777X getting Its Wings Awaits Engine

Full Aviation Week Article

The article leads one to speculate about Board approval to proceed with the 777X project through 2019.

Don't speculate just surmise!

The engine thing is really dependent on over-all concept plans. This is a Bigger is Better Boeing concept and Roll-out. Not unlike an Airbus photo campaign, which neglects the techno talk, and expounds on the virtues of largeness. Engines keep returning to the conversation like a little child reminding an adult about its needs for a candy bar.

Engines, are not at the top of the Board's authority for granting list of things to announce.

However, GE goes forward in a pursuit of something big when comes to engines, while Rolls pursues a conservative neutral stance like a defensive back in American Football awaits the play before it reacts. I surmise big engines will be attached to something very big and something very complex, but maintaining a straight approach on proven technologies from Boeing's Flight Bag of tricks. No ground breaking progress here, just enhanced 777X design from its vast parts bin. This is a smart approach and will make a great use of the 777 frame. Don't make something all-new, use something new to make it all better.

To surmise is like Sherlock Holmes; make observations and deduce logical conclusions. In conclusion, Boeing is going to build something big with its just released technologies from other Airplane programs on the 777X.

When Technology Catches Up To The 787, It Will Be The Best Airplane

The 787 has had a bumpy ride throughout its progressions to its current state. For the time being it has made it through fire, smoke and delamination. If looking back on aviation history, one can site show stoppers like the The de Havilland Comet stopped an airline and its manufacturer from going forward

"DESCRIPTION: 
Certainly one of the most tragic stories of the jet age revolves around the unfortunate de Havilland Comet. Building on the British lead in jet engine technology following World War II, de Havilland developed and flew the first commercial jet aircraft in 1949, several years ahead of rival Boeing in America. Known as the D.H.106 Comet, the ailiner used four of the new de Havilland Ghost 50 turbojet engines mounted in the wing root leading edge of an otherwise fairly typical commercial airliner of the day.

Because it represented such a revolutionary advance in commercial travel, the Comet was put through an extensive series of test flights and certifications over the next three years. These 500 hours worth of flight crew training and proving flights included long overseas flights, tropical operations, and high altitude takeoffs.

Having successfully completed these tests with no apparent difficulties, launch customer BOAC received permission to begin commercial operations in early 1952. The first hint of trouble with the design came exactly one year later when a Comet mysteriously crashed shortly after takeoff on 2 May 1953. Two similar crashes in early 1954 forced British authorities to ground the entire fleet pending investigation. Over the following months, extensive tests were performed on the aircraft to determine what could have caused these mysterious accidents.

The answer finally came after a fuselage had been submerged in a tank of water and repeatedly pressurized and depressurized to represent repeated flight cycles. After several thousand of these cycles, fatigue cracks were found to be spreading from the square edges of the windows in the passenger cabin. These cracks would eventually reach a critical size where they would grow rapidly resulting in a catastrophic depressurization that would destroy an aircraft in flight.

All Comets then in service or under construction were either scrapped or modified with rounded-corner windows to correct the fatigue problem. Nevertheless, it took four years for the aircraft to be recertified for commercial service. By this time, the much improved Comet 4 series was available, equipped with better engines, greater fuel capacity for increased range, and a lengthened cabin for additional passengers.

However, the four year hiatus in Comet operations had driven most prospective customers to the rival Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8. These designs soon claimed the bulk of the market. Only about 90 Comets ever reached commercial operators, and most were removed from service by the early 1980s. A few additional aircraft were used by the military, but only the Nimrod, a Comet derivative, remains in use. Had the Comet not been plagued by a fatal design flaw, Britain might well still dominate commercial aviation today."

Where engineering and processing was incomplete on the Comet, the whole idea fell apart after it flew passengers. It lived up to its name, a bright light in the sky for a short time. I don't want to be presumptuous, since the 787 has just a little ways to go before before it reaches a life time achievement award for an aircraft. It is wise not run a comparison of the problems from the Dreamliner to The Comet for its more of a "Tale of Two Cities". Two different airplanes, two different problems, and two different results. Because of the Comet, the 787 will live on and save lives redundancy, reliability and innovation.  A safety and testing infrastructure has been built upon these types of stories all through aviation's history. As technologies expand, the measures taken are exponentially expanded.

