Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2013, 06:30 AM   #81
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
The NTSB has put up a website with some interesting information:

Accident Investigations - Boeing 787
__________________
Advertisement

RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 10:58 AM   #82
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,372
Marin said:
They are in some pretty big trouble with their A350 over issues that have nothing to do with batteries.
They made a similar mistake with the A380 when concerns about noise levels led them to design a wing which is far larger than it needs to be,


Business 101 in product sales is to run down the competition. I may be clueless as to what is happening behind closed doors in Boeing, but as far as how profit/loss, risk/reward, implementation of new technology or CEO decision making I may be a step or two above clueless.

Here is how one could speculate, and likely be very close to the truth - EADS has known for some time that Boeing was facing electrical and power supply new design issues on the 787. Knowing this they avoided the first time ever power supply design philosophy their Boeing spies were passing on to them. Think about a well placed French company that is in the middle of Boeing's design for power supply while at the same time knowing the French are masters at industrial espionage.

Fast forward to this week in Davos where the World Economic Forum was being held. A very important guy with Airbus named Febrice Bregier (look up his creds) gave some interesting remarks to Reuters TV about how Airbus is learning from Boeing and working with regulators to avoid Boeing's teething problems on the 350.

EADS has been waiting a long time for this marketing coup to drop into their lap. Just as Marin's statements above points out real Airbus issues, Airbus is now doing the same.

Every utterance on the NET regarding this issue, including this thread, is being followed by some sales guy, whether in Seattle or Europe. Business 101 in the product sales industry says so.
__________________

sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:15 PM   #83
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Here is how one could speculate, and likely be very close to the truth - EADS has known for some time that Boeing was facing electrical and power supply new design issues on the 787. Knowing this they avoided the first time ever power supply design philosophy their Boeing spies were passing on to them.
Clueless speculation would be my guess... the A350 type design uses the same technology.

But, they will benefit from whatever comes of this though.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:55 PM   #84
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
Clueless speculation would be my guess... the A350 type design uses the same technology.

But, they will benefit from whatever comes of this though.
EADS says
  • they don't use the Boeing design
  • plus they have sufficient time to insure their design complies with FFA findings from the 787 investigation
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:52 PM   #85
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
EADS says
  • they don't use the Boeing design
  • plus they have sufficient time to insure their design complies with FFA findings from the 787 investigation
Both statements are true but the first one doesn't mean it's better and the second one is true because they are having all sorts of other problems that are delaying their airplane so a redesign of part of their electrical system carries no delay penalty at this point. Also when you think about it, the second one is a totally meaningless statement other than its PR value with the ignorant because Airbus has no choice but to make sure their design complies with whatever the FAA, JAA, requirements turn out to be, just as we will.

BTW--- If you knew anything about this industry at all you would have long since learned, as has the entire industry including the airllines, that any sentence that starts with "Airbus says...." or "EADS says..." should be taken with a massive chunk of salt. There are a couple of huge airplane orders that I know of specifically because I helped support them that came to us in large part because Airbus lied to and misled the customer.

This is not a reflection on their product, but on the way they do business and spin public perception.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 02:55 PM   #86
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
spin public perception.
Just to be clear here Boeing never does this, sometime does this or is guilty just as much?
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:36 PM   #87
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post
Just to be clear here Boeing never does this, sometime does this or is guilty just as much?
Based on 30-plus years of supporting our sales and marketing efforts and being present at countless sales and marketing strategy meetings-- as well as supporting the folks we have whose job it is to keep a close watch on what our competition is doing--- I would have to say that if anything, we are too honest. Boeing has always been on the conservative side with our product promises and this dates back to before WWII.

As an example, the other year both Tim Clark, CEO of Emirates and one of the two most powerful people in the airline industry today, and his operations director told me in interviews that one of the best things (for them) about working with Boeing is that our planes--- the 777 in this case---- always come in "better than book" to use their words. Which means they are able to do much more with the planes than they had originally planned.

The 777-300 for example, which they had ordered for a certain set of routes turned out to be able to fly even longer routes. So much so that they had to retrofit overhead crew rest areas into the planes, an option they had initially rejected, because they found the -300 could fly on routes long enough to require extra crew, like Dubai to the US east coast. This is, as they put it, a huge benefit for them because the planes become much more flexible in terms of how the airline can use them. And flexibility--- the ability to make money on the widest range of routes--- is one of the most important attributes an airplane can have as far as an airline is concerned.

