• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The root cause of the 787 problems is?

OhIsee.Then

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
1,581
Reaction score
277
Location
MI and AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We have had some insight (e.g. working for a vendor to Boeing) on the root causes of the 787 problems. Can't comment now, but maybe in the future. But, what do you think is the root cause is?
 
We have had some insight (e.g. working for a vendor to Boeing) on the root causes of the 787 problems. Can't comment now, but maybe in the future. But, what do you think is the root cause is?

the 787 batteries use lithium cobalt oxide tech, because it has higher energy storage capabilities.

Grounded Boeing 787 Dreamliners Use Batteries Prone to Overheating | MIT Technology Review

unfortunately, just like laptops, it can overheat and fry the device. from what i've heard, the 787 relies on electricity much more than previous passenger planes, so there are probably a lot of lithium batteries placed strategically on the plane for weight balance. maybe too many of them are in close proximity and are not adequately cooled.

either way, it sounds like it's going to cost a lot of money. i'm surprised this problem didn't turn up in the exhaustive test flights that they have to do.
 
We have had some insight (e.g. working for a vendor to Boeing) on the root causes of the 787 problems. Can't comment now, but maybe in the future. But, what do you think is the root cause is?

So you have a good idea of what is wrong, but can't share. What is the purpose of this thread?
 
Boeing made a poor engineering choice. Passenger airplanes demand safety above all else, and using volatile batteries was simply a very bad idea. Lithium iron phosphate would had likely been a better choice, as it would be worth trading the energy density for a lower fire risk.
 
that would be kind of damming if true. car makers don't use those batteries because of the fire danger but Boeing thought it would be OK to use them in airliners...
 
Boeing made a poor engineering choice. Passenger airplanes demand safety above all else, and using volatile batteries was simply a very bad idea. Lithium iron phosphate would had likely been a better choice, as it would be worth trading the energy density for a lower fire risk.

in the comments of this article, a poster claims that the 787 was finalized before the FAA had approved lithium iron phosphate batteries :

All 787s Now Grounded, Await Inspection Protocol | Aviation International News

how long have lithium iron phosphate batteries been utilized in aviation? i'm not sure.

either way, yes, it was a poor battery choice, for sure.
 
that would be kind of damming if true. car makers don't use those batteries because of the fire danger but Boeing thought it would be OK to use them in airliners...

That isn't true. Car makers use lead acid batteries because they are cheap, not because of safety. Even with the fire risk, the Dreamliner is still far far safer than driving a car.
 
Regulation is the problem.

They should be allowed to fly, just restrict them to rural routes and tea party passengers only, until the bugs get worked out.

:lamo
 
in the comments of this article, a poster claims that the 787 was finalized before the FAA had approved lithium iron phosphate batteries :

All 787s Now Grounded, Await Inspection Protocol | Aviation International News

how long have lithium iron phosphate batteries been utilized in aviation? i'm not sure.

either way, yes, it was a poor battery choice, for sure.

A classic case of technological overreach. Using electrical systems to replace hydraulics and pneumatics to save weight is a viable concept, but only if you have stable and high energy density batteries. Li CoO2 batteries have the fire risk, NIMH are too heavy and Li Po4 weren't ready in time. Commercial airliners demand safety and predictability over performance and that requires taking a more conservative technological approach.
 
That isn't true. Car makers use lead acid batteries because they are cheap, not because of safety. Even with the fire risk, the Dreamliner is still far far safer than driving a car.

so the report is false? I thought the new electric cars didn't use lead/acid but some sort of Lithium one.

Comparing air travel to road travel is bogus. Travel to the moon is safer than car travel, even with Apollo 1 and 13. Too low a bar and not a valid argument.
 
so the report is false? I thought the new electric cars didn't use lead/acid but some sort of Lithium one.

Comparing air travel to road travel is bogus. Travel to the moon is safer than car travel, even with Apollo 1 and 13. Too low a bar and not a valid argument.

