not a scientist, so I will judge the news conference by my, and most of our field of expertise, namely human nature.

 

It is impossible to substantially alter the way the human body works in relationship to the mind. A dog can not help itself but to put its tail between its legs when submissive, or afraid. In the same way a human can not possibly resist a smile when flooded with joy, or to have a dry mouth when under a great deal of stress, or reveal by dozens of little clues and expressions when telling the truth, or using deception in any way. In my opinion what The President of Boeing really thinks, and what the head engineer really knows, is as close to truth as there can be in such a situation.

 

Ray Conner

 

Ray Connor, President and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Mr. cool and collected, would have to be a well crafted generalist to be in his position. That would include the political skills of persuasion. His body language and expressions and demeanor during his statement and while fielding tough questions was flawless.

 

When referring to the human factor of how many lives they are responsible for the safety for, the man was keeping a careful rein on his emotions, otherwise he would have cried. His mask showed business like confident resolve, but his eyes flashed fierce passionate fire and belief. That man is a real leader and believed what he was saying was absolutely true! Either that, or Boeings President is one of the world's most gifted psychopaths. No, I believe him 100%. 

 

Mike Sennett

 

Mike Sennett, VP, and Chief Project Engineer of the 787 Program on the other hand is the more interesting case study. His mouth was so dry from stress that he had to keep licking his lips with his tongue poking out at the end of most sentences. 

 

He had to hold his hands or to keep them pressed to the podium to keep them from shaking. He spoke slow and low to appear precise and confident (like John Wayne: See here Pilgrim!), a skill he probably was forced to learn from Art Carnegie training.

 

What that generally means is that he did not have a lot of residual emotional capability or skill sets to hide his thoughts, or to completely compensate for his cold and calculating 'things over people' personality type.

 

He is an engineer scientist and that is his bottom line. His cold contempt for the false reports of fire (by firemen), and scarcely concealed impatience for the non technical questions during the Q and A was obvious.

 

Mile Sennett is no people person, and would have preferred to send each one a 500 page executive summary complete with graphs, charts and 3d cutaways. Bottom line, He was cold steel truthful and as factual as humanly possible, both in the preparation for, and his conduct in that that press conference. That is the man I would want on my team for saving the world. 

 

Therefore I think the 787 will be safer than it possibly could ever have been now that this event has happened. Mr. Sennett is responsible for both the bad engineering decisions that caused a number of problems, including this one, or has taken over the responsibilities from who was. Bottom line, the technical buck stops there.

 

If there is not a timely, cost effective, fail safe solution that regulators and the flying public are confident in, it will be Mike Sennett's fault. However this is big enough to sack BCA President Connor and everybody in pay grades much higher and lower than his. No wonder he had a dry mouth. If you or I were in his shoes, I wouldn't have raised enough spit to even get them wet.

 

Great piece of corporate communications at its very best, Well done, I am sincerely proud of them. To become a big squirt like them when, you have to stay focused under pressure. Most impressive, so, if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!*

 

Kind regards,

 

*Or: "It's less fuss with an Airbus."

Well for me, I won't be flying on an aircraft that has a serious problem, such as this, that they haven't found the cause for, no matter how much overkill they put in. If they haven't found the cause, then they can't say it's fixed.

 

I can't argue that statement.  I would be leary about the 787.  That said, I wonder how many people stopped flying the 737 because of the intermittent rudder hard over issue?

 

RJ

 

His mouth was so dry from stress that he had to keep licking his lips with his tongue.

Kind regards,

 

I would too, be stressed and lick my lips..

 

RJ

Engine pod cracks were cause by incorrect procedures used to change engines on the DC-10 (a maintenance short cut which was not approved).  The Cargo door issue was a design flaw which could be duplicated, then fixed.   The battery issue on the 787 cannot be duplicated, so overkill is the only solution.

 

RJ

Yes but the lessons learned and how they were applied back then were different then today, We had American Airlines Flight 96 were the cargo doors blew off and the FAA not issuing an airworthiness directive, that led to Turkish Airlines Flight 981, a completely preventable accident if a directive had been issued. Reason why it was not issued was becuase of a back-room promise McDonnel Douglas made with the FAA to fix it, and they didn't.

 

The engine pods were a mystery that Americans Airlines new about as well and shredded its documentation on the issue to cover it up. It wasn't until their lead Maintenance Supervisor committed suicide before testifying that American Airlines would come clean.

 

Today these sort of back room deals and cover-ups don't seem to be happening to try and save the reputation of an aircraft, it seams far more transparent now.

