Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old
garyw's Avatar
garyw garyw is offline
O-F Administrator


Default More Dreamliner woes
by garyw 09-29-2013, 05:30 PM

Following on from the Heathrow Dreamliner fire and a few other issues these two stories appeared close to each other.

Quote:
OSLO (Reuters) - Norwegian Air has called in Boeing management for a meeting in Oslo this week following a slew of technical problems with its two Dreamliner planes, the low-cost carrier said on Monday.
"We are going to tell them this situation is far from good enough," company spokeswoman Anne-Sissel Skaanvik told Reuters. "We have not had the reliability that we had expected from brand new planes, so something must happen, fast ... Clearly Boeing has not had good enough operative quality control."
Norwegian has three more Dreamliners on order and it intends to lease three more to expand its transatlantic service. The eight-plane fleet is worth about $1.65 billion at list prices
source: http://wkzo.com/news/articles/2013/s...eamliner-woes/

and

Quote:
Boeing’s high-tech Dreamliner faced new challenges on Sunday as a 787 operated by LOT Polish Airlines en route from Toronto, Canada to Warsaw, Poland was forced to land in Iceland on Sunday after its onboard identification system began to malfunction and Norway refused it entry into its airspace.
On Saturday, Norwegian Air Shuttle said it was parking one of its two 787s and demanding that Boeing fix the aircraft. The plane was grounded in Bangkok on Friday after technical difficulties. Norwegian is the first operator of the 787 to have Boeing provide maintenance services for the plane.
“We’re not at all satisfied with the performance of the aircraft,” said Lasse Sandaker-Nielsen, a spokesman for the airline. Boeing said it is “working [with Norwegian]…to ensure we have the right support in place to help each airline through the entry-into-service process.”
Earlier this month, LOT had to temporarily ground two of its five Dreamliners after discovering missing fuel filters in both jets. This resulted in numerous flight cancellations and delays. The airline said that it is seeking reimbursement from Boeing for all related costs including at least $30 million from the global grounding of all 787 jets in January.
LOT sent two aircraft to pick up passengers who were stranded in Iceland, the airline said. It will also have the aircraft repaired there before flying it back to Warsaw.
Reply With Quote
Views 7258 Comments 32
Total Comments 32

Comments

Old 09-29-2013, 05:44 PM   #2
thepenguin
Flying Penguin
 
thepenguin's Avatar
Default

sigh.
thepenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 05:51 PM   #3
Yoda
Donator
 
Yoda's Avatar
Default

Very poor track record so far. Extremely dissapointing
Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 06:47 PM   #4
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Its a banana aircraft - ripes at the customer.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 07:26 PM   #5
Notebook
Donator
 
Notebook's Avatar


Default

It may be experiencing something similar to this:

Quote:

In Context
The Comet was the world's first passenger jet airliner, designed and built in Britain.
It revolutionised air travel, and was the pride of the British aviation industry for its first year, until the first of three catastrophic crashes happened in March 1953.

After the conclusive evidence revealed in the inquiry that metal fatigue concentrated at the corners of the aircraft's windows had caused the crashes, all aircraft were redesigned with rounded windows.

It took four years for de Havilland to get the redesigned Comet re-certified for commercial service.

In the meantime, the American aircraft manufacturer, Boeing, had released its 707 passenger jet, which could carry almost twice as many passengers.

The new American airliner soon cornered the market, and only 90 of the re-designed Comet 4 series were sold.

Most were removed from service by the early 1980s, and Britain's early and commanding lead in the commercial aviation industry dwindled to nothing.
De Havilland Comet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia De Havilland Comet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not a good comparson? The Dreamliner has had no fatalaties.


N.
Notebook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2013, 08:04 PM   #6
Keatah
Orbinaut
Default

I feel the forces of overall short-term thinking and cost-cutting, prevalent throughout American businesses more so than anywhere else, is at the very root of the 787's problems.

I don't doubt that each glitch and fail will be blamed on a specific & provable piece of technology to great fanfare. And while I doubt this will put Boeing out of business, it will cast a negative spell over the 787 line. And Boeing will need to learn from their mis-steps.

Get the product in the field, and debug it there. It's always been this way, but you don't want to do it too much. I find it disturbing that much of our software is made this way also. Any software.
Keatah is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-30-2013, 01:36 AM   #7
MattBaker
Orbinaut
Default

Well, Airbus stated that their new A350 (first flight was in June I think) is even more efficient than the Dreamliner.
I wonder if they could use this whole situation to their advantage and grab a bigger share of the market. Especially the American market.
MattBaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-30-2013, 05:05 AM   #8
Keatah
Orbinaut
Default

They'd be fools not to take advantage of Dreamliner's fail..

Airbus just needs to take things slow and methodically, spend that extra man-hour making sure all the wire ties are done just right.
Keatah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 06:07 AM   #9
boogabooga
Bug Crusher
 
boogabooga's Avatar
Default

It's a little premature to call the Dreamliner a fail...

I seem to remember a few years ago that the A380 went through some teething trouble of its own, including problems with the wiring for the entertainment system, and... oh yeah, a thrown turbine blade.

