Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Japan Grounds Fleet of Boeing 787s After Emergency Landing

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the no-fly-list dept.

Government 180

hcs_$reboot writes "The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has already occupied some of Slashdot news space recently: FAA to investigate the 787 (Jan 11) or 787 catches fire in Boston (Jan 08). Today (Jan 16 JST) another incident happened that led to Japan grounding its entire 787 fleet until an internal investigation gives more information about the problem. A 787 from ANA had a battery problem and smoke was detected in the electronics. The plane had to make an emergency landing and passengers were evacuated. "

cancel ×

180 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This can't be true (4, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#42606455)

Why, just last week Boeing told us the safety concerns were a non-issue!

Re:This can't be true (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42606503)

Yes!! I love self-interested assertions. They are the true test of validation and veracity. Like the FBI stating so clearly that they did not entrap Megaupload, or violate jurisdiction.

Who needs to specifically address the specific critical points, when patronization has so much integrity?

And...
You have best handle ever. Ever.

Re:This can't be true (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606613)

Why'd ya pull yer resume off LinkedIn Jeremiah Cornelius -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3368135&cid=42529887 [slashdot.org] Is it since someone spotted you're not only a "San Fran 'Man'" (a fella is more like it) and that you can't even spell what you allegedly used to do for a job? It's correctly spelled PENETRATION, not "pentration" as you misspelled it there in front of 1,000's no doubt (one would think an anal penetration man from San Fran'd know how THAT is spelled at least, lol). Jeremiah Cornelius likes to troll others -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2238996&cid=36457426 [slashdot.org] , but can't handle it when it's done in return showing he is illiterate, and that much is obvious. You fail troll. How many years did you leave your resume up there with that basic literacy fail on it? Yes you have been trolled. You like? I wager you don't since you removed your faulty resume (on the very thing you took pride in that you can't even spell correctly most likely indicating you weren't any good at it either).

herpa derp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606747)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) is a god among slashdotters a liberal archangel leading us to glory

APK is just a cowering feeb who enjoying pentationing his neigbors dog

Re:herpa derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606915)

"APK is just a cowering feeb who enjoying pentationing his neigbors dog"

That word doesn't exist as much as you think it does.

Re:This can't be true (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608267)

That is a *lot* of research done just to flame one Slashdoter. Ever wonder why so many of us prefer to be AC's? It's because of idiotic trolls like the above AC.

I fail to see how Jeremiah Cornelius resume that has one misspelled word on an unrelated piece of paper invalidates his point? Apparently your one of those who doesn't understand basic logic, and thus attempts to pull out any garbage no matter how old and unrelated it is, just to invalidate your opposition.

Re:This can't be true (4, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#42606507)

Well someone had to buy those Samsung battery, after the laptop recall.

Re:This can't be true (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#42606709)

Second Li-Poly battery total meltdown in as many weeks.

Boeing had to get the FAA to waive its rules regarding Lithium batteries [avherald.com] on planes in order to get this plane certified in the first place, and build containment boxes for the batteries into the design.

For the most part the risk of Lithium batteries lies in the requirement for rigid control of recharging, being careful not to over charge and also of draining the battery completely, the annoying habit of catching fire when the rules are not followed, or when the battery is short-circuited make large Li batteries (8-gram equivalent lithium content or more) banned in luggage, and shipments.

I suspect that the FAA will rescind this waiver, and force the replacement of the battery packs with something less prone to burn..

Re:This can't be true (4, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#42607047)

No other type of battery has the same capacity/weight ratio though, so either they cut down on the functionality or they increase the weight of the aircraft (and thus reduce its fuel efficiency somewhat). To make it worth using Li-Poly over something else they must really need a hell of a lot of energy storage, otherwise the space and weight saving wouldn't be enough to risk it.

Re:This can't be true (4, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | about 2 years ago | (#42607241)

Seems more like a QA problem. Energy density is important, but reliability and safety trumps implementation waivers. There's an engineering team that's getting an earful, and rightfully so. Cheers to the airlines for having the guts to ground their fleets; ANA and JAL just went up on my list.

Re:This can't be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608109)

"There's an engineering team that's getting an earful, and rightfully so."

It was probably the management of that team that forced some cost cutting corners (or deadline limitations) in...

Giving the engineering team an earful in that case is the sure fire best way to see the whole team leave.