Back-room promises that McDonnel Douglas made with the FAA re the cargo door was wrong, and will be always be wrong.  Engine pod cracks were caused by incorrect procedures period. 

 

Do you know the connection between Boeing and United Airlines?  When you have time "Google it".

 

Back room deals and cover-ups, well It's best I don't get into that.... I would be banned.

 

RJ

I can't argue that statement.  I would be leary about the 787.  That said, I wonder how many people stopped flying the 737 because of the intermittent rudder hard over issue?

 

RJ

 

 

 

I would too, be stressed and lick my lips..

 

RJ

I believe I actually was on one of those 737 flights. It was an USAIR 737 flight back in 80's from Boston to Pittsburgh. They never told us the real cause although I always suspected the rudder issue. We were at cruise altitude in clear skies, no turbulence what so ever. All of a sudden the plane rolled almost a full 90 degrees to the left, then again to the right then recovered. The pilot came on PA to apologize for the sudden maneuver and asked the flight attendants to make sure everyone was ok, but said they didn't know what caused it. The remainder of the flight was without incident (We were close to descent at the time). There apparently were a couple of injuries, as EMS personnel met the aircraft on the ground, and a couple of people were taken from the plane, (Before we were allowed to disembark) It didn't appear to be anything serious though, one person looked like they may have been burned, probably from Coffee.

I believe I actually was on one of those 737 flights.

 

As a passenger, I can't image.  As a Pilot, awe struck.

 

RJ

Do you know the connection between Boeing and United Airlines?  When you have time "Google it".

I know that it was once owned by Boeing Aircraft, They bought it then sold it a long time ago.

 

Currently I am looking for a copy of Paul Eddy's book on the DC-10. Hard to find in New Zealand so far. I can get a copy shipped in from England.

I watched the webcast and was struck by how well they were able to explain in non technical terms what their comprehensive solution is. Now I am not a scientist, so I will judge the news conference by my, and most of our field of expertise, namely human nature.

 

It is impossible to substantially alter the way the human body works in relationship to the mind. A dog can not help itself but to put its tail between its legs when submissive, or afraid. In the same way a human can not possibly resist a smile when flooded with joy, or to have a dry mouth when under a great deal of stress, or reveal by dozens of little clues and expressions when telling the truth, or using deception in any way. In my opinion what The President of Boeing really thinks, and what the head engineer really knows, is as close to truth as there can be in such a situation.

 

You don't have to be a scientist to rely on facts, rather than on the notoriously inaccurate 'reading' of human nature though. For starters as human beings we are notoriously prone to confuse being confident with actually knowing what you are talking about. People with the most knowledge often aren't confident, because they know exactly how much they don't know.

 

What the president of Boeing or the head engineer 'really think' is not as close to truth as you can be. Cold hard data is what brings you close to truth. I don't care how much passion is in their eyes, or how hard their hand is gripping the desk, what I care about is what tests they did, what the outcome was and what conclusions they drew from that. Seeing whether the conclusions logically follow from the test results merely requires logical thought, which you don't need to be a scientist to possess.

 

Concerning the 'false reports of fire,' having browsed the NTSB reports (http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist.cfm?docketID=54251&CFID=2871&CFTOKEN=67900912) I'm inclined to agree there was no fire. However that distinction may also be a bit academic. For example the Challenger space shuttle itself did not explode, but was merely torn apart by aerodynamic forces. The astronauts ended up just as dead though.

Boeing has certainly gone further down the weasel word track with this event though, such as their 'internal definition' of a thermal runaway (http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2013/03/15/thermal-runaway-on-787-well-it-depends/), which apparently is only a thermal runaway if it puts the plane at risk? Next they'll be telling me a stall isn't a stall unless I don't recover from it. A thermal runaway is a process which takes place inside the cell of a Li-Ion battery, regardless of it's further effects, so lets just call a spade a spade and stay away form the 'but I was looking from the perspective of the entire plane' nonsense.

 

Having said all that I'm cautiously optimistic about the fire-box approach though. 'We don't know what went wrong, but if it happens again this solution will contain the situation even in a worst-case failure scenario' works for me. In response to tf51d: most of the testing will be done in the lab. You don't need a test flight to test whether the battery will melt through the box in a worst-case thermal runaway scenario, you can try that out just fine on the ground. A lot safer too if it turns out your box doesn't work. In fact I think about the only thing you'd have to check out during flight is whether your venting system will work properly at a range of different outside pressures. One flight is probably plenty to cover that.