Raptor

And wise words they are... Thank you, brother... Proud to be Union too. Raptor

Consider the source. What knowledge does Aljazeera really have on the topic of aviation? Not much, as it shows in their "reporting", if one can call it that. The three crashes they give as examples are BS. It doesn't matter to Aljazeera that the crashes were ALL runway under/overruns, the cause in each case was pilot error. Oh No, it had to be the "bad parts" that were to blame. Even the National Inquirer has done better reporting than this Junk... The "whistle blowers" were all people who don't even touch the parts in question. One is a parts buyer, who sits at a desk and shuffles paperwork, never even seeing the part she is buying. Her job is to buy the part, not inspect it as it arrives at Boeing. You don't CNC machine those types of parts anyhow. The process is called stretch forming and often the parts are cut to length by hand after the forming operation. The "corrosion" one of the "whistle blowers is so concerned about, would be caught in the normal tear down the the planes go thru periodically. And a repair to a ring segment that he points out is routine and just part of the normal life of a plane. Raptor

"Their own agenda" is to negotiate the best contract for you AND your family. You are making what you make and have the benefits you have because of their efforts to negotiate a fair and balanced contract that is best for the membership which your union represents. Remember, a union is a democratic organization that is only as good as it's members and how well they are involved with the issues that you face at work. You have the right and privelege of voting for those officals who represent you at the bargaining table in your name. You get to choose who you think has your best interests at the bargaining table, that sit across from their lawyers and company reps, who damn sure don't have your best interests at heart. You don't have the choice of who is the CEO of the company. You do have that choice at the Union Hall. You have the right of grievance, should the "company" decide to fire you for some ridiculous reason. Too much time from work, while you were taking care of your sick wife is one example I have seen. Perhaps you weren't promoted to a position that your were qualified for and had more time with the "Company" than the guy who was promoted. Layoffs are beginning, you have 20 years of service and are layed off, but someone with 2 years gets to stay, even though you both do the exact same job. With a union you have recourse to right that wrong, without the union, there is nothing that you can do about it, it just stinks to be you. While the 2 year wonder is laughing at you. It's democracy in action, and only as good as its membership is... It called collective bargaining for a reason. The operative word is "bargaining". No one is holding a gun to the "companies" head and saying give everyone a 5.00 dollar raise. It is negotiated "in good faith", by both sides, and is a mutual agreement that both parties willingly sign, as a legal binding document. It is an agreement the "company" signed and is obligated to abide by, as is the union. Both are bound by its language. If you think your "Company" has YOUR best interests at heart, better rethink that one. They don't... Crossing a picket line isn't a good idea either. The company doesn't respect picketline crossers either. Raptor

Good points. The fill in is still done today. We call it aero-sealing for aero smoothing and for it keeps out the weather too. Raptor

They didn't self certify the "airworthiness certificate". They are allowed to "Self-Certify" certain build operations as does evey airframer in the business. It's called self inspection. You, the mechanic are inspecting your work as meeting the requirements of the airframe builder AND the FAA specifications. You are also held accountable if something breaks too. If it is found that you certified an operation that doesn't meet the criteria, then your self inspection capability is revoked. You are now required to get a company inspector to inspect your work as being acceptable. Boeing is licensed thru the FAA to build the aircraft, and Boeing certifies that it's workers are working to FAA regulations to build the airplane as the airframe builder. There are certifications and classes required for the production guys at Boeing to do the work. Anything that has "Safety of Flight" type of operations involved will have a Company inspectors buyoff requirement as well. AKA: There are not enough FAA inspectors to inspect every single operation to build an aircraft. Raptor

