The long and storied saga of the 787's brake control monitoring system (BCMS) software has taken another strange turn with Boeing and supplier Crane Co. in a public spat over responsibility for the cost of the redesign of the software.
The redesign of the BCMS is the result of the relocation of a remote data concentrator (RDC) at the axles of the 787's main landing gear, says Boeing. The relocation is necessary due to higher than expected temperatures in the brakes due to inadequate thermal protection of the RDCs, as well as the differences in thermal conductivity of composite material holding heat in the wheel well, supplier sources explain.
As a result, Boeing has recommended that airlines operating early production 787s use fans at the gate following high energy landings to dissipate the heat if a faster turnaround time is desired.
Another option available is leaving the gear down after takeoff to cool the brakes, however Boeing says they have not made that recommendation to airlines. Boeing was seen cooling ZA001's brakes with fans during the taxi testing on July 7.
Remote data concentrators (RDCs) are used to flow digital and analog data from remote sensors into the 787's Common Core System and replace traditional, dedicated signal wiring, saving weight and allowing increased operator flexibility.
Crane Co. says they are happy to make the change for future production aircraft (the first flight version has already been delivered) but Crane believes that Boeing should pay for the revision because the changes in the requirements are at the airplane level rather than the software level.
The strange episode may appear insignificant to the looming obstacle of actually getting the 787 to fly, but it situation illustrates a key challenge across the entire program that Boeing has had to regain control of its supply chain.
As the full extent of the chaos of the program became apparent in 2007, Boeing moved to reassert its control over the design process of the aircraft after many parts required modification because of changing requirements and inadequate designs that rippled across the integrated systems and structure of the aircraft.
Complicating matters further, many suppliers outsourced the design to outside engineering firms pushing control and oversight farther away from Boeing making changes that much more difficult. The situation ultimately underscores where supply chain management and ongoing engineering changes have intersected to disrupt the program.
In an effort to clean up the situation, Boeing has been perpetually working with suppliers to incorporate design changes back into the supply chain to reduce the workload in Everett. The result of these changes not being added before delivery to Everett has created what we know as traveled work.
Yet, as the delays have stretched longer than two years for the program, 787 suppliers like Crane Co. are getting restless with the growing cost of the redesigns and has only served to add further uncertainty to the financial position of the program at large.
Dow Jones quoted Crane Co. CEOEric Fast as saying spending "clearly far exceeds anything
that we originally contemplated...and I can say that, universally among the
supply-chain community for this airplane, we are not alone and unfortunately [are] exceeding our original targets."
Crane is only the most visible example of this issue, with sources across the 787 supply chain saying that negotiations about timing (and cost) of incorporation, though normal for a new aircraft program, have magnified the challenge of managing both the financial cost and sheer size of the global supply chain.
The redesign of the BCMS is the result of the relocation of a remote data concentrator (RDC) at the axles of the 787's main landing gear, says Boeing. The relocation is necessary due to higher than expected temperatures in the brakes due to inadequate thermal protection of the RDCs, as well as the differences in thermal conductivity of composite material holding heat in the wheel well, supplier sources explain.
As a result, Boeing has recommended that airlines operating early production 787s use fans at the gate following high energy landings to dissipate the heat if a faster turnaround time is desired.
Another option available is leaving the gear down after takeoff to cool the brakes, however Boeing says they have not made that recommendation to airlines. Boeing was seen cooling ZA001's brakes with fans during the taxi testing on July 7.
Remote data concentrators (RDCs) are used to flow digital and analog data from remote sensors into the 787's Common Core System and replace traditional, dedicated signal wiring, saving weight and allowing increased operator flexibility.
Crane Co. says they are happy to make the change for future production aircraft (the first flight version has already been delivered) but Crane believes that Boeing should pay for the revision because the changes in the requirements are at the airplane level rather than the software level.
The strange episode may appear insignificant to the looming obstacle of actually getting the 787 to fly, but it situation illustrates a key challenge across the entire program that Boeing has had to regain control of its supply chain.
As the full extent of the chaos of the program became apparent in 2007, Boeing moved to reassert its control over the design process of the aircraft after many parts required modification because of changing requirements and inadequate designs that rippled across the integrated systems and structure of the aircraft.
