US investigators have failed to find the cause of recent 787 battery fires despite completing the main phase of their investigation. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will now move to a “microscopic” examination of chemicals and elements within the battery, which was produced by Japanese manufacturer GS Yuasa. Japanese investigators have similarly not found a cause for the second battery fire found onboard a JAL 787 on January 16. Japan’s transport ministry official, Shigeru Takano, said: “We have found no major quality or technical problem… We are looking into affiliated parts makers.” Meanwhile, the NTSB will focus on the electrical system that monitors the battery. The 787 Dreamliner will continue to be grounded as they do so.

I would not want to be the component manufacturers insurer.

Originally Posted by jrb

US investigators have failed to find the cause of recent 787 battery fires despite completing the main phase of their investigation. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will now move to a “microscopic” examination of chemicals and elements within the battery, which was produced by Japanese manufacturer GS Yuasa. Japanese investigators have similarly not found a cause for the second battery fire found onboard a JAL 787 on January 16. Japan’s transport ministry official, Shigeru Takano, said: “We have found no major quality or technical problem… We are looking into affiliated parts makers.” Meanwhile, the NTSB will focus on the electrical system that monitors the battery. The 787 Dreamliner will continue to be grounded as they do so.

Isn't that a joke, JRB???
US investigators have discovered there was a meltdown, and now gotta figger out why.
In Japan, there's apparently a buncha little quality control issues and shabby design and installation, but they are gonna look for a way to pass the buck to someone else???

IMO these people need to do a better, and quicker job, of proving they are worthy of their pay grade.

rc

Originally Posted by rusty case

IMO these people need to do a better, and quicker job, of proving they are worthy of their pay grade.

Have you ever performed a mishap investigation? Or a root cause analysis?

Yes, Dave, I have.
Did it for many years.
In the residential construction business.
I repaired the workmanship of many who pulled down a far bigger paycheck than myself.
and, I put up with the flak from the disgruntled homeowner as I repaired the various faulty systems.

and a residence is just as complicated as an aircraft.

I also worked as a mechanic, for many years repairing flaws in various machines.

So, it is indeed a wise question you have put to me.
IMO, it should have been put to those investigators.

I have not only done investigations of damage, but repaired the problems and the underlying defaults so problems did not occur again, AND presented all facts of the matter so I could justify my actions to get a paycheck from the client.

Best
rc

Originally Posted by rusty case

and a residence is just as complicated as an aircraft.

Uh, no.You are very much incorrect. A Commercial aircraft has many thousands of parts, involving many hundreds of complicated systems.

Your basic residence has maybe ten systems, at most. And only a few are considered critical. On a commercial aircraft, many systems are flight critical.

So for your house:

Structure.
Water
Electricity
Gas
Sewer
Heater
Stove. (And I'm being generous calling a stove a "system").
Air conditioning
Computer

What was asked, was if you had participated in any formal investigations to determine the causes of a mishap, say like a building collapsing. The result would have been something like a couple of hundred pages of analysis, involving stress factors, materials, workmanship etc, basically any and all factors that might have contributed to a mishap, and would have included recommendations as to how to prevent a further mishap.

Here's a typical example

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch4.htm

Well Tnx, madguy! I'm glad you're being generous today! :-)

No, I am NOT a certified A & P inspector.
I DID understand the original question presented.

IF I were one of those fellows I'd probably be looking for cover about now... :-)

and tnx for the shuttle report link... I'll read it!

IMO you might reconsider a comparison between aircraft and the fixed structures... perhaps after reviewing the various national and local codebooks and trade manual standards for construction???

You might be surprised.

:-)
rc

...but all .this. doesn't really belong here in the thread...

Originally Posted by rusty case

IMO you might reconsider a comparison between aircraft and the fixed structures... perhaps after reviewing the various national and local codebooks and trade manual standards for construction???

You might be surprised.

:-)
rc

The documentation involved in building a 747 weighs more than the aircraft itself. Millions of pages involved.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

The documentation involved in building a 747 weighs more than the aircraft itself. Millions of pages involved.

:-)

I would suspect you might be correct.
and a 787 could be even more!

I was once a Get r' Dun guy...
now I'm an armchair kommando....and at the salary they are pulling down, I'll bet I could have generated that level of paperwork... lol

Yet this brings up an interesting point...
The frequent claim of 'pilot error'.

As the captain of the ship, the pilot is responsible for everything about it when he takes the wheel... I might think he would have to know details about all the systems composing his craft. Especially with lives on the line.

....here in RC land, we KNOW LiPo batteries are treacherous...
(and, yes, apparently they were Lithium Ion bats in the 787)

A question might be, if one of us was the commander of a 787, would we fly it with that system aboard?

...I am a marginal small boat skipper.. I would NOT undertake the responsibility of a passenger aircraft !

rc

Originally Posted by rusty case

As the captain of the ship, the pilot is responsible for everything about it when he takes the wheel... I might think he would have to know details about all the systems composing his craft. Especially with lives on the line.

He does. My brother is a pilot for Southwest Airlines. Every 6 months he is tested on his knowledge of the airplanes that he flies. If he fails, then he is grounded, and subject to termination. He has to know all the details by heart, of a very thick binder on the 737, concerning procedures, and systems. In addition, he must pass the Simulator, where various realtime emergency situations are thrown at him without warning, and he must respond properly, or get downchecked.

Originally Posted by rusty case

:-)

I would suspect you might be correct.
and a 787 could be even more!

I was once a Get r' Dun guy...
now I'm an armchair kommando....and at the salary they are pulling down, I'll bet I could have generated that level of paperwork... lol

Yet this brings up an interesting point...
The frequent claim of 'pilot error'.

As the captain of the ship, the pilot is responsible for everything about it when he takes the wheel... I might think he would have to know details about all the systems composing his craft. Especially with lives on the line.

....here in RC land, we KNOW LiPo batteries are treacherous...
(and, yes, apparently they were Lithium Ion bats in the 787)

A question might be, if one of us was the commander of a 787, would we fly it with that system aboard?

...I am a marginal small boat skipper.. I would NOT undertake the responsibility of a passenger aircraft !

rc

The captain is not strictly liable. Liability is based on rational fault or lack of prudent airmanship, and none are expected to know or apply engineering principles. He or she can rightly rely on a certificate of airworthiness.

and there-in lies a problem I've pointed out, JS...

How can a pilot in command rely on that certificate when he is fully aware of labor disputes among the flight crews... disgruntled people, and stretched maintenance schedules....

such as the bird that went down off the california coast because an activator within the empenage had not been lubricated properly...

and that would be a relatively simple procedure upon one of the systems....

...round table discussions of news events is great!
another question... Should a member of the airline pilots association (union?) honor the maintenance workers union for reason of any possible suspected discrepancy???

???
rc

tis not mine to reason why, but to do and die....

If you have a beef, take it up with Congress or the judiciary because, "That's the way it is Mr. and Mrs. America."

In my simple view, to charge a pilot with going behind a certificate, when he or she is likely a layman in that field, is an absurdity.

Well, OK then...

I guess I'll

Return to Life, The Universe, and Politics

:-)
rc

Originally Posted by rusty case

How can a pilot in command rely on that certificate when he is fully aware of labor disputes among the flight crews... disgruntled people, and stretched maintenance schedules....

The "certificate" in question comes from the FAA and is not related to the issues you specify.