As anxious as Boeing is for making the 787 fly again, they truly want to make it safe. Failure is not an option for any company. Each of its workers have that etched in the back of their own psychics when putting its frame making into practice. What is lost, maybe the cognitive dissonance subcontractors  have placed in its roles as suppliers. But they should eagerly embrace shared risks and responsibilities. A Boeing failure translates back to the supporting roles of subcontractors. Even though Boeing takes the big hit in failures, the little hit in failure for the subcontractor is equally devastating  This is not a blame game for the Battery issue. It is obvious that Japanese suppliers and operators are at the same level of angst over the battery problem as as Boeing is, and all other parts of this aircraft are under a monitoring scrutiny.

The Dreamliner is on track to be that  Dream realized. Because of the Comets found in Aviation, flight has always been experimental, even since before the Wright Brothers. Man has overcome common sense and chooses to fly. Man also drives cars at high speeds among thousands of cars going in multiple directions.  One flat tire or broken blinker and bam, not very good for anybody! I don't need to convince anyone of the risk of living. Back in the dark ages people died just standing still in their own homes, of starvation or the plague. Flight has become a controllable risk, especially as an aircraft ages in the process. A two year old walking along a flowing ditch is an uncontrollable risk. The 787 is almost two but has parental guidance firmly in its hand.

This brings us back to the battery and other things on the 787. Many governing conventions, have its rope around the 787; Boeing, FAA, and the Japanese governing bodies. The protocol is not to fly the 787 until all electrical safety risks are retired. I have more confidence in the process than before the battery fire. An assumption existed before the batteries fires, of not having a problem. A serious problem happened without a loss.  Now Boeing finds itself relieved, that the dream lives on, and the battery situation will be addressed soon, with full assurance. The passengers will have greater confidence as the bugs of any new aircraft are sorted out. It will not be a Comet burning out and it will remain a Dream living on.

FAA Approves Boeing's Plan Off The Chalk Board and Into The Lab

With erasers and chalk in hand, Boeing has passed a significant hurdle in moving the 787 Battery crises forward.  The lines circles and formulas on the black board has an FAA undiluted attention on a battery fix. How one knows from the press what this all means, is a vast speculation on a fix. I will take a Quick and Dirty note pad and take a stab at what I just read in the press.

Randy Tinseth VP Boeing Sales, Reports on his Blog:

Testing Our Solution

"1) We’ve improved design features of the battery to prevent faults from occurring and isolating any that do. That includes the addition of new thermal and electrical insulation materials and other changes.

2) We’ve enhanced production, operating and testing processes to ensure the highest levels of quality and performance of the battery and its components. That includes more stringent screening of battery cells prior to battery assembly. Operational improvements focus on tightening of the system’s voltage range.

3) In the unlikely event of a battery failure, we’ve introduced a new enclosure system that will keep any level of battery overheating from affecting the airplane or being noticed by passengers. A key feature ensures that no fire can develop in the enclosure or in the battery."

Herald Net

"Federal regulators on Tuesday approved the Boeing Co.'s plan to redesign 787 lithium-ion batteries, the first step in returning the grounded Dreamliner jet to passenger service.

Boeing will need to "conduct extensive testing and analysis" of the battery redesign, the Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement Tuesday.

"We are confident the plan we approved today includes all the right elements to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the battery system redesign," FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta said in a statement.

The FAA grounded Boeing's 787 on Jan. 16 after lithium-ion batteries on two 787s failed. Ray Conner, president of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, presented the company's proposed solution to the FAA in late February.

On Tuesday, the FAA said Boeing's proposal includes "a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a short circuit within the battery, better insulation of the cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system."

The FAA said Tuesday that it will allow limited test flights on two Boeing 787s to allow the company to verify that the battery redesign will work. In the meantime, the Jan. 16 grounding remains in effect."

My own bullet points solution for Airworthiness.

• Treat the systems and symptoms
• Isolate the Battery Risks from runaway heating. 
• Install fire walls
• Install battery program firewalls for active runaway heat management.

Bottom of the List Items not precluding airworthiness 

• Determine a root cause of battery runaway with FAA
• Remove any potential for battery destabilization in battery area.
• Robust Testing and implementing validating solutions. 

Ray Conner offers:

Seattle Times

In a Boeing statement, Conner outlined “three layers of improvements.”

• One involves redesign of the battery “to prevent faults from occurring and to isolate any that do.”
• Another involves “enhanced production, operating and testing processes” 

for the battery; reports earlier this month said battery supplier GS Yuasa had been advised by outside experts to tighten inspection and reject more batteries from its production line. to ensure the highest levels of quality and performance of the battery and its components.

• The third level of protection is an improved system for channeling smoke and volatile liquids out of the airplane “in the unlikely event of a battery failure,” said Conner. He said the “enclosure system .... will keep any level of battery overheating from affecting the airplane or being noticed by passengers.”