It's interesting to see what is causing problems on this "high tech" aircraft. Is it the composite material? No. Is it the Next Generation Engines? No. The flight control system, the advanced wing design, the innovative chevron sound suppression? No, No and No. It isn't the "aerospace" parts at all. It's rather the mundane stuff provided by contractors- batteries, beacons, fuel pumps- the kind of stuff that has been around for decades.

I would be much more concerned if, for example, cracks were found in the composite material.
boogabooga is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-30-2013, 06:40 AM   #10
Keatah
Orbinaut
Default

Absolutely right. It's the common parts, stuff been around for years. Just the sign of the times: Less quality, more quantity, more profit, faster & faster.

Or a big conspiracy, one other big company paid off these smaller companies to deliver lesser quality stuff. It happens in "smaller" industries.
Keatah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 08:33 AM   #11
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogabooga View Post
  It's rather the mundane stuff provided by contractors- batteries, beacons, fuel pumps- the kind of stuff that has been around for decades.
All important stuff is done by contractors. Boeing only assembles the sections in the end. Also in aircraft, you have no mundane stuff - even the carpet is not mundane at all.

I think the Dreamliner problems are far from normal. They are caused by design decisions that had not been properly tested. There are many small problems.

Not always large ones, but it shows a trend in the quality management there. Details have not been properly tested at all and result in big problems in flight. Problems that should have been caught before production start, had been shipped to customers.

Just compare this with the A380 problems: Just two. One caused by a slow oil leak in the engine, that only develops under actual flight conditions, in a engine, that is only used in the A380 currently. The other caused by too weak fittings in the wings, resulting in early cracks in flight operations - is fixed now by Airbus by replacing the fittings and will be ultimatively fixed by a different aluminum alloy in the wings from 2014 on.

These are problems that you can't test on the ground or in a limited test campaign. Also, they are not new kinds of problems for a new aircraft.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-30-2013, 09:09 AM   #12
boogabooga
Bug Crusher
 
boogabooga's Avatar
Default

I mean mundane- for an airliner, but I did not say unimportant. Not the kind of "high tech" advancements that for example Boeing would put in its advertisement literature- like compose materials etc.

Also, apologizing for stress cracks in brand new aircraft and also about the worst mechanical failure possible on a propulsion system as "not new" and developing only under "flight conditions" while condemning Boeing as guilty of poor testing and quality control seems, in my view, a rather biased assessment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattBaker View Post
 Well, Airbus stated that their new A350 (first flight was in June I think) is even more efficient than the Dreamliner.
I wonder if they could use this whole situation to their advantage and grab a bigger share of the market. Especially the American market.
The "American market" doesn't really include that many jumbos to begin with, except of course the leasing companies. In terms of airlines, the are no A380s for example, and as many 787s in the "Japanese market". Not sure why the "American market" needs to be singled out.

Last edited by boogabooga; 09-30-2013 at 09:28 AM.
boogabooga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 10:05 AM   #13
MattBaker
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogabooga View Post
 The "American market" doesn't really include that many jumbos to begin with, except of course the leasing companies. In terms of airlines, the are no A380s for example, and as many 787s in the "Japanese market". Not sure why the "American market" needs to be singled out.
I rather meant that American airline companies often prefer Boeing over Airbus. But with the trouble that the Dreamliner seems to have and since airlines are surely concerned with passenger safety this might shift.
MattBaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2013, 10:37 AM   #14
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogabooga View Post
 Also, apologizing for stress cracks in brand new aircraft and also about the worst mechanical failure possible on a propulsion system as "not new" and developing only under "flight conditions" while condemning Boeing as guilty of poor testing and quality control seems, in my view, a rather biased assessment.
Not biased - I just see it like a tester: Errors that can only be noticed in actual operations may happen in actual operations - its sadly unavoidable.

Errors that should be noticed during component level testing and system integration testing, that creep into customer operations, are failures of quality assurance in the company and at the subcontractor level.

Like you said, the parts are rather mundane for aircraft parts. They usually form nice well-understood black-boxes for the aircraft manufacturer. If the quality assurance at all links in the production chain works.

And thats ultimatively a Boeing failure - because their management has to make sure that the selected subcontractors deliver at the assured quality. Not the Boeing engineers who designed the majority of the 787. But the engineers that had been responsible to define test cases for making sure all components delivered are to spec and work together as planned. And finally again the Boeing management, because I am damn sure, that they pushed an unfinished aircraft into the market, before the more conservative A350 arrives.

And especially not biased towards Boeing as US company doing everything perfectly fine and the USA are the greatest and quality assurance is communist B/S that doesn't produce any profit.

Last edited by Urwumpe; 09-30-2013 at 10:41 AM.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 09-30-2013, 11:04 AM   #15
boogabooga
Bug Crusher
 
boogabooga's Avatar
Default

You say you are not biased, but then:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 And finally again the Boeing management, because I am damn sure, that they pushed an unfinished aircraft into the market, before the more conservative A350 arrives.
Alright then.

You say exploding engines and wing stress fractures are unavoidable and can only be discovered in actual operations, then perhaps I can say battery and beacon problems are too. You just assume that they weren't tested.

I'm not saying that Boeing as a U.S. company is the best at quality assurance, just not necessarily worse than, for example, certain European companies.
boogabooga is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:45 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.