Boeing plans 787 increase

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

They did not "self certify". Again, you are confused. NO aircraft manufacturer self certifies. They test, and they perform the tests and the results are verified by the FAA. The FAA certifies based on the test results, or has them retested, or can take them to their own labs for testing.

It doesn't matter if it's Boeing, Lockheed, Airbus, Piper, or whoever else you want to name. NO ONE self certifies an aircraft.

The FAA has observers on hand, at every point in the testing process. They even fly on the test planes with the engineering crews, to monitor flight testing. They usually have at least one in the back with the systems guys, and one in the cockpit with the flight crew.

edit on 10/24/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

It's all well and good to have an observer BUT that observer needs to know what they are looking for. Who set the standards for these tests? Boeing did. Who set the standards for the battery re-certification? Boeing did. Like I said, the FAA is out of its' depth here and it's looking more and more like Boeing is too.

My contention is that a problem can't be solved without knowing what it is. With advanced composites there are almost infinite variables and the failures start at a sub-microscopic level. It it's an experimental plane and we all are just flying it in order to see what will happen - ok. Let's just put that disclaimer on the boarding pass. Consenting adults, in the U.S., are allowed a lot of leeway.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Boeing PROPOSED the tests, but they did nothing until the FAA certified the tests. And the FAA set the parameters for acceptable results.

Wow, I guess the FAA is utterly incompetent if they don't even know how to certify an aircraft.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Unless you are an aerospace engineer, or have a lot of experience on that type of plane, there's no way to just look and say, "that's not strong enough".

And, of course, there's not any way that you could look and say, "that's strong enough." Because the infinite variables of advanced composites cannot be modeled. Even quantum computing is only as good as the data input and dangerous because of the tininess of data that can become gross error.

I found this info on Wikipedia. It says American Airlines retired all their Airbus A300-600 aircraft 8 years after the tragic flight 587 crash. I wonder if American airlines is purchasing the Boeing 787, being it is plastic?

"American Airlines no longer used flight number 587. The flight route designation for the flight between JFK and Santo Domingo was initially renumbered to 619 and is now Flight 1749, using a Boeing 767-300 or a Boeing 757-200.[citation needed] American Airlines retired all its Airbus A300-600 Aircraft from service eight years after the accident (and 21 years in service) in August 2009 with its last flight, flight 1908 from Miami to New York-JFK operating on August 24, 2009."

"The Allied Pilots Association, in its submission to the NTSB, argued that the unusual sensitivity of the rudder mechanism amounted to a design flaw which Airbus should have communicated to the airline. The main rationale for their position came from a 1997 report that referenced 10 incidents in which A300 tail fins had been stressed beyond
their design limitation."
en.wikipedia.org...

It appears American Airlines is buying the 787.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Zaphod58

As for the Airbus rudder, that was an entirely different problem related to manufacturing and delaminating, and could have happened at any time, and in fact most of the aircraft it happened to had been in production for years. They understood them quite well, and still had the problem.

Partially right. It was a delamination problem. But it was not and still is not understood.

If you understand something, you have some predictability, don't you? And some ability to plan for the future, shouldn't you? Is delamination in advanced composites an act of God? Seems like it but it's not really because an act of God is considered to be natural sources - sources from nature in a natural environment.

Advanced composites are artificial...artificially held in place. So concurrent causation would be more apt here i.e. the stringer for the fiber looked away for a micro second and an ultra microscopic flaw in the textile was allowed to occur which then went on to eventually subject itself to stress - high pressure to low pressure - which then created heat which then caused neighboring ultra-tiny particles to chime in which after a number of take-offs and landings caused catastrophic failure.

delamination...definition

A splitting or separation into layers.

Delamination is a mode of failure for composite materials.[1] Modes of failure are also known as 'failure mechanisms'. In laminated materials, repeated cyclic stresses, impact, and so on can cause layers to separate, forming a mica-like structure of separate layers, with significant loss of mechanical toughness.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

The engines have all the clearance they need. Other aircraft have engines that hang lower and have never suffered an engine strike in years of operation and thousands of flights.