Not much different than what I suggested above, but very similar to what I have in mind in general. What is missing from the symptomatic treatment is not having a stated causal approach. However, symptoms or conditions may be the battery's culprit in all this mess. A runaway battery may need a stronger leash applied on it, from its own self destruction.  Keeping it together and managed is the possible solution from causing it to melt down.  The automobile has a radiator, antifreeze and a regulating thermostat for keeping it together. Maybe Boeing's solution is just a high tech version of this on the Lithium-Ion Battery. Going back to Ray Conner' and Randy Tinseth's, statements, suggest to me, that installing strong layers of insulating battery walls structure and gas /fire containment as part of the solution, suggest to me,  that the problem is inherent to the nature of the battery under certain situations or conditions, and can be controlled with added layers of prevention built into the system.  

The testing phase is testing a Boeing remedial solution, which will keep an inconsistent nature of the Lithium Ion battery in control similar to an over heating engine block on the race track. You employ measures and test those measures to make the battery and electrical system sound when battery heating fluctuations or anomalies occur, which would endanger a cell.  If that does occur, then steps are built in which isolates the runaway and not harming flight operations.

Because I Flounder Each Day I Turn To A Tried And True Parody

The paradoxical Boeing "Board" Game of Operations

The Boeing Board Game offers an tremendous opportunity to examine how an all electric game fails to sort out Boeing's overly saturated guesstimations of  its battery, providing you with an all electrical format, and the following sketches. It will illustrate how the Boeing  Board outlines its full recovery from the electrical purgatory, as it climbs out the bathroom tub.

Step one: What's connected and what's not connected, or putting it in the, "I can do it myself mode".

Step 2: I want to fix the All Electric Boeing Board Game using this  schematic from, the "All Electric Boeing Board"

The Board members have already jumped in, now its your turn to find where the lead foot is on the 787 project.

The Electrical, "No So Funny Bone" was engaged just recently after two months of grounding. The wish bone came online just last week with a team of problem solvers, from both Seattle and Japan.

Step 3: I warning you my 787 humor is down in the dumps and this is the best I came up with the answers available. I am moving in for the kill with printed out schematic instructions of solutions for the all electric Boeing Board.

Step 4: But I have to go through Boeing's PR department, which I don't mind at all, considering wine is served at all PR events.

So here in my brutal and coarse attempt for solving the All Electrical Boeing Board of Directors 787 problems It is found with this press release. The Book of PR Solutions outlines a handsome solution, coming in a size 2 (see above one more time).

Final Step:

It all depends on how low you want to go, attaching the power pack to the Boeing Board. Once done it will determine how much you able to solve the problem! Cheers!

The Reluctant Aeronaut, The FAA

Plot Summary forThe Reluctant Aeronaut FAA (1967) More at IMDbPro »

Don Knotts is Roy Fleming, a small town kiddie-ride operator who is deathly afraid of heights(FAA). After learning that his father has signed him up for the space program, Roy reluctantly heads for Houston, only to find out upon arriving that his job is a janitor, not an aeronaut  Anxious to live up to the expectations of his domineering father, Roy manages to keep up a facade of being an aeronaut to his family and friends. When Boeing decides to launch a lay person into the air to prove the worthiness of a new automated Boeing 787, Roy gets the chance to confront his fears.Written by Teresa E Tutt <tuttt@rpi.edu>

Changing it to  The Reluctant FAA, staring Don Knotts and that Airship the 787, with an overly robust Battery array, which melts your heart. This is not trivializing the FAA or Boeing's problem, but it points out the delicate dance between Boeing and the FAA.

New Script Writing:

She Said, "I have a solution."

He said, "Not so Fast"

She said, "We are bringing it to DC for show & Tell.

He Said, "not so fast."

She said, "whats wrong we spent 72 hours on a solution."

He said, "Not so fast"

What Boeing doesn't realize is they are talking to the "Reluctant Answering Machine" with the recorded message of , "Not so Fast".

Ray Conner has pronounce a Boeing immediate fix, plan of action, and solutions! When the FAA  has not even received its allotment of red pens and yellow markers due to budget sequestration. Sounds like sequestration is a personal problem for the FAA.

No one, I repeat, No one, wants to sign-off on a Boeing scheme, and them go down in history as the person who signed off on a Boeing Scheme. A problem Boeing needs to address. Until Boeing gets a plethora of FAA suits singing in the Boeing choir, even though the Boeing choir director says, "this new tune is marvelous", it is stalled. I've been in those kind choirs before when the Choir directer spends copious minutes pouring over musical score. Believing it to the most fantastic music ever conceived. Then the choir director foist this aberration on its choir, expecting common voices to sing an abstract musical, that sounds like crap!  The only one in the room getting excited is the director. The choir isn't ready and never will be ready until the music is singable for its skill level. The FAA is retracted in its hole and will not sign off on this symphonic, "Little Big Horn proposal", until more troops are assembled that will and can sign off other than Ray Conner pen.

