The 787 vs. ignorance

RickB said:

I'lr themselves the level of veracity associated with Boeing's local representatives, but an unimpeachable source in Boeings "Smart Materials and Structures" department (one of the guys who wrote the presentation linked in this thread) replied to my enquiry in writing, in no uncertain terms, with no smokescreen or third-hand escape clause language ... "They are fixed."

Click to expand...

You can believe him if it makes you feel better.....

Surgeons , and lots of MD's have a complex ,

that usually KILLS them when they attempt to fly a twin after loosing one!

Gee ... I guess our windows into Boeing have been dimmed.

I guess our windows into Boeing have been dimmed.

There in the news all day , but it hasn't dimmed the stock price.

RickB said:

Gee ... I guess our windows into Boeing have been dimmed.

Click to expand...

The official and legal position, to satsfy SEC disclosure rules, was made yesterday by the Chairman McNerney. He said that Boeing doesn't know the timing or solution of the electrical fix but they remain confident of Li technology. I would guess the gag order is out, as well it should be.

JD said:

Remember the Model 35 Bonanza. What was the saying "Gods way of limiting the number of Dr's. on the planet".

Click to expand...

The "Forked Tail Doctor Killer." I remember it well! My buddy (Dentist) had one and we had a ball in that airplane.

SeaHorse II said:

The "Forked Tail Doctor Killer." I remember it well! My buddy (Dentist) had one and we had a ball in that airplane.

Click to expand...

I also knew someone with one. He said that when the weather got snotty he would put the gear down and some flaps so as to dirty the plane up and he never had a problem. Slowed him down to 120 kts or so The biggest problem was the plane headed straight down cleaned up could exceed Vne. I always thought the AD for the tail was a joke. It consisted of two AL braces on the leading edge of the Ruddervators inboard near the fuselage. Not exceeding the Vne was the real answer. But something has seemed to have worked as you don't hear of them burning in anymore. Maybe more are IFR than before as well.

RickB said:

Gee ... I guess our windows into Boeing have been dimmed.

Click to expand...

No, just that there is no value or anything to be gained by discussing something with people who clearly have no clue as to the reality of the situation or the industry.

Maybe there is some value in providing enlightenment to those who don't share your insights?

All I ask is that the statements are true and any editorializing is identified as such. Your personal beliefs or impressions, and those of your Boeing colleague have no greater intrinsic value than the thoughts, beliefs, and prognostications of the great unwashed who have been deemed unworthy of receiving the crumbs from your loaf of Boeing knowledge.

As has been made quite clear in this thread, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

RickB said:

Maybe there is some value in providing enlightenment to those who don't share your insights?

.

Click to expand...

Do you work at Boeing and are you on one of the teams that is working 24/7 to figure out the battery problem, develop a solution, and implement a fix?

So Marin what is your official capacity with Boeing?

Marin said:

Do you work at Boeing and are you on one of the teams that is working 24/7 to figure out the battery problem, develop a solution, and implement a fix?

Click to expand...

Are you implying there is a relationship between the misinformation about chevrons and the battery issue?

Is it disturbing that one of the ignorant masses knew something about a Boeing product that the local cognoscenti didn't? Are we not permitted to enquire or comment?

Are only Boeing "team members" permitted to enquire or discuss current events which concern one of the largest US corporate welfare recipients?

C'mon, Marin, surely you realize that when you stand above the crowd you also become a lightening rod. You can't have it both ways ...

Rickized said:

So Marin what is your official capacity with Boeing?

Click to expand...

Okay, but don't forget that it was you who asked...... Some of this I've copied and pasted from my job description review form.

I am the senior producer/director in Boeing's Creative Services organization. We support with video, stills, computer-generated imagery (CGI), instrumentation photography/videography, and 2D/3D graphics all aspects of the company's requirements for this kind of work.

So we support the airplane programs; product marketing; product sales; research and development; product development (future airplane development); manufacturing here and abroad; product assembly; flight test (although they also have their own video/photo support group); structural test; customer service, support and product improvement (like the current battery issue with the 787); flight and maintenance training product marketing; new technology research here and around the world; flight safety programs; customer (aircraft operator) relations (international airshow exhibits and the like); corporate including the CEO and Board of Directors; and shared projects with partners and suppliers around the world. We also occasionally produce historical videos when the company needs them.

What we don't do are Boeing television commercials and print ads although we do occasionally provide our ad agencies with footage, photography, and artwork. We also have a producer here who specializes in how-to training videos, mainly maintenance training for the airplane models.

Our work takes us all over the world to our suppliers, partners, and airline customers. I've produced videos in partnership with Airbus and done script research, review, and interviews at their facilities in Toulouse (yes, the two companies do work together on issues affecting the entire industry) and have come to know several of the key folks at that company very well.

My specific job entails learning enough about every subject matter I am presented with to be able to convey the desired messages or objective in a video; overall concept development; script writing; directing the crew and talent--- which range from actors to engneers to flight line mechanics to company executives--on location; interviewing people on camera (them, not me ) from airline CEO's to design engineers to interior designers to product strategists to assembly mechanics and everything in between; editing; working with our music vendors to create original scores for our productions that warrant it; selecting and editing library music for those productions that don't have the need or budget for original music; and coordinating production elements with our experts in CGI and interactive displays and presentations.