Eventually all aircraft will be composite. As was pointed out it's as strong as titanium for a fraction of the weight.

Why are you telling that person that it's as strong as titanium? It may be and it may not BUT it certainly is not when its' integrity is microscopically compromised.

I'm just going to throw out this prediction based on your statement, "Eventually all aircraft will be composite.", that eventually, if that is so, all aircraft will experience catastrophic failure unless the real situation is addressed and dealt with. And it ain't pilot error.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

Engine mounts are designed to hold the engines on the winds during normal flight, which means climbing, descending, flying from point A to point B.

What part of a flat spin do you consider "normal flight"?

Once the tail came of there was nothing to keep the aircraft stable and they went into a spin the engine mounts weren't designed for and they failed.

Unbelievable. So you're telling this person that if the rudder falls off, the engines will too? My question is legit because I didn't know about the engine falling till the other poster said it. Is it like "hip bone connected to the thigh bone"? or...are you saying there was a vortex? Please explain.

waynos
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

The flexing of the wings is deliberate, not a sign of weakness, it is a more efficient way of achieving the results given by the upturned wingtips of most other modern airliners.

The most efficient wings are those of birds, the most efficient man made ones those of gliders, they both flex too.

Aren't the most efficient wings those of bumblebees? Because, aerodynamically, they're not supposed to be able to fly. Still...elaboration on advanced composite flexible wings would be good.

reply to post by luxordelphi


I was watching the news the morning that flight 587 crashed, and my first thought was, "Oh God, please no, not again!" I thought it was more terror on the heels of 911. What I find really unusual is that within an hour the "authorities" were assuring the public that it wasn't terrorism!

How could they possibly state that so soon after the crash? Read this about flight 587 possibly being done in by the "1st shoe-bomber".
revlu.com...

Sammamishman
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

I used to live less than a mile away from the Everett plant where they did these test. Here is a video of the actual failure test on the a wing of the 787.

www.youtube.com...

Even though the failure tests were done inside the plant, you could hear it from where I lived when they final went. Like a sonic boom or a shot gun going off neer by.

That's so interesting - the sound of it. I had read that an outfit in Everett has the monopoly on all the military nano flak. Seems so coincidental that these tests are also conducted here.

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

And they buckled during a test that was designed to identify a problem. Which was fixed. It's a hell of a lot different than "falling off".

You seem to think that human error never occurs during maintenance of aircraft. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I've seen everything from forgetting to attach nuts and bolts, to leaving tools inside the aircraft. As long as they're worked on by humans, there will be mistakes made like this.

edit on 10/25/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

No. I do think it's human error. Just not in the way that you extrapolate. I think that when dealing on a submicroscopic level, avoiding human error, would involve God-like omniscience and, in the current evolutionary state, I don't think that's possible. Maybe an extremely evolved ultra obsessive-compulsive when it comes to the very tiny could guarantee a happy end but I'm not sure.

I don't think that these falling problems are pilot error, assembly error or anything like that. I think they are inherent fabric error involving a technology that is not understood well enough to model.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Do you even begin to understand the different parts of an aircraft? I didn't think so. Maybe you should at least bother to learn the parts of a plane before trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

The vertical fin is not, has never been, and never will be the rudder. The rudder is attached to it, but it is separate. The purpose of the vertical fin is lateral stability. Remove it, and you get a flat spin, like 587.

So yes, if the TAIL, not the rudder, the TAIL comes off, the engines will too, because they aren't stressed for the resulting forces.

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Boeing PROPOSED the tests, but they did nothing until the FAA certified the tests. And the FAA set the parameters for acceptable results.

Wow, I guess the FAA is utterly incompetent if they don't even know how to certify an aircraft.