It's still a design change. Engineers changed the material, therefore they changed the specifications of the wings blueprint. To those on the factory floor, IT is a design change to be incorporated into the production line for the next applicable plane that engineering tells them to apply it to. If you change anything in the plane, you have to generate a design change to tell them to do something different from the last plane. One doesn't diviate from the blueprint without engineering approval. It requires a Drawing Change Notice, which changes the blueprint. And No, Boeing didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it for the same reasons as Airbus did. They did it to bring the plane up to the design specifications they told their customers the plane would meet, AKA: the specified number of flight cycles the airfame would fly. AIrbus is modifying the existing fleet to meet that same promise. In other words, Airbus is doing the exact same thing as Boeing did... Modifiy the aircraft to meet the number of cycles promised. The composite issues for Boeing was largely due to Alenia not being familiar with composite layup and fabrication technics, in fact they were very new to the material. Boeings' problem was a lack of oversight of their subcontractor (Alenia). They would have been better off to subcontract that work to Northrop-Grumman with their vast expertise in the field of large airframe composite structures. The electrical system is the one area where Boeing overstreched the technology. Everything else has been done in other aircraft before, just not brought into the same airframe as Boeing has done in the 787. Raptor

"Finally, I think the reason why the USAAF stopped painting so many of its aircraft in 1944 was to save weight. On an aircraft the size of a B-17 or B-24 the weight saving was very significant." That was more for time savings during the build process. We had acheived air superiority by 1944 over Europe and we were at peak production rates in '44 as well. So USAAF made the decision to for-go the paint altogether as a way to save time. Given the speeds of the time, any weight savings would be neglible for the mission being flown. Saving fuel wasn't high on the list during wartime. Composites have to be painted, or at least some sort of topcoat applied. They are too porous to be left bare, unlike aluminum clad skins. "I'd imagine it's very much the same with an aeroplane." It is. If you have bare metal, out comes the Alodine, and the paint brush. Conversion coat first, then you apply the polyurethane paint to touch up. Raptor

The above are single system issues as is the case for the 787. What is going on with the Sukhoi is more than that. Different systems and areas of the plane are involved with the SSJ-100 Series. AviationWeek has a few articles concerning the aircraft that Sukhoi is trying to build and market. Seeing that Sukhoi's main customer isn't buying their products in mass today, it's trying it's hand at airliners. Perhaps it might be best to stick to what they know. Tactical military aircraft. Airliners are a very different animal from a military aircraft. Difficult to change ones mindset from military builds to commercial builds in real world practice. Raptor

It's a RF-84 Thunderflash alright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-84F_Thunderstreak Raptor

It's a RF-84 Thunderstreak alright. Where did you take the photo? Look down the Wiki link and there is a list of surviving planes on display, but it's not complete, as I see there is one that I know of not listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-84F_Thunderstreak Raptor

Rutan is a rebel to most of the conventional thinking folks in avaition. He thinks outside the box. which I like. Bone headed move by Beech. There were a couple of them that I would see fly over here. Miss that sound, you knew what was coming before you saw it visually. Raptor

"In any case it is putting aviation in peril !!!" . It will have a detrimental effect on the industry, as is already beginning to happen as agencies prepare for a long slog with reduced funding. In the long term, peril just might become the operative word. We will have to wait and see. If there are reduced hours for inspectors, for example, that means longer times to wait to get their approval to go on to the next step. Longer wait times means idle time for mechanics and that burns up budget, and gets nothing done. No company would keep staffing levels up with that going on, so that does mean layoffs for people and their families. The time frame of this happening is the big question, the longer it goes on, the more likely layoffs will happen. It's simply, trickle down economics. I don't see this being "fixed" before the end of the fiscal year in Sept. And let's remember, at the end of March, we hit the debt ceiling again and the Yo-Yos in WDC are going to have to come up with yet ANOTHER spending "work around" to fund the Government yet again... But this is the way of this President and the Congress. Are you getting a sense of De Ja Vu ? AGAIN... Raptor

We did. "We the People", as The Constitution sets out for election of our leaders. I agree with your description of the state of affairs we have found ourselves in today. Yes, it is on US. They (the ruling class,we elected and keep sending back to WDC) cut jobs and money for jobs for American citizens, but THEY still have their jobs and benefits, including exempting their staffs from such cuts and furloughs. Now, What is wrong with this picture? Raptor

What are those spinning things at the back? Big difference, me thinks... Only razzing ya, Matthew... In a serious note, Boeing, Lockheed and NASA with DARPA are looking at supersonic flight again in an attempt to minimize the shockwave under the planes path. They are using computational fluid dynamics to shape the planes exterior to ease the shockwaves footprint and impact at ground level. AviationWeek has had several articles on the program. Raptor