Boeing has a solid work-around-able fix which could be a new production standard for its future use of its Lithium ion applications. Battery theory suggest that having a battery segregation blanket will prevent runaways from spreading. Has Boeing already solved battery runaway from starting? That is my primary question.  A fire extinguisher is fine, but a fire is still a concern. If Boeing has solved internal heat management for each of its batteries, then go fly until the next big model knocks you off the pedestal. 

The Trial And Error Battery Flow

Boeing is getting ready to propose a fix on its trial and error testing for its Ion-Lithium battery packs. A while back I mentioned a solution would be insulating layer between battery cells, which does not stop overheating in runaway situations but prevents the spread of fire or adjacent battery failures from a chain reaction heating problem.  This is one of the main temporary fixes, Boeing is now proposing to the FAA. The central battery failure instability has not specifically been resolved, but a temporary safety net is being establish as it suggest some kind Boeing omission of "we have not resolve the issue but have increased its safety significantly".

A recent article

Source: Boeing to propose 787 battery fix to FAA

02/21/2013 - 6:20 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) - Boeing has developed a plan that it intends to propose to federal regulators to temporarily fix problems with the 787 Dreamliner's batteries that have kept the planes on the ground for more than a month, a congressional official told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Ray Conner is expected to present the plan to Michael Huerta, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, in a meeting on Friday, the official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

Boeing Co. spokesman Marc Birtel said the company doesn't talk in advance about meetings with federal official.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boeing said to have redesigned battery ready for FAA

Enlarge

Bloomberg photo

Mike W. Thomas

Reporter-San Antonio Business Journal

Email  | Twitter

Boeing Co. is reportedly set to present regulators with a redesigned battery for its 787 Dreamliner that they hope will satisfy safety concerns.

The redesign will include insulation made of heat-resistant glass around each of the lithium-ion battery’s cells and a venting mechanism for fumes as well as a harder case to contain fires. Boeing is said to be developing kits so the new batteries can be easily swapped with the old ones in the same space.

A team of Boeing officials are set to meet with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration tomorrow. The FAA must approve any changes before they can occur. Boeing’s fleet of Dreamliner's have been grounded since Jan. 16 following a fire on a Japan Airlines Co. 787 parked in Boston the week before, and a battery fault that forced an emergency landing in Japan of a All Nippon Airways Co. jet.

______________________________________________________________________

What one can follow here is the attempt by Boeing of placing a patch on the bigger problem, making the 787 safe to fly.

First thing Boeing is trying to establish is a quantification of the battery problem, followed by a permanent remedy or solution called a "fix". However, there are some show stopping points on the way to a "fix", as Boeing is still in a fix, and but it hasn't made significant strides of making it right when it comes to the actual battery instability. Boeing is faced with a dilemma that an electrical/battery patch makes the aircraft safe enough to fly, but does not have a permanent resolution on the battery to satisfy the FAA completely. Boeing made significant alterations to ensure thermal runaway problems from spreading but has not stopped a condition for thermal runaways from happening in the first place.

What Boeing is doing is buying time with safety margins adequate enough to fly the 787.  The current battery scenario is that, the aircraft flew safely 99.9 percent of the time when considering battery problems. FAA needs a 100% assurances from Boeing.  Boeing needs time to get it 100% right all the time for its batteries, but once again with improved systems, Boeing mitigates the risks of an event of thermal runaway. Boeing and FAA are chasing each other tails in a circle without either one making  progress of breaking the problem once and for-all. 

What is in play is that Boeing would like to show progress with this patch in test flights, they have made the Battery problem safe without solving the rare occurrence of thermal runaway.  They would like to present this condition as controlling step in its design. If a thermal runaway does occur, it does not put the aircraft in any kind of operational danger while in service.  It will have the ability to shut down a cell and protect the pack from any threat, and then upon service call plug and play a new battery into the pack if ever it did occur.  A plan like that would buy Boeing time to resolve the battery inconsistencies over the next six months.

Boeing 787’s problems blamed on outsourcing, lack of oversight

Seattle Times: Dateline 2-4-2013

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times Aerospace Reporter

"Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner has suffered numerous electrical system flaws beyond the battery problems that led to its current grounding, according to engineers with knowledge of the situation.

