Broken Dreams: The Boeing 787

Interesting!...... As always, I could be wrong, but I *thought* that kind of thing was one of the criticisms of the AB approach - Namely that their planes computers can "override" the pilots commands.

Whereas, with Boeing, if the captain "asks for it", the plane will *always* obey...... It may ***** & moan with all kinds of warnings, but it will obey....

Cheers,
Ian

 

That's my understanding as well. As we all know humans make mistakes, AB think that by giving the computer complete command authority they can prevent that. Unfortunately the computers are built by and software written by humans.

I think the Boeing way of doing things is far more "real world" practical, linked controls, stick shakers etc, does the AB joy stick shake to warn of a stall ??.

As for flying the 787 I would have no problem getting on one. Just to many fail safes in a modern airliner to concern myself with "what if" scenario's.

Having said that if I can avoid flying on an AB I always will just because of the basic design and build philosophies.

 

My understanding is that the stall warning is disabled below the airspeed necessary for reliable operation of the AoA vanes. They lost so much airspeed that the warning silenced itself but resumed after the pilot decreased pitch, which probably contributed to his confusion.

 

On the fly by wire having ultimate control over the pilots input.

Does the collective believe you could land a 737 with engine failure in the Hudson and keep it in one piece?

Fantastic piece of airmanship but should the plane have taken any credit?

I never thought it would possible and pretty much ignored the life jacket drill up until then!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Fantastic piloting, for sure. Fantastic airplane, for sure! Both did good!

However, and this is an 'information only' comment about which others way more qualified than me may wish to comment;

A very good buddy is one of few 'centurions' with more than a 100 take offs and landings from a carrier who's name I don't now recall. Then flew for the navy out of Alameda air base in the SF bay for years. Then served 20+ years as a 747 captain for UAL. Had more than one bird strike over the years. [Brian - many crows feet ]

His opinion is that while Sully did good, he actually did the wrong thing by dropping the plane into the birds.... He says that the birds, when 'threatened' in such a way will fold their wings and drop like stones *below* the aircraft. Ergo, and with hindsight, blah, blah, he thinks Sully should have pulled up in that situation...... Like all of us he has no idea if such a maneuver would have helped, just what his experience - and there's lots of birds on Alameda - told him.

Again, no criticism of anyone intended, just some thoughts,
Cheers,
Ian

 

As long as my gin drinking buddy Ian is going to beat this dead horse I have a question about my neighbors (he really is) landing in the Hudson.

To say I am not up to speed on jet engines is an understatement but as I understand it the AB engines auto shut down when the computer says there is a serious problem and Sulleys plane did exactly that. Assuming that info is correct, if left up to a human could the engines have produced power long enough in that circumstance to make a landing either at Teterborough or where he came from? Even get it close enough to dead stick? Very dangerous but no one knew how well the water landing was going to go either.

There may be too many imponderables there for an intelligent answer but it has always bothered me. A recip with terminal damage can often produce power long enough to be useful.

 

Eddie Rickenbacker was aboard a B17 that ran out of fuel and did a water landing in the Pacific Ocean during WW2 and it floated for quite a while. If a 17 did it in the middle of the wide open Pacific I would think a 737 designed to be pressurized would in a river.

It is chronicled in a book titled "We thought we heard the angles sing". Very good book.

 

Door seals are designed for internal pressure only. They do not work under external pressure. So water would get in, especially through the aft lower lobe cargo door. Main thing keeping any airplane afloat would be intact fuel cells in the wings.

 

Not to mention the doors being open to let people out. They are all going to sink, it's a matter of time but I think water incursion would be slower than a sieve like a B17.


I know someone who ditched a GA airplane. It didn't go down like a stone but it didn't let them take their time either.

 

Sorry, I thought it was more an interesting debate than a dead horse. ....

Another good question, or still flogging?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Yep.

I once took a ride on a TUV-something from, IIRC, Prague to Moscow, or some such God forsaken places back in the day..... Checked in early and chose the window exit seat.

I'm not joking here - Watching the runway go by thru the gap between the door and the floor as we took off got my attention! Then, as we climbed, the door creaked a little as it set itself into the seal. Simple, yet pretty solid, engineering from those guys.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

Bob Callahan had some comments about Scully's reaction to the bird strike, and if anyone on this board should know, it's him. He seemed to think that Scully could have made it back. I didn't get the technical reason, but he thought there was a setting that would have allowed Scully to run them for a few minutes. We'll never know though. He did a great job on the landing in the water though.

Art

 

No, we'll never know if such a setting could have gotten them back. But Sully probably considered that thought for the very few seconds available to make such a decision and decided that possibly saving everyone with a water landing was better than killing most of them if an attempted return did not work out.

First rule of an engine out scenario is that the airplane is sacrificial, which as it turned out would have been the only thing gained by attempting a return.

 

I though the FO was running the restart procedures on both engines for as long as practical but neither would relight ??

Do engines on the AB automatically shut down in the event of certain warnings ? While Boeings have to be shut down by the crew ?? On the 737 that crashed in Birmingham 20 years ago the crew shut down the good engine and flew the bad one into the ground. Of course that was a much older aircraft 737-200 I think.