Gasoline cars all have a lead acid battery in them for starting the car. Hybrids and Electric cars do use a variety of lithium battery technologies, Tesla uses the same type as Boeing with the attendant fire risk.
 
Gasoline cars all have a lead acid battery in them for starting the car. Hybrids and Electric cars do use a variety of lithium battery technologies, Tesla uses the same type as Boeing with the attendant fire risk.

So to be clear, the auto industry does use lithium batteries, which is what the report stated and you claimed was false?

To be clear again the INDUSTRY which was the group cited doesn't use the 'hot shot' batteries, the report claims do to overheating concerns, but you do point out ONE hybrid makers does?

Now if you had to voice an opinion on safety, which is a bit more important to not have fires break out while in use-

A vehicle that travels along the ground or one that operates above 30,000'?

I understand the great competition in the airline industry and the need to go farther with more for less...did that make sense?... but Boeing jumped the shark and the FAA did stall a bit before finally acting.
 
We have had some insight (e.g. working for a vendor to Boeing) on the root causes of the 787 problems. Can't comment now, but maybe in the future. But, what do you think is the root cause is?

I've been informed that I screwed up with my start of this threead. I did not sight a source of the breaking news, and I think that is a reason. I heard that the 787 was grounded in Japan on CNN, MSNBC, NPR and sone other broadcasts. Also I think it was in 'Time' and other places I've read. And we have also been expecting trouble with the 787 for some time.

But the responces that the thread got were about the batteries; but, we don't see them as a root cause of the problems with the 787. So again I screwed up by not explaining what a root cause is when it comes to a design failure in a system. The root cause of design problems can be things like insufficient funding (staff, time, etc.), selecting vendors based on cost and short development time promises that are unreasonable.

But gee, my post starting the thread is now has a hot pink background.
 
A classic case of technological overreach. Using electrical systems to replace hydraulics and pneumatics to save weight is a viable concept, but only if you have stable and high energy density batteries. Li CoO2 batteries have the fire risk, NIMH are too heavy and Li Po4 weren't ready in time. Commercial airliners demand safety and predictability over performance and that requires taking a more conservative technological approach.
Comercial airliners don't demand anything, some people demand such things. Actually in the case of the 787 safety and predictability over performance may not have been the choice. Also schedual and cost could have been conciderations. So what do you think?
 
This kind of stuff happens with all airliners. There are always these kinds of teething troubles. A380 wings cracking, engines blowing out comes to mind. However, I have no idea how boeing got regulatory approval to install li-co batteries. There are enough concerns over those things in laptops.
 
We have had some insight (e.g. working for a vendor to Boeing) on the root causes of the 787 problems. Can't comment now, but maybe in the future. But, what do you think is the root cause is?

Its normal for new aircraft to have problems. Boeing have just been unlucky that these issues have come right after each other on a few planes and have been rather dramatic. The big Airbus had also a number of problems, including cracked wings, but the difference here was that they did not have to do an emergency landing or evacuation of a plane full of passengers.

While I dislike Boeing for their arrogance on the 787, it is not unusual for such problems regardless of who it is. But maybe Boeing should not have pushed the propaganda as much as they did when they launched the plane back in the day.. might have saved a lot of grief.
 
Last edited:
We have had some insight (e.g. working for a vendor to Boeing) on the root causes of the 787 problems. Can't comment now, but maybe in the future. But, what do you think is the root cause is?

I wouldn't have a clue. I know nothing about planes.
 
This kind of stuff happens with all airliners. There are always these kinds of teething troubles. A380 wings cracking, engines blowing out comes to mind. However, I have no idea how boeing got regulatory approval to install li-co batteries. There are enough concerns over those things in laptops.

Agreed, the issues are temporary teething. The whole electrical system is vastly more complex and different than anything they've done before. It's going to take a while to work out the kinks.
 
Agreed, the issues are temporary teething. The whole electrical system is vastly more complex and different than anything they've done before. It's going to take a while to work out the kinks.

and with Boeing's recent turn to outsourcing so much of the technology in the 787, that complexity may be a part of the problem

Is outsourcing to blame for Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner woes?