That's kool. But you stated we won't see the effects, when some of us are seeing those effects today. That was the point I was making, not trying to debate the sequester. Raptor

Good point... She still has a long way to go, and many hurdles to clear yet... Raptor

We won't see the effects? We already are seeing them here. They already told Government employees to plan on working 4 days a week and their pay will be cut accordingly. That begins in the next week or two. Fixed? They have had over 18 months to avert this mess of THEIR own making. FY 13 Budget? There is'nt going to be a FY 13 Budget. There hasn't been a budget passed since 2008. The current "Continuing Budget Resolution" simply continues spending and taxiation at last years rate. Closing under utilized towers and airports is a good thing. Small airport airline subsidies get the ax too. Raptor

This was passed into law by both Houses of Congress, AND signed into law by Mr Obama, 18 months ago. It is law now, and it's deadline is tonight at 00:00 AM. It's a "kick the can down the road" budgeting measure passed to keep the government funded back in 2011, as nobody in WDC could seem to pass a normal budget as set out in the Constitution. The budget today is called a "Continuing Budget Resolution", meaning the Fed Gov continues to borrow money to fund the functions of Government, while jacking up the national debt. All the while the Congress and the President sit back and don't have to do anything, or take any responsibility for any of this. This FAA "document" is junk. It's political theatre that those in WDC want us to believe that the sky is falling. Another crisis manufactured by the politicos in WDC. The reality is that there will be furloughs and cuts in the hours of those federal workers at the affected Government agencies. Notice I said furloughs, and not layoffs. Big difference between the two. The people I work with are telling us they will be taking one more day a week off, without pay as a cost cutting measure, over the next few months. The FAA is one of those agencies, as is DOD, DHS, FDA, etc... How this plays out long term, they haven't heard, but short term, shortened work weeks are the Governments answer to keep operating and Governmental services going until a solution might be found. The one I found interesting was Palmdale/AF Plant #6. Ain't going to happen, as DOD and FAA controllers man that tower. Seeing what all is at Palmdale, nope, won't happen. Same goes for Martin State in Maryland. A-10's and C-130's are stationed there, along with several DOD contractors. Raptor

Form follows function... in aviation especially so. Because the basic design for an airliner was set back in 1950 with the 707 era of aircraft. It is a BUS with wings... It works, it's simple. The format and layout is a known commodity and very accepted by the aviation industry. If it ain't broke, Don't try to fix it... Concord was different due to it's requirement for supersonic flight. That changed everything about that plane. It is what drove the design to look as it did. Low drag, High speed, high altitude all had to be engineered into the Concord. And JP was real cheap back then... Todays designs are ALL about being efficient. Bleed air is going away as a power source. Hydraulic systems are going to higher pressures (3000 to 5000 psi), meaning smaller lines, less hydraulic system weight to haul around, including less fluid. FBW wiring harnesses replacing cables and pulley runs for the flight controls, saving weight. Composites replacing aluminum, saves weight, but increases initial costs of the plane and the increased cost for repairs due to it's nature. As for A350 first flight, she has a long way to go. Engines, final installations, lots of FT's (functional tests) still to be run. Electrical, Hydraulic, flight controls, gear swings, Initial fuel operations and system tests. Fill her up check wether the fuel system functions properly, leak checks, transfer checks, boost pumps, etc. Flush and fill the tanks several times to clean out the junk out of the tanks from the build, that is left behind no matter how much you clean. Initial engine/APU runs and then on to normal engine runs to test system integration and final checkouts before ground tests and taxi testing can begin. Still alot to be accomplished for a mid year first flight.