This is in direct opposition to Airbus which consistently promises more than their planes often end up being able to do. This has severely pissed off a lot of their customers. For example there was one year in the later 1990s when we sold more A340s than Airbus did. The reason? We took them in trade for 777s from airlines that had had it with the inability of the A340 to carry the loads over the distances they had been promised by Airbus.

So while you would expect a company employee to say their company is superior in many regards than the competition this is one place where I believe the facts bear this out.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 04:08 PM   #88
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
So we can take that as a "sometimes does" as opposed to "all the time."

Does this include when they are in the Pentagon asking for over runs in cost?
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 04:21 PM   #89
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post
So we can take that as a "sometimes does" as opposed to "all the time."
Well, you can take it however you want. Since you don't work for the company your guess is as good as anyone elses' who doesn't work for the company. Which of course, also means that your opinion is irrelevant to reality.

Quote:
Does this include when they are in the Pentagon asking for over runs in cost?
Beats the hell out of me. I rarely support our military projects except in the case of the programs in which Boeing Commercial Airplanes is involved--- the 737 P8 and 767 tanker being the most recent examples, and even then it is supporting the commercial airplane side of the program, not the defense side.

I suspect that Boeing plays by the same "rules" that all the defense contractors do. If we didn't, we wouldn't be very successful in that field. But what those "rules" are, I have no idea.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:36 PM   #90
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
EADS says
  • they don't use the Boeing design
  • plus they have sufficient time to insure their design complies with FFA findings from the 787 investigation
But they do make extensive use of Lithium Ion battery technology (in the same way Boeing does)

And I have no idea what the Future Farmers of America's findings will be on this (or the FAA if that's what you mean?)

Airbus does not certify through the FAA (or the FFA), they are certified through EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) and (IATA International Air transport Association)
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 11:15 PM   #91
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
Well, you can take it however you want. Since you don't work for the company your guess is as good as anyone elses' who doesn't work for the company. Which of course, also means that your opinion is irrelevant to reality.
I didn't realize I was stating an opinion. It was more of a question. Your the one with all of the opinions.
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 11:47 PM   #92
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
You're absolutely correct, my apologies. "So we can take it" is an assumption on your part, not an opinion. So I'll rephrase my response. "Your assumption is as much a guess as anyone else's' who doesn't work for the company. Which means that your assumption is irrelevant, etc., etc., etc."

More better?
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:16 AM   #93
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,531
But what those "rules" are, I have no idea.

The rules haven't changed since before WWI.

Bid very very low to get the contract , and since the military always has BESTITIS, charge charge charge for any and every change.

The F 35 was "supposed" to cost under 50 mil each ,

now running about 130 million each,

Change is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:20 AM   #94
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
You're absolutely correct, my apologies. "So we can take it" is an assumption on your part, not an opinion. So I'll rephrase my response. "Your assumption is as much a guess as anyone else's' who doesn't work for the company. Which means that your assumption is irrelevant, etc., etc., etc."

More better?
Not really. Look up assumption and then question. Hell even you with an opinion on everything knows that an assumption is not the same as a question.

Here let me help you.

ques·tion

/ˈkwɛstʃən/ Show Spelled [kwes-chuhn] Show IPA
noun 1. a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in reply.

2. a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.

3. a matter of some uncertainty or difficulty; problem (usually followed by of ): It was simply a question of time.

4. a subject of dispute or controversy.

5. a proposal to be debated or voted on, as in a meeting or a deliberative assembly.



<H2 class=me>as·sump·tion

</H2>/əˈsʌmpʃən/ Show Spelled [uh-suhmp-shuhn] Show IPA
noun 1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.

2. the act of taking for granted or supposing. Synonyms: presumption; presupposition.

3. the act of taking to or upon oneself. Synonyms: acceptance, shouldering.

4. the act of taking possession of something: the assumption of power. Synonyms: seizure, appropriation, usurpation, arrogation.

5. arrogance; presumption. Synonyms: presumptuousness; effrontery, forwardness, gall.

Got it? It was a question, not an assumption or an opinion.

You answered the question in, what I believe is a biased manner, which could be expected. The fact that you work there is of relevance but it in no way makes you an authority. Unless you attend the BOD meetings or act as an advisor to the BOD. There are many people that work there. Some know way less than you and some know way more than you about the operations within the company.
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 01:00 PM   #95
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,372
Let me make one thing perfectly clear here. I revel in discussions where opposing views by smart people are openly debated.

