Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-05-2013, 12:02 PM   #141
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,633
FF, I think that is an oversimplified view. When systems are dropping in rapid succession(ie faster than one can think), systems knowledge is irrelevant. Ultimately, you have to be able to zoom out and get a picture of what is actually going on....ie what is happening and what checklists to run(first). So you still have to know what is going on with the systems. I have been (un)fortunate to straddle this technology explosion in that I have been trained in both schools of thought. I simply can't go ignorantly "into the night" without knowing how a system works. Whether they teach me or not(which they do), I cannot go forward in good conscience without knowing how a system works. I have 9 type ratings in transport category aircraft and amazingly the engineering theory is very similar regardless of who made the aircraft. It is because Boeing/America led the charge and were very successful....and other manufacturers basically copied what works. Obviously, the 787 is going off in a different direction as it relates to engineering.

What I think is good about what you are referring to is that we are no longer required to regurgitate meaningless numbers that have absolutely no bearing on the operation of the aircraft....ie the model designation of the engines. I have no clue. I know it is a CFM56 followed by about 30 different letters and numbers and dashes and that is all I know or care to know. We operate all kinds of different versions of the CFM56 with all kinds of different thrusts ratings(which I don't know either and it doesn't matter). Even fuel tank capacities are irrelevant(but I know them because they are the same on all 737NGs)....we go with how much we need for the mission and as you know it is rarely ever topped off.

I will say that there is some truth to what you are saying but we are continuously battling "abandoning the basics" versus relying on technology. But to suggest that pilots are bunch of bumbling ignorant programmed switch pushers is not an accurate assessment at all.
__________________
Advertisement

Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 06:21 PM   #142
Enigma
 
RT Firefly's Avatar
 
City: Slicker?
Country: Bumpkin?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,996
Greetings,
For those who don't subscribe to the DM...
Boeing were allowed to carry out their own safety checks on Dreamliner jets as there were no federal guidelines for testing lithium batteries that grounded the fleet | Mail Online
__________________

__________________
RTF
RT Firefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 06:30 AM   #143
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,530
I will say that there is some truth to what you are saying but we are continuously battling "abandoning the basics" versus relying on technology. But to suggest that pilots are bunch of bumbling ignorant programmed switch pushers is not an accurate assessment at all.

With limits to stall training , upset training , and even bank angles , back to basics is hardly enough.

It would be nice if FLYING was required , such as actual stall, spin recovery , even if taught in a flea plane , the experience might help. AF 447 ?


As more systems depart from mechanical , bleed power or a hyd system , all that's left is switches , and the prayer that the electric setup will still be working.

That makes BASIC FLYING skills more important , as the driver attempts to discover what is still functioning .
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 11:41 AM   #144
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371

Thanks RT this safety check issue and related concerns has been out there for some time, as far back as 2007 at the Tucson Li battery design and testing facility. Tis a shame that federal guidlines seem required for everything, but once in the air it has been fair game for a very long time. Currently the FAA and NTSB are assessing this red flag along with just having granted permission for the 787 to begin test flights with only the necessary key people onboard and over low populated areas (the Pacific?). Boeing has just announced delivery delays until the battery issue is resolved. Maybe the Boeing Chairman could pull a Howard Hughes "Spruce Goose" and demonstrate his aircraft and flying skills as one of the onboard key personnel.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 08:22 AM   #145
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Maybe the Boeing Chairman could pull a Howard Hughes "Spruce Goose" and demonstrate his aircraft and flying skills as one of the onboard key personnel.
Yeah, right. Boeing's chairman came from Proctor and Gamble, GE, and 3M. He is hardly an "aviation person" so if we are to apply Marin's guidelines for those who should be allowed to comment on Boeing's problems, even he is one of the "ignorant."

Howard Hughes, on the other hand, was a pilot and was quite competent to sit in the left seat.
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 10:19 AM   #146
Guru
 
HopCar's Avatar


 
City: Miami Florida
Vessel Name: Possum
Vessel Model: Ellis 28
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,505
I see they are starting to do some test flying now.
HopCar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 10:40 AM   #147
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Ferry flights and B1's.