Read what you said. Boeing set the parameters. Boeing people are very smart BUT Boeing is a for profit corporation. Their decisions are based on revenue not human kindness.

The FAA people are very smart. But how can they set standards based on unknowns? This plane is 70% to 80% composite by volume. It is unique. There are even more things that make it an absolute first. What is the synergy between all these unique components? Is there even a synergy?

The FAA is supposed to be our safety valve. Instead our safety has fallen into the hands of a for profit mentality. Not saying anything except that there are problems and who has been resolving them? We all want a happy outcome. And the problem is deeper than Boeing and the FAA. It's within the government subsidies of the nano tech. companies. There is a vested interest and that interest has no place in safety.

An uninvolved, uninvested, 3rd party needs to step in and make some safety rules that allow the experiment to catch up to the knowledge.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Unbelievable. You look at a problem that had happened on every plane ever built in modern times, and instead of looking at the most common cause, you leap straight to the most complex and least likely reason.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Wow, where did I say Boeing set the parameters. Maybe you should read more carefully.

You have less than no clue what you're talking about and are trying to sound like an expert.

Both Boeing and the FAA took years to develop a testing program, both jointly and individually. Everything from lightning strikes to battery failures in flight. Every conceivable problem was modeled and tested for, and a few that have less than a snowballs chance in hell of happening for good measure. This wasn't some slapped together testing program. It went slowly and carefully.

reply to post by Mikeultra



How exactly did he get hits shoe into the tail? The ONLY debris found away from the main crash location were related to the engines, and the tail. The tail was found farthest from the impact location, which means it came off first, then the engines.

There was no fuselage debris prior to impact, which means the tail separated cleanly, not as the result of an in fuselage explosion. There was no pitting of the fracture points, which means no bomb. The fracture points were cleanly broken, which means no bomb.

And I saw the internal NTSB pictures of the tail as it was recovered. It was not a bomb.

reply to post by luxordelphi


ALL wings are flexible. They have been designed that way since the early days of jet travel, only they've gotten more flexible in recent years.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Interesting is we are talking about the Boeing 787 and you have not gone on a tangent about Airbus and now V-22....how can anyone have a valid discussion regarding this when you keep throwing out irrelevant facts that have no bearing to the discussion of the topic at hand?

TheLoneArcher
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Fly-by-wire does not replace hydraulic systems, it replaces the control cable that feed the input to the actuators. All fly-by-wire systems on Airbus aircraft still employ hydraulic actuators and servo-controllers. Whilst it is true the Boeing have replaced much of their hydraulics with electric actuators, many aircraft manufacturers have not.

Please do not contradict me, I am a systems engineer dealing with ATA27 at Airbus.

I went overboard with my description it does replace the main control lines for aerodynamic surfaces. That would have been the more correct statement in these terms. I am not contending your notions so lay off the "holier than thou" statements.

I do have to ask though, how is it not a direct replacement for hydroelectrically systems? Removing hydraulic lines and replacing them with electrical lines is a replacement no?

Mikeultra
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

I was watching the news the morning that flight 587 crashed, and my first thought was, "Oh God, please no, not again!" I thought it was more terror on the heels of 911. What I find really unusual is that within an hour the "authorities" were assuring the public that it wasn't terrorism!

How could they possibly state that so soon after the crash? Read this about flight 587 possibly being done in by the "1st shoe-bomber".
revlu.com...

Very interesting story. Witness accounts invaluable. It's hard to be objective as to cause because we don't always know who's maneuvering for position and advantage as the story unfolds. A good way to stay objective is to follow the money. An old-time ATS poster taught me that.

There is never a story that unfolds in the mainstream media involving advanced composites. They seem to be hard to understand and the last place to look.

It's a dilemma. How much of infrastructure failure is our own fault? And who profits by blaming it on terrorists etc.? Following the vested interests will get you a good long way. Then some study will be required. After that, it will become clear who is paying off whom and why.