Good points japascoe. You are talking about what in the industry are known as Unk-Unks. (Unknown-Unknowns) Things that one cannot foresee as being or becoming problems or issues in a program. Comet had them, in the form of explosive decompression. The Electra with the #1 or #4 engine mounts becoming unstable, no wind tunnel data showed that one either. Some things don't show up until you get planes into real world in-service conditions. All the computer modeling in the world can't replace real world experience. Engineering, as well as production ops are very compartmentalized in a program as big as this. One dept doesn't always communicate effectivly with another. Powerplant people work on the powerplants, Electrical people work on the electrical system, Avionic people work on Avionics. Every Craft has it's area of expertise to work on. "SpiritFlyer: 'It is incredible that something so fundamental as the base electrical design is so flawed that two potentially catastrophic events in a two week period has led to the decertification and grounding worldwide of the entire 787 fleet." This plane relies on electrical systems for more than any plane before it. Wheel Brakes are electric, not hydraulic. Engine starting is by electric starter/generator, not bleed air from the APU. APU is started via starter motor as well. Cabin pressurization is by electrically driven compressor, not bleed air from the engines, as there is no engine bleed air. The generators are 250Kva, two per engine, for a total of four. The APU has two 225Kva generators itself. Alot more is being asked of this planes electrical system than ever before. And all driven by a FBW system driven by software. A 777 has 125Kva Engine driven generators for some perspective. And it is FBW too. Add a Composite airframe and you have a not so simple electrical system anymore. Composite is largely an insulator, not a conductor. This has influences on the design of electrical system and electrical components located around the airframe. It also influences the design of the airframe too. Lights, batteries, generators, motors, sensors, hydraulic actuators, control surfaces, all have to be electrically grounded back to the airframe in some way. Some of these are static grounds, some are current returns, but all are necessary none the less. If I need to ground a system or component in a metal airframe, It's easy to sand to bare metal and attach my grounding lug to provide a path to ground. The metal airframe inheriently provided this pathway by its metallic nature. Like your car batteries negative cable is run to the metal frame to ground your cars electrical system. To do this in Composite, those pathways have to be engineered and manufactured into the structure of the airframe itself. They add a metallic strip imbedded into the composite when layed up, to provide this pathway, then attach that one to another one in the next part or assembly at a specific point and so on... Complicates the build process as it makes it even more critical to ground properly and in the right places to achieve the grounding pathways necessary. Raptor

Who do you think knows the plane better? FAA or Boeing? Boeing does... They designed, built and test flown her under the oversight and with approval of the FAA. They are the ones who do have the knowledge and expertise to figure this out. Does the FDA do the testing for the new drugs being brought to market to cure illness? No, the drug companies do that and submit their findings to the FDA for approval, just like the FAA does... FAA also has a conflict too. It's their job to regulate and ensure the safety of the airline industry AND at the very same time, promote the airline industry as a safe and reliable way to travel to we, the public at large. This dual role has it's own pitfalls built in to the system. NASA??? Two words here, Challenger and Columbia. Both were NASA management made diasasters. Morton Thiokol told NASA managers not to launch in '86, but NASA management over rode their safety of flight concerns, and over rode their own engineers on duty that day at the Cape. The result was seven needless deaths. As for Columbia, there was loads of evidence that the foam was a problem, but NASA management said it was "just part of the risk of manned space flight". In other words, they didn't want to spend the money to fix the foam issue, they were too busy spending it on the ISS, to be bothered. They had known of it for years and sat on their hands and did nothing... Now, you want me to turn over a aircraft battery issue to that team??? I don't think so... NASA can't even figure out where in space it wants to go... Let's go to the Moon, Ummm, No,Let's go to Mars, ummm, maybe to an asteriod... Oh, heck, we'll just go rent seats on a rocket from the Russians and go back to the ISS... This is your idea of a "competent 3rd party, especially one like NASA!" ??? Toyota settled without there ever being a smoking gun in the unintended acceleration case. Sounds alot like the case against Audi in the seventies. Nothing was ever found in that unintended acceleration case either. The NTSB would be a better choice here, due to lack of conflict in the matter. One look at the NTSB website would show how many NTSB recommendations have been implimented by the FAA, as a result of NTSB crash investigations in the past. That number is very low. Give the NTSB better and stronger recommendation powers that the FAA has to do something with and we will all be safer. As the rules stand now, the FAA doesn't have to do a thing with what is recommended to it... And test flying by Boeing with the FAA present is the only way to replacate the problem at all... Raptor