Re:This can't be true (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 2 years ago | (#42608269)

I don't think engineering teams are that thin skinned. To do what they did, they had to get a waiver from the FAA, according to reports. Did management apply for the waiver, or did the team convince management to get the waiver? I'm fairly sure, given experience, that it wasn't management saying: go use high-density batteries in this application, rather, it was part of an overall design to have that juice available nearby where it would be used, so as to save weight and complexity. But then again, this is Boeing, and they live by their own rules.

Re:This can't be true (4, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#42607317)

Somehow I suspect most airlines consider not catching on fire more important than a slight improvement in fuel efficiency. Someone's going to lose a shedload of money if these planes are out of service for long.

Re:This can't be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608255)

Somebody's losing a shitload of money every hour these planes are out of service.

Re:This can't be true (1)

quacking duck (607555) | about 2 years ago | (#42608915)

Somehow I suspect most airlines consider not catching on fire more important than a slight improvement in fuel efficiency.

Agreed.

Someone's going to lose a shedload of money if these planes are out of service for long.

The alternative is losing a shedload of people if warnings aren't looked into, and develop into catastrophic failure. Too many preventable air accidents have happened because money was a factor (rushed takeoffs to stay under pilot flighttime limits; takeoff/landing in terrible weather; poor or improper maintenance/parts; ill-equipped airports and control towers; etc).

The 787 has been in active service only a bit over a year, they really have not yet found all the bugs. British Airways 038, a Boeing 777, was brought down by something as simple as a few extra millimetres of piping protruding from the fuel/oil heat exchangers.

Re:This can't be true (1)

spirito (1552779) | about 2 years ago | (#42608087)

Only Li batteries have the energy density required for Boeing "more electric" aircraft concept (http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=222308).

proof high-capacity Li batteries are dangerous (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 years ago | (#42608367)

this energy density is not safe for flight, folks. you can't get out and wait at the side of the road for the fire to stop, like you can if your hybrid car starts arcing and smoking.

Re:proof high-capacity Li batteries are dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608565)

Damn, if this level of energy density is inherently unsafe, how unsafe must the massive tanks of jet fuel be?

Re:This can't be true (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#42608787)

For aircraft, the real reason is lithium + aluminum leads to rapid oxidation of the aluminum. Basically a small blob of lithium in contact with aluminum will eat a hole in the aluminum. That's why there's lithium restrictions. The containment vessel has to be made of another metal (steel, normally) so that the lithium will not come into contact with any aluminum structure.

Re:This can't be true (1)

labnet (457441) | about 2 years ago | (#42609083)

Not all lithium batteries are equal. Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries for example are reasonably safe. You can over charge them, put a nail through them plus they last 10 years, but they don't have as high an energy density as found in cobalt based cells which are more typically used in laptops and cellphones. Lithium will still catch fire though is exposed to water!

Re:This can't be true (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#42607023)

Well, I think this is becoming a bit of a mania, too. Would a warning light of the same nature triggered an emergency landing and deployment of the inflatable slides on any other plane? I doubt it. The passengers were in no immediate threat, especially after the plane landed, and chute evacuations always result in some minor injuries. So why did they do it? I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, just that life gets a lot tougher once everybody views you with skepticism.

Re:This can't be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42607263)

Well, I think this is becoming a bit of a mania, too. Would a warning light of the same nature triggered an emergency landing and deployment of the inflatable slides on any other plane? I doubt it.

I suspect if you ask most pilots what they would do if the 'plane is on fire' light came on, it would involve landing fairly soon.

Re:This can't be true (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42607551)

Well, I think this is becoming a bit of a mania, too. Would a warning light of the same nature triggered an emergency landing and deployment of the inflatable slides on any other plane? I doubt it.

I suspect if you ask most pilots what they would do if the 'plane is on fire' light came on, it would involve landing fairly soon.

Pussies.

Re:This can't be true (1)

quacking duck (607555) | about 2 years ago | (#42607323)

They did it because on top of the smoke warning, they also got a battery fault warning in the same cargo compartment where a battery caught fire on a sister airplane just last week.

The slide chutes were perhaps a bit much if there was no smoke in the cabin after landing, but the emergency landing itself is easily justified.

Re:This can't be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42607335)

It was not just a warning, it was smelling burnt too.

A small fire on board can quickly turn into a catastrophe, this happened before.

Moreover, losing electronics in a modern plane is also a receipt for disaster.