To that end, Marin would be an early hire for any organization I worked for. He is bright, loyal and knows how to get the job done. He puts up with no BS and is very fun to be around. Provided Boeing lets guys like Marin and not a bunch of tied to the past "yes boss" types fix the 787 electrical issues, the future is bright. I look forward to his book, "How Boeing Fixed The 787"

I remain,

Clueless in Seattle
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 02:02 PM   #96
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post
Unless you attend the BOD meetings or act as an advisor to the BOD.
Funny you should mention that because we support the CEO and the BOD as well as the entire rest of the company worldwide. To that end we are often in a position to know about things going on or being planned that most people in the company will never know until it happens, if it does. Obviously we cannot reveal or discuss them outside the realm of our work.

We have a whole room (code locked) that is lined floor to ceiling with the footage we have shot in support of the 787 dating from when it was one of two design concepts that were being considered for our next airplane program. One concept was code-named Yellowstone. The other was named (by Alan Mulally) the Sonic Cruiser.

The Sonic Cruiser was the favorite of ours and our customers until the reality of fuel prices began to hit home. The key to why the Sonic Cruiser would have worked aerodynamically was conceived and developed by one guy, an engineer Boeing referred to as "Engineer X" to hide his identity from the media, and more importantly, the competition. I interviewed Engineer X to get on tape his explanation of why his concept made the Sonic Cruiser viable as an aircraft.

But economic reality made the Sonic Cruiser impractical so we turned our attention to Yellowstone. Yellowstone subsequently became the 7E7 and when the basic configuration was determined it was given the next 700-series number in line and the program was officially launched as the 787.

The room I referred to contains tapes we shot of every key meeting, including the intense debates that occurred between the proponents of aluminum and the proponents of composites and the subsequent decision and why it was made. The tapes contain footage of the entire 787 development process both at Boeing and at all our key suppliers and partners. While we, including me, have provided similar coverage of our previous models starting with the 767 and continuing through the 57, 77, NextGen37, and the 47-4, our coverage of the 87 has been unprecedented.

And you don't direct this stuff and conduct these kinds of interviews and not come away knowing a hell of a lot about the programs, the people, and the company. If one likes the air transportation industry-- which I do-- that is what is so fantastic about this job. I would bet that the people in our department-- which is not very big, in Puget Sound there are only about 20 of us--- know more about what goes on in this company than anyone else who works here including the CEO and the board.

Because one week we might be supporting McNerney in a presentation to the board, the next week we might be producing a video to support a sales campaign to an airline, the next week we might be doing a video about a new technology being developed, the next week we might be in China doing a video about a project Boeing is partnering on, the next week we might doing a video about a new lift system being used by our overhead crane operators, the next week we can be in Dubai talking to Emirates about why the 777 is so successful for them and shooting their entire operation from the ramps to their maintenance and cargo operations to takeoffs and landings out next to the runways to their class on teaching flight attendants the proper way to slice and serve cheese in first class, on and on and on.

One of our videographers and I have ridden behind the robotic tape head on the huge arm of one of the automated tape-laying machines while it was winding a 787 fuselage section in Charleston. That's the level of involvement we get with our products and processes.

And we aren't just recording what happens, we also make things happen sometimes. I and another guy came up with an in-flight scenario while shooting material for a video supporting our tanker bid in the 777 full-motion simulator. Our scenario was to have the flight crew detect and evade a SAM launch by instantly slamming the plane over into an inverted bank and diving for the ground. All of our planes can do this. The A330 cannot. It was a capability nobody on the program had thought of depicting. So I directed this scenario along with the other scenes we were shooting that day and the editor included it in the finished video.

Now the tanker decision was not made on the strength of a video. In the overall scheme of things the videos we and I assume EADS produced in support of our respective campaigns played a minor role at best. But we did hear later that our SAM evasion scenario made a huge impression on the Air Force people who were part of the whole selection process. And that scenario came about because I'm a pilot and have a thorough understanding of Boeing and Airbus' flight control philosophies and the other guy, now retired, has even more experience with flight control philosophy development and had had SAMs shot at him a few times.

And while we are doing all this stuff in Puget Sound, our counterparts in St. Louis and southern California are doing the same kinds of things in support of Boeing's defense and space operations.

So yes, JD, I and the rest of us in our department know more about Boeing than you can even conceive it's possible to know. And it doesn't hurt that the company pays us a bunch of money to do what we do.. I don't believe anyone here or in St. Louis makes less than six figures a year.

And interestingly enough, what we do and why we do it dates all the way back to Bill Boeing and the very first days of the company, first known as Pacific Aero Products, soon changed to Boeing Airplane Company. Because, as I was told by the company historian and archivist many years ago, Boeing had a keen interest in photography and motion pictures. I don't know if he became involved in either of these as a hobby or not, but from day one, he had everything of interest going on at the company recorded in still photography and in many cases motion pictures. We're still at it today.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 03:04 PM   #97
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
Funny you should mention that because we support the CEO and the BOD as well as the entire rest of the company worldwide.