Company engineers blame the 787’s outsourced supply chain, saying that poor quality components are coming from subcontractors that have operated largely out of Boeing’s view.

“The risk to the company is not this battery, even though this is really bad right now,” said one 787 electrical engineer, who asked not to be identified. “The real problem is the power panels.”

The control panel was the first public smoke way back during test flights days in 2010. However, word is flushing out of its wood-pile of engineers, telling a story that cost saving style of management ,I call "OZ Outsource Operations" or Just OOO. Oz is the mythical city in the Northwest near Seattle, Wa, that chooses its plastic, parts and principals PPP from Bargin Bin Bundles -BBB, throughout the world. The Seattle Oz code turned to Plug, Play, and Poof, PPP2 Technology.  It seems the more time that flies by, you may hear the more times "it wasn't me" flying out.  

The Battery Is Fine 

 As in, 'its not the bomb that EXPLODED, but a faulty fuse misfired" exploding the bomb."  That fuse was outsourced for 99 cents and the engineers did not have oversight over the fuse. Now the control panel, central processing computers and plastic giblets found in the 787 follows the same path as the faulty fuse. The bomb went off as designed when that darn fuse ignited it. I also heard that a battery melted down and started a big fire engulfing the whole 787 program. Now we have "Harbor Freight" (my apologies to Harbor Freight, I buy there, for my hobbie tools) -like parts melting the electrical systems.  That is a stock- holder problem, because Boeing's quest to maximize value for its stock-holders, sacrifices on engineering and Electrical control panels. It is the beauty of a "plan" coming together "A-Team" style, but someone forgot to removing the outsource (IV bag in its arm delivering its sugar water). Way back when the program started de-delamination as in fastener problems, tail sections flaking out from Italy, and wing box shimming issues from Japan. All solved and all fixed! However, the culture of outsource continues to rear its ugly head.  

The Ostrich pulls its head out of the ground and speaks, "What's that smell, is that another outsource coming my way?" Then it promptly puts its head back in the ground, thinking that room freshener and its head planting has solved the problem. After-all the Battery Is Fine.

Rearing Its Ugly Head

The FAA Likes Onions, It Makes Them Cry.

As the FAA unwraps each layer of the Onion, then they report back, yep its an Onion, with tears streaming out its eyes, "we approved this?"  Another layer is being unpeeled with the control panel look.  Boeing really needs to call its Board together and audible a change that will send problems on course through a resolution process.  Release the outsource model from its prison and its  failure, and install the outsource model as a partnering venture of "knowing whats going on". Duh!

Onions are like people, they make you cry, and they can be sweet, as in Walla Walla Washington, WWW sweet onions.  Each layer will have a consistent themes  of:  "it wasn't Me", "Outsourced",a "Best value". However the people on the floor know "the rest of the story" as in Paul Harvey.

Glossary Notes:

OOO   Oz Outsource Operations

PPP     Plug Play Poof

WWW Walla Walla Washington

PPP-BBB    Plastic, Parts and Principals- Bargin Bin Bundles (Mix and Match arcade)

Word Play List:

Poop

BooB

wooo

ooow

Boop

Your turn:

All Battery Hands On Deck For The 787

It is not often you see corporations joining hands to save another brother in the Techno Wars.  That is what is happening to the Boeing 787 program as the players line up and form a bucket brigade to save the Boeing 787 much troubled electrical system.  The line starts with the:

•  FAA  who is caught between the rock and hard spot of both oversight and approval of the battery system
• Boeing who bought the farm with the Lithium-Ion Concept.
• Multiples of supporting cast in the Epic Cecil B D Mille Moving Diorama (slide show) of The Plane That Should Of, Could Of, Would Of .
• Now Telsa weighs in to the aid of Boeing with its offering of: 
• Tesla CEO Elon Musk offers Boeing help with Dreamliner battery issue

There is some speculation that Boeing bought a ginormous Red Herring at the Aviation Fish Market near Pike's Place market in Seattle, (bean Counters were walking the street near the market) when it acquired a basket load at McDonald Douglas stinking fish.

Under the Boeing Red Herring Fish Basket Called:

Boeing's troubles could be traced to McDonnell Douglas purchase

However or Whatever, that scenario remains to have some digestion before the day is out.

The claim here is that some bad bean counter in charge of engineering has caused a lot of gas over the Boeing programs. Stock-holders, bean counters and engineers should not be served together at a gathering when it tries for a revolutionary idea.  They should come up with a plea to the engineers to build something revolutionary and then back off to avoid any embarrassment, as that crowd does not mix well.  if you catch my drift.