Every plane needs to get what's called a B1 flight completed before delivery. We've been cleared to start those again and ferry flights from other locations. It's going to be some time before the fix is in place, tested and certified so production needs to keep moving.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 02:34 PM   #148
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickB View Post
Yeah, right. Boeing's chairman came from Proctor and Gamble, GE, and 3M. He is hardly an "aviation person" so if we are to apply Marin's guidelines for those who should be allowed to comment on Boeing's problems, even he is one of the "ignorant."

Howard Hughes, on the other hand, was a pilot and was quite competent to sit in the left seat.
My "ignorant" comment applies to people outside the industry, which other than SomeSailor and I and the few currently active air transport pilots includes everyone (in my opinion) on this forum.

While McNerney is not a pilot (so far as I know) neither are most of the other people at this company. And while his previous employment was not in the aviation industry it has been for some time now.

Previous employment is sort of irrelevant, anyway. Bill Allen, arguably the most influential CEO Boeing has ever had-- he moved the company into the jet age--- graduated from Harvard law school and joined the Seattle law firm of Donwrth, Todd, and Higgins, which happened to have The Boeing Company as one of its clients. Few people today, particularly all of us at Boeing, would claim that when Bill Allen was the company's CEO, after serving for some time on the board as the company's corporate counsel, he was "ignorant" of the industry despite his law education and his previous employment as a lawyer in a local law firm.

Rick is right, Howard Hughes was an outstanding pilot as well as aircraft designer, at least in terms of concept. I don't believe he was a nuts-and-bolts, drafting-table-type engineer but he came up with some very innovative ideas and had the means to take them to fruition.

While the H4 Hercules, aka Spruce Goose (which has little or no spruce in it) garnered a lot of ridicule, if you go to the Evergreen Aviation Museum in Oregon where it is displayed and learn about the innovative technologies that were developed for its construction, for example, it was a remarkable achievement.

The aerodynamicists and propulsion engineers I've had the opportunity to talk to about the plane since I first saw it in Long Beach in the 1980s said that in their opinion the H4 would have flown just fine. (This is NOT the same thing as saying it would have been a good or successful plane.) The fact it made just the one short, straight flight had, in their view, nothing to do with the limitations of the plane and everything to do with Hughes' attitude by that time toward the project and the government.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 06:14 PM   #149
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371
[QUOTE=Marin;133673]My "ignorant" comment applies to people outside the industry, which other than SomeSailor and I and the few currently active air transport pilots includes everyone (in my opinion) on this forum.
QUOTE]

One thing is for sure, the ignorant world population knows the plane is not flying because of a poor (ignorant) electrical Boeing design. This current failure is only the latest in a litany of other design and scheduling glitches teh 787 has seen.

The ongoing 787 issues rank as one of if not the most expensive failures, where no bankruptcy was announced, of modern times. The losses have been posted on Boeing's filings and releases and recorded on lenders books per SEC and other world exhange rules and regulations. These reporting rules are in place to keep (way too) smart folks from taking advantage of us ignorant folks.

Thank goodness the FAA and NTSB are dosing this issue with some apparently spot on outside (ignorant) perspective.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 08:21 PM   #150
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
The FAA and NTSB are part of the aerospace industry, unless you are ignorant of that fact, too, along with everything else.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 08:54 PM   #151
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
The FAA and NTSB are part of the aerospace industry, unless you are ignorant of that fact, too, along with everything else.
Nope, the FAA and NTSB are not part of the aerospace industry, they are watchdogs put into place to look after us ignorant folks and try to insure industry behaves in a safe and same manner. That is akin to me saying the hardworking but arms length EPA and OSHA are part of the mining industry or the BLM is part of the real estate industry.

These acronym state and federal agencies are very distinct from industry, We and they insist on this and either can go to jail for getting to financially cozy (offering or receiving goods or bribes) with each other.

Nice try though.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 09:09 PM   #152
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
By part of the industry I mean understanding and being involved with the industry. It's their job. As opposed to people who are doing well to understand why the pointy end of the plane goes forward.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 09:15 PM   #153
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
One thing is for sure, the ignorant world population knows the plane is not flying because of a poor (ignorant) electrical Boeing design.
Then the rest would likely know this is a Thales design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
The losses have been posted on Boeing's filings and releases and recorded on lenders books per SEC and other world exhange rules and regulations. These reporting rules are in place to keep (way too) smart folks from taking advantage of us ignorant folks.
If you truly had any idea, you'd probably make note of the $23B earnings in the 4th quarter. Boeing has not filed any 1st quarter documents yet. But, with the all the lines pushing a the rates we're predicting, we'll be looking at a $100B revenue year.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 09:39 PM   #154
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
But, with the all the lines pushing a the rates we're predicting, we'll be looking at a $100B revenue year.
Not to mention the 15 or 16 day's pay every full-time, non-union Boeing employee is getting as a bonus as a result of the company's financial performance in 2012. (Union employees have their own bonus plan which gives them approximately the same amount.)
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 09:46 PM   #155
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Yeah... the EIP doesn't suck.