Complicating matters further, many suppliers outsourced the design to outside engineering firms pushing control and oversight farther away from Boeing making changes that much more difficult. The situation ultimately underscores where supply chain management and ongoing engineering changes have intersected to disrupt the program.
In an effort to clean up the situation, Boeing has been perpetually working with suppliers to incorporate design changes back into the supply chain to reduce the workload in Everett. The result of these changes not being added before delivery to Everett has created what we know as traveled work.
Yet, as the delays have stretched longer than two years for the program, 787 suppliers like Crane Co. are getting restless with the growing cost of the redesigns and has only served to add further uncertainty to the financial position of the program at large.
Dow Jones quoted Crane Co. CEO
Crane is only the most visible example of this issue, with sources across the 787 supply chain saying that negotiations about timing (and cost) of incorporation, though normal for a new aircraft program, have magnified the challenge of managing both the financial cost and sheer size of the global supply chain.
on July 29, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply
Is the 787 equipped with brake fans or is Boeing recommending that operators utilize external fans as they have done in testing?
If Boeing is recommending the use of internal brake fans I would say this is not a big deal. If, however, they are advising airlines to set up external fans, on already very crowded and busy jetway ramps, I think the airlines should demand Boeing pay for and man these fans.
on July 29, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply
When is Boeing going to buy Crane Aerospace and then Alenia Aeronautica?
http://verovenia.wordpress.com
on July 29, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply
The problem is not overheating of the brakes, but heat-soaking of the place where some genius put the RDCs in...
on July 29, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply
Jon,I disagree with your statement. The airlines should have to man the fans because they are the gullible ones who ordered an unproven and untested airplane. As P.T. Barnum famously said,“There's a sucker born every minute!”
on July 29, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply
Airlines order an unproven, untested airliner every time they order a new model.
Besides the delivery date slipping into obscurity I wonder what other performance guarantees may be breeched.
Boeing will get buffeted in the market pretty badly if flight testing reveals any unknown unknowns that take large amounts of money and time to correct.
on July 29, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply
While it is true that the 787 is an unproven and untested airplane, so are all the other new airplane designs from the Boeing 247 through the Airbus A380. Airlines have to take a calculated risk on new technology otherwise the airframe companies won't bother to produce new aircraft.
on July 29, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply
If the brakes are that hot, you would not want a fuel leak on the ramp!
on July 29, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply
How did Boeing manage to screw this up badly? The question is, in spectrum of monumental screw ups civil aviation, how does this "the big airplane that couldn't" rank?
on July 29, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply
I ask this question to anyone that may have enough technical knowledge to answer it:
Would the heat from the brakes have any long-term or short-term ill effects on the carbon fiber material or bonding agents if the gear is stowed "too hot"?
(Please keep in mind, I ask this question as someone who is a frequent visitor to this site but has no technical knowledge of the properties, capabilities or weaknesses of carbon fiber, or just how much of it would be near the landing gear bay. If the question is stupid, feel free to say so! haha.)
-Rick
on July 30, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply
Hopefully (for all of us) Airbus will show with A350 that they have learned something from 380 and 787 to restore some of the credibility of the aircraft industry.
Right now, it is hard to be proud to be part of this industry.
(I would bet some money, that the A350 ramp up will not be as steep as planned… hopefully I will be proven wrong.)
Love those planes…
on July 30, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply
Boeing, under Phil Condit and Harry Stonecipher, developed a bad attitude towards their employees. The various labor unions, including SPEEA, didn't help matters along. The result is that Boeing believed that the brochure polished capabilities of their suppliers were better and more reliable than their own troublesome employees. That proved to be false. The lesson to be learned here is that nobody wins when everybody looks out for themselves and nobody works together. Boeing should come up with a motto like "Working Together" or something and strive to live up to it.
on July 30, 2009 5:56 AM | Reply
It's not Boeing anymore. It's McDonnell.
on July 30, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply
So why would leaving the gear down longer after take-off be benificial when you typically don't use brakes when taking off?