It’s been a miserable week for Boeing. Federal investigators have grounded all of the U.S. company’s new and much-hyped 787 Dreamliner jets after reports that the aircraft’s lithium-ion batteries were overheating and catching fire.

Two major airlines in Japan grounded all Boeing 787 jets on Jan. 16 after one had to make an emergency landing.

And already, a favorite culprit has emerged: outsourcing. Critics have long charged that Boeing was far too reliant on offshore suppliers for the 787′s production. More than 30 percent of the jetliner’s components came from overseas, including the Japanese-made lithium-ion battery that is now garnering all the headlines. (By contrast, just 5 percent of the parts of its predecessor, the 747, were foreign-made.)

One possibility is that Boeing’s far-flung network of suppliers made it that much trickier for the U.S.-based manufacturer to spot and evaluate systemic problems.

more from the LA Times
The biggest mistake people make when talking about the outsourcing of U.S. jobs by U.S. companies is to treat it as a moral issue.

Sure, it's immoral to abandon your loyal American workers in search of cheap labor overseas. But the real problem with outsourcing, if you don't think it through, is that it can wreck your business and cost you a bundle.

Case in point: Boeing Co. and its 787 Dreamliner.


Manufacturing clothes or shoes in a low-wage third world nation may make economic sense but out-sourcing parts of a highly complex structure, such as a modern passenger plane, doesn't appear to work so well. Wonder what the free market types will say to that little notion. Will they then argue that the whole plane should have been built overseas and that the real problem are those union 'thugs' who cause American manufacturers to move production out of the country?

Not very American of them, I would say
 
Last edited:
from the LA Times article linked above
Boeing can't say it wasn't warned. As early as 2001, L.J. Hart-Smith, a Boeing senior technical fellow, produced a prescient analysis projecting that excessive outsourcing would raise Boeing's costs and steer profits to its subcontractors.

and from that 2001 analysis
Out-sourcing is commonly looked upon by management as a tool for reducing costs. But the
unresolved question is “which costs?”. In addition, there is the matter of “what is the effect on
overall costs?”. The most important issue of all is whether or not a company can continue to
operate if it relies primarily on out-sourcing the majority of the work that it once did in-house.

. . . out-sourcing as a supplement to sales activities may be justified but needs to
be recognized, on average, as an added cost, not a cost reduction.

How much of a company's decision to "out-source" is driven by a desire to punish labor unions?
 
and with Boeing's recent turn to outsourcing so much of the technology in the 787, that complexity may be a part of the problem



more from the LA Times


Manufacturing clothes or shoes in a low-wage third world nation may make economic sense but out-sourcing parts of a highly complex structure, such as a modern passenger plane, doesn't appear to work so well. Wonder what the free market types will say to that little notion. Will they then argue that the whole plane should have been built overseas and that the real problem are those union 'thugs' who cause American manufacturers to move production out of the country?

Not very American of them, I would say
How did you get your insight into the root cause of the problems with the 787? Where were you working? What did you see happening?
Just a bit more detail on your observations. At some US vendors to Boeing were hiring Chinese and Indian 'engineers' to work in the US because they couldn't find qualified US citizens to hire (actually they were reducing cost). The culture of Chinese and Indian 'engineers' causes them to hide problems and deny their existence. They also stole company IP.
 
Regulation is the problem.

They should be allowed to fly, just restrict them to rural routes and tea party passengers only, until the bugs get worked out.

:lamo



That's an odd restriction. These are being assembled by the highly skilled UNION workers of the state of Washington.

It seems as though those who support this approach, this UNION approach, to burning airplanes should be forced to use these.
 
That's an odd restriction. These are being assembled by the highly skilled UNION workers of the state of Washington.

It seems as though those who support this approach, this UNION approach, to burning airplanes should be forced to use these.

How the hell can it be the fault of American unions when the parts going bonkers on Boeing is made overseas?
 
Back
Top Bottom