We in Puget Sound primarily support Boeing Commercial Airplanes although we do a fair amount of work in support of our defense programs that use BCA platforms, like AWACS and Air Force One in the past and the P8A and 767 tanker today. As a result of our merger with McDonnell Douglas we have smaller groups that do the same kind of work in support of our defense and space programs in St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Southern California. However all these groups are part of the same organization and we frequently work together on projects.

I've been doing this job here for over 30 years now. Before that I worked in television commercial production in Hawaii doing primarily regional and national TV spots.

RickB said:

:

Is it disturbing that one of the ignorant masses knew something about a Boeing product that the local cognoscenti didn't? Are we not permitted to enquire or comment?

.

Click to expand...

Your contact at Boeing told you what he was directed to tell you. We'll leave it at that.

The answer to my question concerning your Boeing employment would seem to be no. If so, that is the only relevant thing here.

To Boeing and the aerospace industry, you are a non-entity. You play no role in what this company does and how it does it. As such, your speculation, accusations, opinions and perceptions, regardless if they are right or wrong, are simply part of the background noise this company and the entire aerospace industry learned to ignore many decades ago.

Marin said:

Your contact at Boeing told you what he was directed to tell you. We'll leave it at that.

Click to expand...

There isn't enough room to print all the guffaws that one earned ... a direct statement from the guy who runs that program and backed up by another statement from another high level engineer in that program carries a lot more weight than a "heard that" from a PR hack.

Your pushing it all uphill trying to demean a whole world of really smart people who have access to information and sources just as good as yours. Considering your "told you what he was directed to tell you" statement, that is precisely why your own comments are questionable. What you post comes from someone whose entire career is carrying water for the players, not playing, but carrying water. Not doing the engineering but looking over the shoulder of the engineers to find the right lighting and camera angle. Like you said, finding a way to produce the message your masters told you to tell. Kind of a Riefenstahl role for Boeing I guess.

Describing those who question Boeing's veracity as ignorant or not fit to hold an opinion is a bit "off" don't you think?

And personally, I didn't chime in here with a general attack against your masters, I defended the reason Boeing chose to use a lighter battery and made no comment on it suitability for the purpose.

I only came back when you falsely claimed Boeing was delivering a technology that they are simply not doing. That was not attacking your masters, it was a correction directed at your repeated false statement and your attitude toward anyone who questions what you have probably been told to post ... I don't know what Boeing's social media policy is but I am beginning to suspect that with your latest attacks and bizarre defense of flase information you are working on its razor edge.

Either you are being told to attack those who question, or you are freelancing a Boeing counter-attack that your masters probably would not be too happy to read.

You aren't the only person on here who knows how to conduct research and ask the right people the right questions. And most of us are not paid to not ask certain questions or post certain thoughts or findings.

And for what its worth, there are a lot better sources for Boeing information in the aviation press. They don't work for Boeing either, that is why we can trust them.

Marin said:

You play no role in what this company does and how it does it.

Click to expand...

Funny you say that. Except in your mind, you may not play as big of a role as you might perceive.

Then again as you have said many time. There is nothing to be learned here on TF so that would include anything you say as well. Or maybe not.

But I will say that I read on the Internet, so it must be true, that the Joint Chief's have a direct red line to several Hollywood folks so that they know first hand how to proceed with any mission they are tasked with.

I was also amazed last week when I was at Duke that they now have a producer of medical films doing lectures on how to implant heart stints for their Cardiac Residents.. They feel it is much better than having the surgeon that wrote the procedure teach it. These producers have researched it so they really know what they are talking about compared to the guy that did the first procedure.

JD said:

I was also amazed last week when I was at Duke that they now have a producer of medical films doing lectures on how to implant heart stints for their Cardiac Residents.. They feel it is much better than having the surgeon that wrote the procedure teach it. These producers have researched it so they really know what they are talking about compared to the guy that did the first procedure.

Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me at all if its true. That's one reason why our department is here. We work with a lot of absolutely brilliant engineers who are horrible at explaining what they do. If they tried to present their projects and research to a lay audience-- like our executives or the board of directors or people from finance,or just about anyone else outside of their specific field-- the audience would be more confused at the end than they were at the beginning. So they have us act as the "go between" to turn the engineers' material into something that a non-engineering audience, or engineers from a completely different field, can understand so that decisions on the research or technology or design can be made.

A major big part of my job is working with these guys so that I can understand what they're doing sufficiently to explain it to an audience that has no idea what they're doing. Because it's that "lay" audience-- executives, finance people, etc.-- who are charged with making the decisions to fund projects, continue or halt them, and so on. And if they don't understand the subject, they can't make a smart decision.

One of my current projects is creating a video for line pilots about avoiding runway excursions which is the third greatest cause of aviation accidents according to ICAO. The people developing this joint project are brilliant at what they are doing but they have no clue how to get their message effectively to line pilots. And they know this, which is why they called us. I was assigned this project because as a pilot myself, I totally understand what they are trying to achieve. And as a communicator, writer, and director, I know how to present the material to their audience in a way that they will not only understand it but be motivated to use the tools the program is giving them.

So in that regard I can totally understand how a film producer or director or whatever can do a far more effective job of teaching a surgical procedure than the probably brilliant surgeon who developed the procedure. Being a brilliant surgeon does not automatically mean they can explain or teach what they have done. They are two totally different skills. Some people can do both but many cannot.

Some people can do both but many cannot. __________________

The old saying was, IF you cant DO, Teach.

Considering the US ranking on students , most teachers cant teach either,

the just cant find any other employer that worships FAILURE.