Houghton11. MRO's are looking for people... Just keep in mind the Aviation business is fickle and you can find yourself moving quite a bit. And it's not caviar and champagne dreams out on that ramp... It breaks, You go... Thanks Robert, you have a way with words that I don't. That is what I was trying to convey. Raptor

Mr Baker is a businessman who runs an airline. He has a loud mouth and seems to like to throw his weight around to try and get his way. I don't remember him acting this way when his A380's were being delayed and I think they still have to have the wing mods done on the Qatar birds. Remember the mods for the wing cracks that are being seen on the fleet in service... Now that would be a "defect", AKA, an unk-unk. Airbus has a fix and is fixing it. Boeing will do the same for the 787. My point is, just tone it down a bit. Screaming to the press about it, don't get you any closer to getting your plane fixed. Quote from him:“They have to get their act together very fast because we at Qatar Airways will not accept any more defects.” A generator failure isn't a "defect". It's a bad generator, that's all it was. Happens all the time, when you have a very large collection of aircraft parts flying in formation in the form of an aircraft. It is a mechanical machine, it breaks from time to time. That generator happens to be a 250 kva, instead of the more normal 120 Kva variety. Most likely, a brand new generator from Hamilton Sustrand since most everything on this plane is driven by electricity. send the field team, change the generator, and go on with life... Qatar Airway may be very liked and highly regarded and an up and coming airline but, that doesn't excuse Mr Baker's behavior for mouthing off as he did here and at other times with other makers. This isn't his first tirad to the press. It may be his way as someone here pointed out, but that doesn't excuse bad behavior either. He needs to gripe to Boeing, that might get him better results, though I doubt it. Honey works better than vineger most of the time, in other words...

Thank You Mr McDonald. Very nicely worded. The average flier doesn't have a clue about just how revolutionary this aircraft really is. Composite, on this scale is a whole new realm to those guys having to maintain and repair these 787's. Sheet metal mentality won't work at all, not to mention the learning curve the production guys have to learn on the shop floor. There isn't bleed air to start engines, or keep you cool/warm in the cabin with the ECS system pacs. All electronic now. Engine driven hydraulics only power some systems, electronics do the rest. Electronic motors move parts of the flight controls. A motor is a generator in reverse, in a sense. And the hydraulic system is at 5000 psi, not your normal 3000 psi. And then there is the massive amount of software to think about that drives all these systems and the FBW system. Please read the article at Aviation Week about their test flight of the 787, it was very informative. Raptor

No new ground breaking aircraft has EVER gone without having what are known in the industry as Unk-Unks (AKA: Unknown Unknowns that all the computer modeling and flight testing can hope to uncover.) Problems will manifest themselves in normal service and will be taken care of in due course. Mr Bakers screaming about it, doesn't get his airplane fixed any faster... Trust me, it doesn't work that way. Whom ever has the greatest number of planes affected will be toward the front of the fix it line. The Comet is but one glaring example of trial and tribulations of bringing a new aircraft into service, and Unk-Unks. No one saw metal fatigue as an issue, and the fix so simple to introduce. Many issues won't manifest theirselves until the aircraft is in service and gets to fly real world flights in real world conditions. Thats what AD's and manufacturing bulletins are in place to do. It works the same way that a recall for a car does. The A380 didn't exactly go smoothly either. Wiring issues, as in not long enough to reach where they were supposed to go. Now Airbus is working on wing strength fixes for the aircraft in the field, very similar to the composite problems on the 787. Sounds like this Boeing issue, doesn't it ??? The A350 is behind it's schedule for alot of the same reasons the 787 was delayed. That time is being well used by Airbus to work out the details and potential issues. A Generator going down isn't very uncommon. BTW, it was one of four such 250 Kva generators driven by the engines, not to mention the two 225 Kva APU driven ones, that can be brought on line if the need arises. A precautionary landing was done and a replacement generator will be installed free of charge to Mr Baker under warranty. They are a relativly small airline when one looks at the numbers from the IATA data. Raptor Depends where the fuel leak is. Not being sarcastic, but it really does matter. There is a allowace that engineering allows for in the operations documentation that comes with each aircraft. If you have a steady stream, of course not. But a puddle can be just fine, depending on location.