"Aboulafia says, "After the merger, there was a real battle over the future of the company, between the engineers and the finance and sales guys." The nerds may have been running the show in Silicon Valley, but at Boeing they were increasingly marginalized by the bean counters." (from article link)

Bad Burrito in the break room.

So is the battery, that problem of cost savings mixing with unlimited thinking during a revolution?  If so,

then Allan Mullally should comeback from Ford and run the engineers, enabling bean counters more time at Pikes Place Market  for buying some more Red Herring at the market.

If that can't be done then someone must swallow a Poison Pill to get over the discomfort.

Enough of my accounting/finance class days and more on to the D Mille Epic movie chapter II:

"Entitled So Little Money Spent On So Much Battery":  More Movie credits are coming just waiting for tomorrows headlines.

Chapter 3: "So Much Money Spent On So Little Results"

This chapter is dedicated to those who could not make up their collective minds in the Boeing Beanery.

It wasn't the battery after all   Sung to the tune tune of "Its A Small World After All"

"Tokyo, Japan --

The joint U.S. and Japanese investigation into the Boeing 787's battery problems has moved from the battery-maker to the manufacturer of a monitoring system.

Transport ministry official Shigeru Takano says the probe into battery-maker GS Yuasa was over for now as no evidence was found it was the source of the problem.

Ministry officials said they are inspecting Kanto Aircraft Instrument Co. later in the day as part of the ongoing investigation.

It makes a system that monitors voltage, charging and temperature of the lithium-ion batteries.

All Boeing 787s are grounded after one of the jets made an emergency landing in Japan earlier this month when its main battery overheated.

Earlier a battery in another 787 caught fire while parked at Boston's Logan International Airport."

"A Very reliable Source Says This: "

Tokyo eased safety standards ahead of Boeing 787's fast-tracked rollout ( China Post)

"Its A Small World After All"

"TOKYO -- Japan's government stepped in to give Boeing Co.'s now-grounded 787 Dreamliner and its made-in-Japan technology a boost in 2008 by easing safety regulations, fast-tracking the rollout of the groundbreaking jet for Japan's biggest airlines, according to records and participants in the process.
The concessions by an advisory panel to Japan's transport ministry reflected pressure from All Nippon Airways (ANA) and Japan Airlines (JAL) and a push to support Japanese firms that supply 35 percent of the 787 from the carbon-fiber in its wings to sophisticated electrical systems and batteries used to save fuel, people involved in the deliberations told Reuters."

This is a Smattering Simple Sample of today's news putting it to a Parodic Episode of The 787 Saga called Chapter 4: "Writers Have To Write"

Boeing Fans (I'm one)  Cheers

How Lithium-ion Batteries Work or Not

How Lithium-ion Batteries Work

The ever popular Lithium-ion battery has made its entrance as an upscale debutante for the 787 Ball, and she has fallen down the stairs, before the end of the first dance with her dress on fire. So goes the 787 Ball.

The Lithium-Ion Battery Inverted Pyramidal Blue Print 

The US Congress asks how could the FAA  pass this dangerous battery?

The FAA Who Signed off is now looking for help from Boeing.

Customers just say I bought it and are assured of a fix.

The banker lends the capital for the project, Okay?

Stock-holders are moving money to and fro!

Manufacturer Says Oh My Grape-nuts!

Boeing's electrical  head  jolt  fails:(

Somebody forgot the battery :)

No problem

Next!

The before and after picture for your viewing astonishment

After studying this picture for hours of detailed analysis. I have concluded that the battery on the left in the photo got hotter than the battery on the right.  Now for the Wikipedia analysis in detail so people who want to know why the  US Congress said, "you signed off on this!"

"How Stuff Works: detailed study"

"Lithium-ion batteries are incredibly popular these days. You can find them in laptops, PDAs, cell phones and iPods. They're so common because, pound for pound, they're some of the most energetic rechargeable batteries available.

Lithium-ion batteries have also been in the news lately. That’s because these batteries have the ability to burst into flames occasionally. It's not very common -- just two or three battery packs per million have a problem -- but when it happens, it's extreme. In some situations, the failure rate can rise, and when that happens you end up with a worldwide battery recall that can cost manufacturers millions of dollars.

So the question is, what makes these batteries so energetic and so popular? How do they burst into flame? And is there anything you can do to prevent the problem or help your batteries last longer? In this article, we'll answer these questions and more.