Re:This can't be true (5, Informative)

Rakishi (759894) | about 2 years ago | (#42607527)

Re:This can't be true (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#42607575)

Because where there's smoke, there is fire?

You don't just ignore smoke.

Re:This can't be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42607813)

If you're in a plane and smell smoke, do you want to stay in the air? They didn't land because of the indicator, they landed because there was smoke.

Re:This can't be true (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#42608697)

Tell that to those who perished on Swissair's flight 111. There, the indications of a fire were ignored.

Are You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608897)

..the local Boeing $hill ??

Re:This can't be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608055)

Mostly Harmless...

Re:This can't be true (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#42608641)

I think that Boeing has simply regressed, like most big, legacy american corporations. Over time, they seem to be able to accomplish less and less, while taking more and more money to do it. If there was another Musk-style visionary to have a SpaceX-style operation, but making jets, they could probably capture the entire market in two decades...

Michael Kelso Avionic Electrical Engineers School (-1, Flamebait)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42606457)

Buuuurrn!

Re:Michael Kelso Avionic Electrical Engineers Scho (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606591)

Why'd ya pull yer resume off LinkedIn Jeremiah Cornelius -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3368135&cid=42529887 [slashdot.org] Is it since someone spotted you're not only a "San Fran 'Man'" (a fella is more like it) and that you can't even spell what you allegedly used to do for a job? It's correctly spelled PENETRATION, not "pentration" as you misspelled it there in front of 1,000's no doubt (one would think an anal penetration man from San Fran'd know how THAT is spelled at least, lol). Jeremiah Cornelius likes to troll others -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2238996&cid=36457426 [slashdot.org] , but can't handle it when it's done in return showing he is illiterate, and that much is obvious. You fail troll. How many years did you leave your resume up there with that basic literacy fail on it? Yes you have been trolled. You like? I wager you don't since you removed your faulty resume (on the very thing you took pride in that you can't even spell correctly most likely indicating you weren't any good at it either).

Has anybody said (5, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42606487)

"Dreamliner, Screamliner..."

Re:Has anybody said (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42606517)

No Oscar. But they will. They will.
-- James Abbot McNeil Whistler

Re:Has anybody said (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606623)

Why'd ya pull yer resume off LinkedIn Jeremiah Cornelius -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3368135&cid=42529887 [slashdot.org] Is it since someone spotted you're not only a "San Fran 'Man'" (a fella is more like it) and that you can't even spell what you allegedly used to do for a job? It's correctly spelled PENETRATION, not "pentration" as you misspelled it there in front of 1,000's no doubt (one would think an anal penetration man from San Fran'd know how THAT is spelled at least, lol). Jeremiah Cornelius likes to troll others -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2238996&cid=36457426 [slashdot.org] , but can't handle it when it's done in return showing he is illiterate, and that much is obvious. You fail troll. How many years did you leave your resume up there with that basic literacy fail on it? Yes you have been trolled. You like? I wager you don't since you removed your faulty resume (on the very thing you took pride in that you can't even spell correctly most likely indicating you weren't any good at it either).

Re:Has anybody said (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606983)

"I don't always masturbate, but when I do I think of Richard Stallman."
-- Jeremiah Cornelius

Re:Has anybody said (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608157)

"I always think of sado-masochism when I see Windows"

Re:Has anybody said (0)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#42606519)

Yes, lets take things out of proportion. That is the American Way.

Re:Has anybody said (-1, Troll)

GenieGenieGenie (942725) | about 2 years ago | (#42606633)

Actually, the American way is to say that safety concerns are not an issue when I can't imagine they didn't know they are, just because this is what their customers want to hear.

Re:Has anybody said (1, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 2 years ago | (#42606715)

No, the American way is to egregiously cut safety corners in favor of profit, until Something Terrible happens, and the girlymen rise up chanting "Think of the children", then we ban in-flight movies as a Magic Talisman so "nothing like this will ever ever ever happen again". Rinse and repeat.

Re:Has anybody said (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42607151)

So the Titanic was built the American way?

Re:Has anybody said (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42607659)

The Titanic never made it to America. It was built by the Irish.

Re:Has anybody said (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606769)

Screw you Eurotrash. We invented the fucking things and all you morons do is sit around on the dole blaming Americans.

Go fuck yourself.

Re:Has anybody said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608217)

If it werent for German engineers, you colonists would still ride horses and use a telescope to look at the moon. ALL of your conventional propulsion technologies were invented by Germans, including the SS Sturmbannführer you made a respectable person and a NASA director.