So yes, JD, I and the rest of us in our department know more about Boeing than you can even conceive it's possible to know.

Just getting to what you answered. I would like to point out that most everyone that works for any company can make your first statement. Even the janitor. If they can't they need to go someplace else to work. You on the other hand are painting the picture that you are in counsel. Big difference. I'm sure your work is important to Boeing but that doesn't mean that they ask your advise.

As to your second point so does the CEO's secretary but again he or she isn't asked for advice on how to run the company.

BTW these are in fact opinions.
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 03:34 PM   #98
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
I think you are misinterpreting the word "support" In our case it means work directly with them to record and perhaps later put together and distribute whatever information they want to disseminate. And we often advise them, "them" including the CEO at times, on how most effectively to present their information or message using video.

Never said they ask our advice, except on the subject of video. I said that because of what we do, we know a hell of a lot about what's being discussed at that level in the company, what those discussions consist of, and what's being planned, and we often know it a long, long time before it becomes known throughout the company, if it ever even does. The janitors aren't at those meetings, but we often are.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 04:50 PM   #99
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
... and you should review that stack of NDAs and PIAs before you comment about half the stuff you hear. IP has never been more at the forefront in our company.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 02:52 AM   #100
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
from today's Seattle Times....

---------------------

WASHINGTON — U.S. investigators examining the battery charger from a Boeing 787 that caught fire this month in Boston have found no evidence of flaws that could have caused the incident.

The National Transportation Safety Board has completed testing of the charger at the Tucson, Ariz., plant where it was made by Securaplane Technologies, the agency said in an emailed news release Sunday.

The NTSB also said it found nothing wrong on the device it examined known as an auxiliary power unit, which contained the lithium-ion battery that burned on a Japan Airlines 787 at Logan Airport in Boston on Jan. 7.

The Federal Aviation Administration grounded all 787 Dreamliners on Jan. 16 after a second battery incident occurred in Japan during an All Nippon Airways flight. The battery emitted smoke and became charred, forcing pilots to make an emergency landing.

The NTSB is assisting Japanese investigators in that incident. Debbie Hersman, the board’s chairwoman, on Thursday called both fires a significant safety concern.

The agency has so far not discovered why the battery caught fire, Hersman said.

The JAL plane was delivered to the airline Dec. 20 and had made 22 flights before the incident, according to the NTSB. The lithium-ion battery that caught fire was produced in September.

Although a fire destroyed one of two big batteries on the 787 parked at the Boston airport, a quick examination of the second battery found “no obvious anomalies,” the NTSB said Sunday.

The second battery was of identical design but used for a different purpose.

The board said its lab was still studying the destroyed battery, whose function was to start the auxiliary power unit, a small jet engine used mostly on the ground. The battery, which was not being charged or discharged, caught fire while the jet was empty after completing a flight to Boston from Tokyo.

The undamaged battery on which the board reported Sunday was a backup for cockpit instruments, near the nose.

On Jan. 16, during an All Nippon Airways domestic flight in Japan, the main battery used to back up cockpit instruments began belching smoke a few minutes after takeoff, forcing an emergency landing. Investigators have not said whether it was being charged at the time. The planes were grounded shortly afterward.

The batteries use a lithium-ion chemistry, which has been in use for many years in many applications but is new in airplanes. Investigators say the problem could be with the batteries or with the associated electronics used to manage them.

The board’s update also said investigators had reviewed two systems associated with the auxiliary power unit and found no problems.

An NTSB-led team also examined circuit boards used to monitor the battery in the in-flight incident in Japan, the board said. The circuit boards were damaged in the incident, “which limited the information that could be obtained from tests,” the board said. ”

The board said it had sent two additional investigators to Seattle, where it was working with the Federal Aviation Administration to review work at Boeing. One investigator will work with a group reviewing Boeing’s efforts to solve the problems, and the other will work on how the lithium-ion batteries were approved by the FAA.

The RTCA, a group that advises the FAA on some technical issues, in 2008 recommended tougher testing standards for lithium-ion batteries on aircraft to ensure they wouldn’t burn or explode even if control circuitry failed, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday night. The FAA decided such testing wasn’t necessary, and it’s not clear whether it would have prevented the two 787 incidents, the Journal said.

Japan’s transport ministry said Monday it has ended inspections of battery maker GS Yuasa and will look at Kanto Aircraft Instrument, a battery-monitor maker.

-----------------
__________________

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012