I'd forgotten all about it. Should be seeing that in our 28th paycheck.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 11:58 PM   #156
Guru
 
Northern Spy's Avatar
 
City: Powell River, BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Northern Spy
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 26
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
By part of the industry I mean understanding and being involved with the industry. It's their job. As opposed to people who are doing well to understand why the pointy end of the plane goes forward.
Silly Marin. Look closely next time you cinematograph a 787. The bum is much pointier then the nose.
Northern Spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 03:57 AM   #157
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
The end with windows in it? How's that?
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 05:41 AM   #158
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,530
While the H4 Hercules, aka Spruce Goose (which has little or no spruce in it) garnered a lot of ridicule,

If I were a Boeing suit I would be worried.

After Watergate , every political bo bo became a "gate".

Going Postal is part of our language,

If all the LI battery problems in cars, aircraft and other uses get some type of Boeing tag ,,

Doing the "Boeing Burn' , or similar it will be hard to check.

What name pips into your mind for refrigerator?
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 05:48 AM   #159
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
These acronym state and federal agencies are very distinct from industry, We and they insist on this and either can go to jail for getting to financially cozy (offering or receiving goods or bribes) with each other.
Don'tcha wish ... just Google Boeing FAA cozy and see what comes up.

And lest anyone forget, the FAA didn't ground the 787 first, the Japanese did.


"Some aviation experts question the ability of the Federal Aviation Administration to keep up with changes in the way planes are being made today both the technological advances and the use of multiple suppliers from around the globe. Others question whether regulators are too cozy with aircraft manufacturers.

Even as they announced a broad review of the 787 earlier this month, top U.S. transportation regulators stood side-by-side with a Boeing executive and declared the plane safe saying that they would gladly fly in one. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood repeated his endorsement Wednesday.

A few hours later, the FAA issued an emergency order grounding the planes." AP




"LaHood and Huerta issued the emergency directive after separate incidents this month in which one high-energy lithium-ion battery caught fire in a plane on the ground and another sprayed overheated electrolytes, forcing an emergency landing.


After the second incident, Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways, the two carriers involved, voluntarily grounded their new 787 fleets. The FAA followed suit hours later." Seattle Times


So, the FAA was shamed into grounding the airplanes, a move that the largest operator of the planes felt was necessary despite the immediate cost to them. Meanwhile, the Boeing/Fed alliance was cranking up the PR machine to full speed in an attempt to keep their relationship on solid, if perhaps a bit too intimate ground.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/bu...pagewanted=all


And, a little snippet for those who remember the discussion about some (false) claims that the chevrons on the 787 are an active noise control device developed by Boeing with a little help from NASA;



Why Boeing's Special Relationship With US Agencies Has Ended


" ...a NASA program to develop quiet aircraft technology that passed on the rights to that research to Boeing exclusively has ended. It also scrapped limited exclusive data rights contract clauses that give taxpayer-funded research to specific companies to use as if they were innovated and copyrighted by them.

Boeing was accused of reaping $3.8 billion in indirect subsidies through its special relationship with NASA and the U.S. Defense Department."


Sometimes you need people outside the hangar to get a clear view of the airfield.
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 09:14 AM   #160
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 RickB View Post
So, the FAA was shamed into grounding the airplanes, a move that the largest operator of the planes felt was necessary despite the immediate cost to them.
The FAA issued the type cert, and therefore the FAA is the issuer of all airworthiness directives (ADs). No one was "shamed" into anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickB View Post
And, a little snippet for those who remember the discussion about some (false) claims that the chevrons on the 787 are an active noise control device developed by Boeing '
You asked if the active chevrons were in the production design yet. Some declined to comment on that.

While you're googling, learn more about ODA (Organizational Design Approval)
__________________

SomeSailor 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 04:24 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