And the unconventional ones ? By Germans and Italians.

Re:Has anybody said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608261)

And by a polish guy, Rear Admiral Rickover, Chief of Naval Reactors.

Re:Has anybody said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606873)

Actually, the American way is to say that safety concerns are not an issue when I can't imagine they didn't know they are

No, the American way is to say that the market will find an optimal solution, and if customers want safe airlines, they're free to purchase from another carrier.

You know, the whole laissez-faire capitalism thing.

Re:Has anybody said (5, Funny)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#42607631)

Actually, the American way is to say that safety concerns are not an issue when I can't imagine they didn't know they are

No, the American way is to say that the market will find an optimal solution, and if customers want safe airlines, they're free to purchase from another carrier.

You know, the whole laissez-faire capitalism thing.

If we implement safety features on the more expensive airliners, the safety features will eventually trickle down to the less expensive ones.

Re:Has anybody said (2)

Meeni (1815694) | about 2 years ago | (#42608179)

Or the contrary, the lower price point will trick people (which are not perfectly informed and rational, and therefore make choices that go against their own interest -all the time- ), and the lack of safety features will become pervasive in the industry because if you do things right, you are not cost effective (and even if you remain profitable, you eventually get bought by some other company that is more profitable and can cash you out).

Re:Has anybody said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608837)

I do not think you are responding to an entirely serious post.

Re:Has anybody said (1)

spatley (191233) | about 2 years ago | (#42608859)

whoosh

Re:Has anybody said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606891)

No, the American way, is to let crashes happen, then settle out of court. Overall, it's far cheaper, than proper maintenance, real quality control, properly paid crew, properly trained crew etc etc etc.

Re:Has anybody said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608313)

To be fair, English planes would at this point either explode their engines or explode the hull. Rolls-Royce can to this in the 21st century.

Compared to that, the colonists are utter amateurs in dramatic events. If the show goes badly, we won't even see a single 787 crash in the coming months. Americans are soooo boring.

Re:Has anybody said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606925)

...Deathliner

Re:Has anybody said (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42607307)

Notice that the date it entered service was very close to Halloween...

A Swissair FL111 crash waiting to happen (2)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about 2 years ago | (#42606521)

Re:A Swissair FL111 crash waiting to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606629)

Thanks. That was very pertinent. No. Wait. That other thing.

Re:A Swissair FL111 crash waiting to happen (1)

Alex Zepeda (10955) | about 2 years ago | (#42607297)

There have been a lot of lessons learned since SW111. The biggest lesson is, IMO, that of a quick response. One of the big problems with SW111 (and AC797) was that delays (a matter of seconds in the case of AC797) made the difference between life and death. The ANA pilot declared an emergency, got the plane on the ground, and got the passengers off ASAP.

It hasn't been clarified which battery was problematic in the most recent 787 incident. If it was the APU (the one that caught fire in Boston) or the main battery, Boeing designed for the "one of those batteries catches fire" case. Both are enclosed in a fire resistant enclosure, and both are designed so that smoke from such a fire is vented away from the cabin. That's a gigantic difference from SW111 and AC797 where the fires occurred in an area that was not designed to contain fire.

There are conflicting reports of smoke, and conflicting reports as to which battery was at fault in the latest instance... but barring smoke in the cabin, it likely wouldn't have ended up much worse (a couple of injuries from using the emergency slides).

Re:A Swissair FL111 crash waiting to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42607989)

There have been a lot of lessons learned since SW111.

Once of which was that the flight code was SWR111.

"SW" is some IATA nonsense for baggage labels. No-one uses it for flight purposes.

Re:A Swissair FL111 crash waiting to happen (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | about 2 years ago | (#42607343)

That made for some horrific reading. I'll be thinking about it all day, thanks.

When they make a plane out of compressed charcoal (0)

dorpus (636554) | about 2 years ago | (#42606641)

Will not a fire light it up like a briquette?

Yeah yeah, it's "compressed graphite", or whatever the euphemism is for the material.

Compressed charcoal is sometimes called diamond (3, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#42606771)

How many times have you seen a diamond burn without immersing it in pure oxygen? It's just compressed graphite, after all.

The correct joke should have been: Boeing should reconsider using Sony batteries in their planes.

Re:Compressed charcoal is sometimes called diamond (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42607509)

Dreamliners are made of diamond?