 

True but I am thinking a water landing turned out to be a far better outcome than he was expecting. Creating a new large smoking hole in the ground in a populated area is not high on anyone's list of choices. In fact, as I recall he was quoted as saying in the seconds after the landing "Wow, that went well" or something to that effect.


My main point was though

A. Do AB engines auto shut down in a failure?
B. When that happens is there any chance if needed could they be counted on for any greater length of time? I know there are many variables.

It just seems to me that it may be a decision better left up to the guy flying the airplane.

 

Again not a turbine guy but relighting a motor with a couple of rods hanging out the side poses problems. Leaving it running is often not too difficult. And having power is always better that trying to get power back.

 

It's SULLY, Art... his name is SULLENBERGER...


Anyway, I thought Sully tried to do a re-start, several times.

 

I'm amazed that we have moved past the battery issue with the 787, just like Boeing ... this thread has ignored it because there is no solution.

Yes I don't agree with AB's direction on the computer having final say (although I'm sure I read somewhere that you can put it in manual mode?) but at least they did not put a plane into air with such a huge known problem such as batteries that are not suitable for aircraft. Reading the test fires and issues Boeing had with those batteries and their completely inadequate current solution just baffles me.

As my family lives in Sydney and we all get to share the flight paths my house will be flown over by many 787's as I assume Air NZ will use them eventually for the trans Tasman hop. I guess they will be able to do a U turn a land again to put the fire out ...
Pete

 

Has anyone died on a 787?

The problems are being addressed as they should be but it seems it is receiving a disproportionate amount of press for its problems.

The Airbus products on the other hand have a number of fatals on their side of the chalk board and there is a real question about the most basic concept of their design philosophy. While it is true there have been pilot errors the Hal 9000 driving them is a very big and justifiable question mark.

 

Reading the engine damage section of the NTSB report makes it improbable that a re-start would have been successful under any circumstance, even on an engine stand in a laboratory.
https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf

 

You'll have to ask Callahan. He is a consultant to the airlines, and knows his stuff. If he says maybe, it's probably true. I don't know the answer.

Art

 

Not yet but one guy testing the battery was simply lucky.

This response makes me believe you do not understand the problem.

The batteries that run the plane axillary power needs (this saves fuel from having to run them from bleed air from the engines) spontaneously combust. And they have many times during their below standard testing** and have now done so on at least 2 planes. It has only been luck that nobody has been killed yet.

My point is Boeing appear** to have designed something for this plane that is NOT fit for passenger aircraft and has NOT passed satisfactory testing (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/22/us-boeing-787battery-idUSBREA4L0TU20140522). Boeing know this hence the steel box they have built around them, but steel melts and will this box will prevent a fire from downing the plane, or will it just delay it?. Now from Australia to New Zealand is ~3 hours depending on which direction. If half way into that flight will that steel box control the fire for the other 1.5 hours because there is NO where to land and put the fire out in between. And you cannot land on the Tasman sea; never.

The only difference between AB and the 787 has been luck. Your mindset is as bad as GM and Ford*. Yes I accept that other Boeing planes are safe but every 787 that is in use is a time bomb waiting for that fire to start. It is not a case of IF it is a case of WHEN, because they have not fixed the cause.

The only design issue with AB is the Hal 9000 and the first crash was caused because the test pilot overrode it (I believe, I stand corrected: http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml). Now the fact that he could override it means that it is not really Hal 9000.

IMO the avaition department should ground all Boeing 787's until they have proved 100% that these batteries will never spontaneously combust. If that cannot be done then that type of battery should be added to the list of items not to travel on an aircraft, like aerosol cans.

Note I am in no way being anti-American or pro-AB. Have comfortably flown many trips on Boeings and before the 787 had huge respect for the company. Can we please have an intelligent debate, free of nationalistic views and deal with the facts. Boeing has short cut the testing of these batteries** ... something they never did with any important component on the legendary 747.
Pete
* GM and Ford have historically I believe done nothing if they have a fault until the courts get involved. Do you really want that attitude with planes that you are a passenger on? Example the current GM key issue, and an earlier example is the Ford Explorer with the tyre issue.
GM: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/business/gm-ignition-switch-internal-recall-investigation-report.html?_r=0
Ford: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB965870212891028108

** Based on what I have read.

 

Well you know what they say about opinions.

 

Pete- Old issues which should be completely licked by now. FAA revised their non-existent lithium battery standards and much work has been done. The new 787-9s are in service and should be reliable. Bugs are to be expected in a completely new aircraft architecture.

Last time I saw a list, there were 25 customers with 787-9 orders with Air New Zealand and United already taking delivery.

 

Can you please provide a source stating that the battery issue has been licked. Ive read a lot about the 787 and the last I heard/read was the steel box and yes some improved tests, but nothing saying the problem is resolved.

Rifledriver, weird response I provided references ... come on, I'm genuinely interested in this topic and heck this thread would not exist if the 787 was as trouble free as it should have been. Plus we have guys on this site who are in the industry saying there are problems.
Pete
ps: and orders don't mean a plane is perfect, witness the A380 and the dramas there.