Lithium-ion batteries are popular because they have a number of important advantages over competing technologies:

• They're generally much lighter than other types of rechargeable batteries of the same size. The electrodes of a lithium-ion battery are made of lightweight lithium and carbon. Lithium is also a highly reactive element, meaning that a lot of energy can be stored in its atomic bonds. This translates into a very highenergy density for lithium-ion batteries. Here is a way to get a perspective on the energy density. A typical lithium-ion battery can store 150 watt-hours of electricity in 1 kilogram of battery. A NiMH (nickel-metal hydride) battery pack can store perhaps 100 watt-hours per kilogram, although 60 to 70 watt-hours might be more typical. A lead-acid battery can store only 25 watt-hours per kilogram. Using lead-acid technology, it takes 6 kilograms to store the same amount of energy that a 1 kilogram lithium-ion battery can handle. That's a huge difference [Source: Everything2.com].
• They hold their charge. A lithium-ion battery pack loses only about 5 percent of its charge per month, compared to a 20 percent loss per month for NiMH batteries.
• They have no memory effect, which means that you do not have to completely discharge them before recharging, as with some other battery chemistries.
• Lithium-ion batteries can handle hundreds of charge/discharge cycles.

That is not to say that lithium-ion batteries are flawless. They have a few disadvantages as well:

• They start degrading as soon as they leave the factory. They will only last two or three years from the date of manufacture whether you use them or not.
• They are extremely sensitive to high temperatures. Heat causes lithium-ion battery packs to degrade much faster than they normally would.
• If you completely discharge a lithium-ion battery, it is ruined.
• A lithium-ion battery pack must have an on-board computer to manage the battery. This makes them even more expensive than they already are.
• There is a small chance that, if a lithium-ion battery pack fails, it will burst into flame.

Many of these characteristics can be understood by looking at the chemistry inside a lithium-ion cell. We'll look at this next. ­"

This is the same article the US Congressional committee read, before asking the FAA, if they signed off on this?! "The small chance of it happening", has happened multiple times in a short space of time.  Something was badly mis-calculated. 

Blogger Q&A

Is it fixable? Yes, and possibly is the answer. 

But how soon? Don't know, but customers, FAA and Boeing are hoping right away for a change and a fix.  

How safe is the 787?  It is really safe (since it isn't flying)!

Whats the stock value of Hope and Change? My Pooka Stock Broker, Told Me   ( to put all my money on Disney, its the best fantasy stock on the market, shh). I have no idea what the value of hope and change is on today's market.

What does this all mean for Boeing? Everybody on the top floor gets toupees for next year and the women get hair coloring to hide the grey.

The Boeing Fix, That It Is In, Is In A Boeing (Update) Fix

The press has started to think out loud, "what Boeing should do with its 787 dilemma"?  This is the aircraft that continues to have faults in an accelerating pace, like a crumbling house of cards. There are two schools of thought now in play. First, from Boeing, is now defining this crises with total confidence. The second line of thought, are found in the pictures and reports from the press of smoke, fire and faults. The customers are left to choose between the two worlds, mean while the oversight and safety people shut down the 787 operations until an answer is found.  The Washington Herald  weighs in with an article on what posture Boeing is taking to mitigate the current failures found in the program.

There are three conditions I see occurring:

• One, Plausible Confidence in the Aircraft, (The Boeing Stand).
• Two, The Elimination of Good Intent, By Identifying and problem solving (The FAA Stand).
• Three, report everything that happens, whether it is germane or not causing a lack of confidence (The Newspaper Stand).

Update Boeing confident it will soon fix 787 Dreamliner problems 

The Guardian:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dominic-rushe

Boeing Update Fixes The 787 Problem:   This just out on 1-22-2013

"Boeing has told Norwegian Air Shuttle, a budget carrier, to expect its first 787 Dreamliner in April in line with the latest delivery schedule, chief executive Bjorn Kjos told Reuters. "They will definitely fix the battery problems long before then," he said. "They say it is going to be fixed soon; they have a plan. They say it will be delivered according to the schedule," he told reporters at the Airline Economics conference in Dublin."

Boeing's high standard bearer is to continue waving its flag with total confidence for this aircraft. The 787 is a metaphor, representing the survival of the Boeing Corporation as we now see it today. As it is an extension of the Corporation Heart.  They must make this aircraft work, and fly safely, as the 787 is the book mark for Boeing's follow-on aircraft  coming and the future of the company. The core technology found in the 787, the area which now experiencing electrical mishaps and failure is the life blood of that architecture, it also represents the core of the corporation.  Reflecting the stockholders pulse in capital for Boeing's drive.