Re:Compressed charcoal is sometimes called diamond (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42607621)

It's all just carbon.

Re:Compressed charcoal is sometimes called diamond (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608427)

You need to actually burn down a 787 and an 777 filled with fuel to make a useful comparison. Modern planes are flying fuel bombs, actually. Most of their weight is fuel, ready to burn off nicely. Does the extra carbon matter ?

Re:When they make a plane out of compressed charco (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42606837)

Are you really this dumb or are you just pretending?

Re:When they make a plane out of compressed charco (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#42606921)

Will not a fire light it up like a briquette?

Yeah yeah, it's "compressed graphite", or whatever the euphemism is for the material.

It appears that the bigger danger in a crash (to both the rescue workers and any survivors) is inhaling carbon fibers:

http://www.netcomposites.com/news/dangers-of-carbon-fibre-debris-from-aircraft-crashes-exposed/3306 [netcomposites.com]

Research at Farnborough in the 1990's indicated that if carbon fibre composite material is shattered in the absence of fire there will be little or no release of respirable fibres. If you burn carbon fibre composite material without subjecting it to high energy impact there will be little or no release of respirable fibres. However, if you subject carbon fibre composite material to high energy impact while simultaneously burning it with a high temperature flame - typically 1000C (typical aircraft crash conditions) significant quantities of respirable fibres may be released

Re:When they make a plane out of compressed charco (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42607605)

So put a filter in the oxygen mask that drops down in an emergency?

Re:When they make a plane out of compressed charco (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608465)

Well, if there is so much fire, there will be lots of poisonous stuff in the air regardless of carbon fibers or not. Firemen use breathers because of these toxic fumes, not because of a lack of O2, primarily. So, does it matter ?

I survived. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42606789)

I flew the 787 from Haneda to Frankfurt two weeks ago, and am happy to report the flight was excellent and as far as I can tell I wasn't killed in a fire.

Re:I survived. (5, Funny)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | about 2 years ago | (#42607339)

Have any creepy new nine year olds in your life lately?

Re:I survived. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608483)

As a true slashdotter, I have to counter that anecdote is not the same as statistical probability.

Re:I survived. (1)

ravenlord_hun (2715033) | about 2 years ago | (#42608663)

So, "I can say with 95% confidence that I survived"?

Re:I survived. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608803)

No, you could say that 787s deliver something like 99,9% reliability. Not 99,99%, though. Which is quite bad as compared to other aircraft.

You could say that you are probably 100% alive, as you passed the Turing test.

smoke (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42607063)

I've always found it best to keep the smoke in the electronics. It's when it gets out that you have problems.

Re:smoke (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about 2 years ago | (#42607387)

Of course you should. How are electronics supposed to work without the smoke? You fell for that semiconductor theory hook, line and summer.

The downsides of outsourcing (1)

volvox_voxel (2752469) | about 2 years ago | (#42607101)

I've read that Boeing was intent on outsourcing as much of the design as possible, and even had a catch-phrase: "the product is the process". I've read that in order to clean up the design, they needed to bring in more Boeing engineers. I wonder what extent this is true, and how much of their plane was designed by third parties? With engineering, it's always hardest to get that last fraction of a percent nailed and verified; an exponential more effort for that last few percentage points. I have a friend that designed electronics for aircraft, and understand that the cables, connectors, and electronics are subject to a very high standard for robustness, I find it rather shocking to hear that there was a fire. I wonder what kind of technical over-sight did they do with their contractors and their own engineers. I've always considered that Boeing was over-the-top with this sort of thing. This is a cautionary tale for anyone that wants to outsource. How do you guarantee that your subcontractor has done a sufficient job? That subcontractor does not necessarily want to let you in on all of the engineering details so they can avoid being designed out. Assuming that they were given everything, I wonder if they had their own engineers review them. I understand that if you print out the number of individual components in a modern fighter aircraft as a function of time, it would be linear on a log scale, meaning that the number of all components have grown exponentially. As subsystems become more complicated, they are increasingly designed by small teams of specialists. Outsourcing has it's merits. It's hard to be a generalist.

Re:The downsides of outsourcing (2, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 years ago | (#42607231)

This has nothing to do with outsourcing - under no circumstances would Boeing have made these batteries, and all f them were installed on the Washington State FAL. Nothing to do with outsourcing, nothing to do with unionism.

