Boeing Dreamliner to fly today

You have to certify the design, installation and interface of all the systems; flight controls, electronics etc .
It's not just a matter of slapping differently shaped structure on the front end.

 

Right on. The flight deck is the heart of the airplane and everything starts there. Knowing the engineering gang, they would by nature include all the new whizbang gimmicks in the new nose and flight deck and it would be a different beast. New structure... new tests. new panel...new tests. New controls...new tests...Ad Infinitum. It would essentially be a new airplane. In all the big jets, and smaller, the 41 Section is the most dense structure on the airplane and has the most dense systems jammed into it. The lower 41 is jammed solid with electronics and controls. You can't get your arm in there without getting scratched. That includes the 747, too.

 

I have a Lan 787 flight next week. Will bring you a report! I want to try and jumpseat or some cockpit pictures, though i am not pretty sure i'll be allowed this.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8187/8106996176_d4d43585a0_c.jpg

 

Why do you think they are going to use "untrained country folk?" They have supervisors and engineers all over the place. At least one of the original space shuttle engineering crewmembers was from South Carolina. Both Clemson University, (where the guy I just alluded to graduated from) and the University of South Carolina have produced fine electrical and mechanical engineers. Jeez, they'll be just fine.

 

Designing and supervising a large jet program DOES require good and well trained engineers and scientists but putting one together requires a team of highly skilled mechanics and technicians who must have a heck of a lot more training and most of all background in the art of sophisticated assembly. Again, modern jet transports aren't lawn mowers and toasters and they must be built by highly trained and SKILLED mechanics who have a deep background in what they are doing. For 12 years I was involved in pre-assignment training of new employees and I have seen first hand how UNSKILLED the average person is in aircraft construction techniques. AND now today they are even worse because nobody uses their hands anymore and have to be trained in simple things like proper use of a wrench and screw drivers. Math skills at lower levels are missing in some cases. Boeing learned a harsh lesson on the 787 program when they treated the product like another Leggo game. There must be a core of skilled people whose background is deep in aircraft manufacturing techniques before you can realize a smooth, trouble free line.

 

A United 787 was in Denver last week... PR and training tour.

It will start flying Denver to Houston this month (briefly) then Denver to Narita in March.

 

The same argument was used here when we started F-22 production. The work force had been building aluminum sky trucks for years; now they were going to be building the most advanced aircraft yet designed. Some people thought that the work force would never be able to do it, and the first few ships had a lot of workmanship issues. But the work force learned quickly, and the learning curve improved in a big hurry. Most of the last half of F-22 production were "zero defects" aircraft; now many of those same workers are assembling F-35 sections successfully.

 

I'm not sure what a Sky Truck is, Jim, but at least those of whom you speak WERE building an aluminum vehicle and were using tools. I was referring to people, rural and suburban, who are thrust into a higher technical level of work and even after initial training training, they still show a lack of innate " feel" for the task. For example, during the 777 program there was a hiring surge and obviously some of those hired didn't have a feel for the vehicle on which they were working and they made some glaring errors that showed it. In one incident a "U" shaped heavy frame did not fit the item to which it was suppose to join. The two mechanics who were trying to install it got a " come along" and forced the frame to fit by spreading it, thus preloading it and the adjoining assembly...no different than what they did on the farm. Many incidents like this happen when the workers don't have a sense of respect for the precision that they have to use on an airplane.

 

UA says in it's video before the safety instructions that they are buying 50 of them and will be the first to have them.

I can't wait to fly one. My understanding is that they are phasing out 747 service to Asia and using Dreamliners as replacements. I fly to Asia about 10 times a year so I'm looking forward to that. As much as I like the 747, United's fleet is right out of the 80's.

 

They should be fixed by the time you fly!
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/uniteds-787-diverted-mid-flight-mechanical-problem-213309634--finance.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/uk-united-787-diversion-idUSLNE8B400M20121205

 

You know, C-130s, C-141s, C-5s, aircraft a lot less challenging to build than the F-22 with its high percentage of composites, titanium and unique finishes. But in time the shop was able to make F-22s that were essentially free of manufacturing defects.

 

I'm with you on it, Jim.

 

What the articles do not mention is the cause.
One of SIX electrical generators failed.

 

If you are saying that it was a non-event becuase of the redundancy then you wonder why the pilots felt it necessary to declare an emergency. Maybe they were just being overly cautious, but declaring an emergency is a lot different than making a pre-cautionary landing to check out an anomoly. Doesn't the cockpit instrumentation say that you lost a generator but you still have 5 online? Wouldn't surprise me if the pilots had visions of the one test flight where an electrical panel failed and caught fire and decided to get the thing on the ground asap regardless of what the instrumentation showed.

 

I was going to say that because of the redundancy built into the A/P the "event" wasn't as dire as some would think. Most of the flying public do not realize that there is double or triple redundancy built in to critical systems.(in most cases)

I am also going to assume that the decision to declare an emergency was based on the messages they were observing, possibly indicating the potential of something more serious than "just" a generator going out.

If I was the PIC I probably would have made the same decision based on the sketchy history of the electrical so far, (and the potential for fire as you said).

As somebody else said on this forum, ALL NEW AIRPLANE MODELS HAVE THEIR BUGS.

 

I got to jumpseat the Lan 787!! Pilot tied me up to the seat!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvtm/8251392874/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvtm/8251439876/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvtm/8251529948/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvtm/8251540232/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvtm/8250474905/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvtm/8251619348/in/photostream

 

FYI, latest Aviation Week & Space Technology has a great test flight review of the 787.

 

Heading to Narita on Jan 7, UA32. Looking forward to experiencing the 787 Dreamliner.

MB

 

I've seen the UAL 787 in LAX. I didn't realize it flew to NRT. I've only seen ANA and JAL 787s in NRT.

 

January 3 the new route takes effect