However, that pulse from stockholders, is matched by the 787's all-electric system found on the Dreamliner.  The 787 electrical pulse has been short circuited by battery fires, control panel fires, and generator shut down or failures.  At this point, these failures represent the future of both the airplane and Boeing's future economic direction.  I don't believe, the 787 in its current condition, is going to change that direction towards failure.  A solution will come out of all this. This will bring me to my second point.

The FAA is on the spot too, it has signed off on an aircraft that never showed these types of problems, during its development years, or first year of service.  One big question that needs an answer is what "Changed", since the two years of testing, and one additional year of service?  The second part is co-shared with Boeing with a two part Q&A.  

"The Not So Fast My Friends FAA Directive"

1.  Does your specifications protect the aircraft and can it be brought up-to-date if is not protecting the 787 safety?  

2.  Can suppliers maintain absolute control over the parts that protect the electrical integrity of its systems and parts?  

Those types of questions cannot be answered until quantified information is gathered about the electrical problems under real world conditions.

Real world conditions are how production copies are made when compared to test copies that evolve out of that world.  Production copies are "massed" produced, while test copies may receive extraordinary attention, and detail with supportive testing and validation, before each part is shipped.  Hence more questions:

• Does the production article have that same Quality control and final assurance of the test article before it is shipped?  

• Does that part receive a Boeing internal review before it is installed on the Aircraft?  

This sounds like over-kill on safety, but the alternative is extinction for Boeing.  I am not talking about nuts and bolts, I am talking about those systems and parts that directly keep the 787 flying safe and are shielded from catastrophic issues such as fires and system failures, or compromised structures necessary to flying.  Most of those areas are covered already, so the focus is where the smoke came from in the first place.

The third point is about how the observer gets its information (press), and then turning around offering a sound opinion to a person's listeners.  It is unfortunate that fans and researchers depend on contaminated sources such as the press.  They report on anything and everything associated with a Company, and then report on the airplane, and then anything in that airplane as if increasing the hyperbole and stories will sell more copy and gain a following.  Watch the press report all kinds of quotes, analyze all kinds of pictures, and seek all kinds of uncovered tidbits.  I want to discuss from logical points of view of What Boeing may do, Where Boeing may go and when they may do it.

The press weigh-in by pointing fingers at the FAA and Others

Larsen, Cantwell don’t question FAA grounding of Boeing 787

So the "What", as in what-in the-flying- flock is going on?  Should be reflected in its press releases.  They should come out in real world-realities, and get out of theory mode of everything is fine and we have confidence.  They should publicize the partnership with the FAA, because it’s important, and that will get the 787 flying again. The FAA completes Boeing.  So does Boeing's customers complete them?  Yes we know about that perfection, effort, and innovation that went into the 787. What is lost is confidence and actual assurance of what is lost and then what is found, "as in having indisputable evidence to fix the problem(s), and now we can fly the 787 in safest possible way".  Boeing is really thankful for the help and assistance from the FAA in discovering how to correct any unforeseen issues in this fantastic aircraft (marketing gets to kick in here). The "What factor" is found and corrected.  The Congress is now wondering where that lithium-ion battery came from and who's idea was it anyways? The FAA is on the spot as well as Boeing.

The "Where Factor", is the 200 million dollar question???  Where is the cause of these problems?  If I knew I would tell, and so would the press tell, but what we are stuck with is, "The Corporate Press Releases", of bullet number one about how fine the 787 is and how confident is Boeing about the future. Also we are stuck with bullet number two awaiting the FAA. Now "Where" is on the horizon, not even on final approach until some quantified discoveries are reveled.  Meanwhile at back the flight-line the 787 sits.  The "where" could be in one spot, the battery, or a combinations of spots that leads to an all too frequent "The Perfect Electrical Storm II " sequel!  This is where we find the lurking public now, having to read, those "we made you look" headlines that lead everyone to nowhere.  My next feature will be back on track talking about "what’s-up-with-that" in aviation.

The March 20th, The 60 Day Self Imposed Deadline, For The Fix and Fly

"The When" is now until the next 60 57 days?  Boeing will start flying the 787 within sixty  fifty-seven days.  All hands are on deck with Boeing and its suppliers.  Money and time make a bad partner when the clock starts losing money. Suppliers have been served and Boeing engineering is reallocating to deal with this problem, not just over the week-end, but in a 24/7 manner.  Buy stock in Starbucks until this problem is solved. Next year’s Christmas bonuses are being earned at this time.

The press will report how the battery maker in Japan had an in-line production fault.  The people who knew how to put the battery together was on vacation and the replacement crew, who said they knew, hadn't put one together in a while. Where they used old procedures, and did not employ the new procedures, therefore caused the battery to have inherent faults resulting in fire.  That's my report before the findings come out from FAA.