Re:The downsides of outsourcing (3, Informative)

Pascal Sartoretti (454385) | about 2 years ago | (#42608159)

This has nothing to do with outsourcing - under no circumstances would Boeing have made these batteries, and all f them were installed on the Washington State FAL. Nothing to do with outsourcing, nothing to do with unionism.

Outsourcing in itself is not an issue, as long as you clearly define what you expect, follow up your suppliers, check their processes, their products, etc. All of this takes time, hence money. It can work, but also turn into a nightmare if/when :

  • - Your suppliers themselves subcontract to other suppliers, which in turn...
  • - A stupid PHB slashes costs by "trusting" and not checking the suppliers
  • - Different countries, cultures, languages

Re:The downsides of outsourcing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608325)

The whole 787 program was horribly managed. The problem with the way the 787 was outsourced was in the way that it was managed, but that's true for most of it's other problems.

Some of the problems you list regarding outsourcing are exactly what happened.

Re:The downsides of outsourcing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608555)

Apparently the battery system was made by Thales, a french company. I am sure the Thales CEO will have some bad nights. Thales also had bad pitot probes which contributed to an AF crash recently. The pilots were more at fault, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

Thales Battery System (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608611)

http://www.thalesgroup.com/News_and_events/Countries/Spain/Thales_technologies_onboard_the_B787/

Re:The downsides of outsourcing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608801)

It seems Thales made the charging system and Yuasa made the batteries. I don't know who did the integration or system testing.

Boeing trusted a bunch of Frogs and Japs and that's a big fucking mistake.

...smoke was detected in the electronics. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42607139)

That's where it's supposed to be. Only when it comes out is there a problem.

A380 787 (0)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42607547)

Poor America, can't make planes like the Europeans. The A380's have had a few problems but not as many in such a small time.

Re:A380 787 (0)

VAXcat (674775) | about 2 years ago | (#42607693)

Yeah, the DeHaviland Comet airliner was a sterling example of the quality of European aircraft design...

Re:A380 787 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608035)

Ah, you must mean the first ever commercial jet airliner; which was of course not American. The whole industry learnt lessons from microfractures in stress points in the new aluminium airframes, and after the windows were redesigned it managed to get 30 years of service.

So what's the US excuse now? Forgot how to build, did we?

Re:A380 787 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608651)

That was an ENGLISH plane. But yeah, they tried to crash an A380 by means of engine explosion.

Re:A380 787 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608019)

While your statement might be technically correct (A380 has been in service longer, so not "such a small time"), there was that whole "sometimes the engine explodes in flight and damages the plane" thing. That probably counts as a fairly serious issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32

Re:A380 787 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608173)

"Small time" refers to the 5+ incidents in the past two weeks.

Also, the engine you cite is from Rolls Royce, not Airbus. Boeing uses Rolls Royce engines in a number of its planes as well, and you'll note that none of the recent incidents with the 787 are traceable to the engine. They're aircraft problems, not power plant problems.

Re:A380 787 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608955)

These battery systems were made by the French and the Japanese. There's your problem. Those cuntries are fucking clueless.

Is it me..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42607771)

....or has things like this been happening since Boeing moved their headquarters from Seattle to Chicago?

Proper time to mention... (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | about 2 years ago | (#42607929)

That this is the first aircraft Boeing built that uses outsourced production...

Re:Proper time to mention... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42608437)

All of the Boeing built planes are heavily outsourced from all over the world. What set the 787 apart more than anything else was the way it was managed.

Evacuating Passengers (5, Funny)

holophrastic (221104) | about 2 years ago | (#42607947)

I know the TSA has been doing cavity searches for a long time. But exacuating passengers seems both extreme, and dirty. Shouldn't the world health organization have something to say about this?

Maybe next time there's an emergency landing, they should consider evacuating the plane, instead of the passengers. Besides, if it's a rough landing, some of the passengers are likely to self-evacuate.

We need WiFi in those planes ASAP (5, Funny)

sshir (623215) | about 2 years ago | (#42608209)

With internet connection it is much more handy to short Boeing stock on the first whiff of smoke.

Re:We need WiFi in those planes ASAP (4, Funny)

sunking2 (521698) | about 2 years ago | (#42608391)

Would that be considered insider trading?

Re:We need WiFi in those planes ASAP (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#42608431)

With internet connection it is much more handy to short Boeing stock on the first whiff of smoke.

Or at least update your Facebook profile or tweet about your imminent demise. :-P

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?