Dreamliner Causes Nightmares for Boeing and Passengers

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

I went to college with the daughter of an aircraft engineer, company name withheld. She reported that he said (partially in jest) that planes are held together with chewing gum and baling wire.

Fifty years later, the industry has progressed immeasurably. Now ultra-jumbos carry 300-500 passengers who can telecommute inflight, watch first-run movies from seat-mounted consoles, nap supine a la Nash Rambler and other non-travel-related activities.

But my simple mind can't figure out the advantage (to the passenger) of cramming 300 people onto one plane, especially since, to make the plane lighter and therefore more fuel-efficient, many airplane parts are fabricated from plastic.

I don't know if this has anything to do with problems experienced recently by the Boeing part-plastic 787 Dreamliner. Probably not. Boeing quickly made noises about the Dreamliner's safety until planes were grounded worldwide and stock tumbled. All the bells and whistles were chiming and whistling just fine. The plastic still gleamed like metal. The lithium batteries, however, posed a fire risk.

Repeat: Blame the batteries. Batteries aren't new. Every car has one. Every aircraft has many. You'd think the engineers would have got it right by now.

This raises the question: What was wrong with older, sturdier aircraft that delivered us to our destinations just fine? The kind held together with chewing gum and baling wire. Most with padded seats, decent leg room, free checked bags. The kind owned by airlines staffed by people-oriented employees.

I'm a fairly frequent flier - almost all on rusty, bumpy, noisy, geriatric regional carriers piloted by (very) young men and women trying to rack up enough hours to fly Dreamliners, not one of which, I'll wager, could have landed that US Airways plane in the Hudson River.

That's because military-trained pilots are scarcer than trim young flight attendants. Obviously, I'm for equal opportunity (gender and age) employment, but the attendant on my last flight had AARP tattooed on one arm, The Biggest Loser on the other. She was quite capable of pouring Coke. But taking charge of an emergency evacuation?

Back to plastic planes with cubbies surrounding each seat, desktop and computer screen included, aimed at businessmen still traveling on company bucks, which are scarcer than polite gate agents. I ponder to whom the airlines pander. One TV ad for Korea Air features long-legged women too beautiful even for those other runways.

Cars present a similar conundrum. Sure, many promote good mileage, but just as many others seduce buyers with perks totally unrelated to a safe arrival. What difference does it make if an NFL quarterback stuck in traffic can order a pizza by pushing a button on the dashboard? Now, if that button could inflate a flat tire -- different story.

Of course, some safety features like the back-up sensor do make prime time. How I wish the van that knocked me over as it backed out of a parking space had been equipped with one. Trucks are required. Why is it installed only on high-priced models, or as an extra?

Forgive my digression. The Dreamliner lists for about $207 million. It cost billions to develop. Yet in their rush to field the world's most glamorous big bird, designers failed to notice the pea under the mattress.

Just another example of getting everything we want, all the time, simply because it is possible. As I recall, the economy was in a lot better shape without a smartphone in every pocket and 60 apps on every smartphone.

Not that progress is bad. Progress is fantastic. But airplanes shouldn't be like Chinese buffets - a little of everything for everybody.

I'd be more comfortable if the industry put their money where the safety is: better chewing gum, better baling wire and better batteries.

Contact Deborah Salomon at debsalomon@nc.rr.com.

More like this story

JimHeim 3 months, 3 weeks ago

The editor should be embarrassed at having assigned this topic to a columnist with no clue about aircraft design or engineering in general.

All batteries are not equal; alkaline is not lead-acid is not Ni-Cad is not NiMH is not Li-On. My car is full of Ni-MH batteries and is in no danger of catching fire. Boeing engineers thought they could save weight (an important goal) using Lithium-Ion batteries found in laptops for their ability to produce more energy for their weight than other technologies. Turns out that they have temperature problems that the engineers may not have fully solved. Not a simple issue.

The use of plastics in airframes is nothing new. Plastic strength is well-known and well-documented. There is no reason to suspect that the use of plastics on the 787 had any bearing on the problems leading to the grounding.

If your seat is too narrow or you have too little legroom, don't blame Boeing; it's your airline. And if you want to question aeronautical engineers, you'd best bone up on the topic.

And if the author can provide evidence that civilian-trained pilots are in any way inferior at flying large aircraft than those with military experience, I would appreciate seeing it.

debsalomon 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Don't blame any editor. No assignment was made. This is an opinion piece, observations from a consumer with the general information offered to all consumers...that is, the people who pay big bucks for tickets. But something must be wrong, since ALL Dreamliners have been grounded until the problem is identified and under control. We were told "batteries," and shown photographs of "burned out" same. I do know from experience that the security/boarding process for an aircraft seating 300-500 takes a long, long time. That is a ground/personnel issue. But we poor dumb passengers have little say in means of travel. Make a fuss and you're identified as a trouble-maker, maybe put off the flight, which I've seen happen, too. The issue of pilots trained by the military, with thousands of hours of experience, was discussed after the USAirways miracle landing on the Hudson. Maybe any pilot with proper experience could do it. The thing is, a number of pilots flying regional airline routes aren't old enough to have gotten that experience, either military or commercial. That's OK by me. I am a calm, confident, experienced traveler. But it still disturbs me that something as simple as a battery, no matter what kind, might have caused a more serious mishap than smoke in the cabin.

JimHeim 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I don't know where you got the idea that Captain Sully did anything that all pilots aren't trained to do. From the first time we fly with an instructor, planning on what to do if the engine(s) fail is on the agenda. I've only experienced two engine failures (in a small plane) and was able to reach an airport in both. Sully was lucky that he had some survivable choices. That's seldom the case, especially at low altitude in congested areas.

You are correct that regional pilots have less experience than those who fly heavy iron. That's nothing new. Becoming an airline pilot requires thousands of hours of experience. But it makes no difference whether your 787 pilot got his hours flying regional jets or C-17s. By the time they are qualified to be ATPs, they are highly trained (and frequently tested) professionals.

Every component in an aircraft is vital or it wouldn't be there. Modern jets use a lot of computers and other electronics and the weight of batteries is a significant cost issue. Boeing thought the they could save 20% of that weight (no small detail) by using Lithium Ion batteries. I don't doubt that a lot of their engineers kicked up a fuss for fear that the technology isn't ready for safe use. It would appear that if so, they were right. Could it be that management overruled their objections? I guess we'll find out. But because it might be something as seemingly common as a battery doesn't make it trivial.

Dreamliners are not the first jets grounded for safety issues (remember the Comet?) nor will they be the last. The more complex the machine, the more likely some part will need attention. And it may yet turn out that this was a 'fluke' and grounding the entire fleet was an over reaction. Still, who wants to be the one who approved their return to flight if a burning battery brings down a plane with hundreds of passengers?

The bozos at TSA and the cheapskates in airline management aside, the people who build an maintain our air transport fleet are fanatical about safety. We should all be grateful for that.

BTW - if you want cause for concern, think about the recent airline practice of sending planes to Central America for maintenance by mechanics who may not even be able to read the service manuals. That's what gets my attention.

debsalomon 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Trained to do? Yes, I'm sure. Have the overall experience and judgement to accomplish? Hmmm. I wonder how battery weight compares to the fancy accoutrements in these flying cruise ships. Thank you for clearing up the details. Now I'm more apprehensive than ever...not that I'll have occasion to fly in a Dreamliner. However, I do recall some of these same thoughts the first time I flew in a 747. But they seem to have balanced sizzle and steak. Besides, who wants to arrive at the airport 3-4 hours before take-off just because that's how long it takes to process 400 passengers? As for deportment of some airline staff --- no excuse.