Seems like the extreme temperatures would come from braking during landing, not taxing around?
on July 30, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply
I guess that is why you are a "Wannabe Engineer" :) Joking, of course... In a quick turnaround situation, in lieu of cooling the brakes on the ground with fans, you can still depart provided you leave the gear down after the subsequent takeoff for a specified period of time. Generally when times for cooling are published, they include a time to cool on the ground and an equivalent cooling time with the gear down in the air - usually on the order of a few minutes.
Hope this helps!
on July 30, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply
What is most interesting is why this discussion between Crane and Boeing is a matter for the public.
There will always be issues in the begnning phase of production and this is an example. But it is reported as if it is the equivalent of a huge problem that will be added on to the wing fix problem.
All these technical issues will be worked out...when and what time and at what cost is undetermined, but evebtually the plane will fly successfully and everyone will look back with appreciation for the obstacles overcome.
So many messages on this Board point out everything as if it is a disaster.
on July 30, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply
So what happens in the case where you don't cool your breaks on the ground in a quick turn around situation and then have to make an emergency break when going down the runway at full throttle?
I would think it would take quite a bit of time to unload and reload a 787 along with all the other ground stuff that has to be done to give ample enough time to cool brakes off.
on July 30, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply
If the retracted landing gear sit underneath the fuel tanks like in every other large commercial aircraft I would think the heat concerns center around preventing another TWA800
on July 30, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply
Besides, I'm not sure how composite structure holds up under heat strain
on July 31, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply
Not 100% certain about this but I think it has to do with the temperatures that the landing gear bay can handle. If it is too hot, the tires could catch fire and then there are real problems. I believe, though it could for some strange reason be different for electric brakes, it is not an issue of them being able to function.
on July 31, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply
But of course Jerry1t, different people have a different viewpoint on things. Messrs. Mcnerney and Carson, like you, believe that all is quite hunky dory with the 787 and that it is a very successful program. Even if it does not start making money until the 600th aircraft delivered. Others would call 5 delays totalling over 2 years BEFORE the aircraft has even taken to the sky an unparallelled disaster. Okay an "incident" on first flight would top that, but only the real Boeing rah rah cheerleaders would find the situation less then bad right now.
on July 31, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply
One thing that was not mentioned are the disadvantages of leaving the gear down longer. The first big one is drag, which leads to extra fuel burn. That would kind of further complicate that long range issue the 787 might have. T
he other is that the aircraft has to fly slower so that it does not rip the landing gear off. I do not know how big an issue that is but I remember always forgetting to raise my flaps and gear after takeoff and my flight simulator game alwys gleefully informed me that I no longer had flaps nor landing gear! =:-)
on July 31, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply
Doesn't sound like a real problem with the brakes themselves, except they run a little hotter. It appears the electronics don't have enough heat resistance where they are supposed to be located. Need to be moved to a cooler area, or better heatsink capability, or both.
I'd say that both parties need to go 50/50 on this, as Boeing should have picked a better place for the electronics, and the supplier should have made their electronics more robust.
Don't know why this is even in the public (these changes/arguments are common, esp with new airplane designs), except the Boeing Bashers are always looking for anything these days, and using the internet to vent their spleens.
on July 31, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply
What iceberg? II understand your response. You are possibly correct but I am simply raising the question as to whether these issues are as catastrophic as many on this page report. I do not know and am not trying to be polyannish but realistic.
Yes, there have been delays and disappointments, but I do read blogs and comments by persons who seem to e knowlegeable who indicate that an effort of this kind will inevitably have challenges and all is not lost.
I do not know enough about the brake problem but is it the show stopper that is reported or a correctable situation.
Will the wing fix be announced soon or are two "unidentifiiable engineers" really the source of accuracy.
Boeing and its Board of Directors are not unaware of the problems and issues. They will do everything that is necessary to make this a success. I reject the estimate of 600 planes as breakeven..it is borrowed from the criticism of the Airbus 380 and used as a Boeing bashing criticism.
neither of us will know these answers for some time,but I too, in my disappointment , still hope that there is too much cynicism expressed here and things are brighter than reported by armchair CEO's.
on July 31, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply
"The result is that Boeing believed that the brochure polished capabilities of their suppliers were better and more reliable than their own troublesome employees"
When all else fails, blame the employee- that excuse sickens me.
That same philosophy is used by abusive parents- not a former world class company of generational airplane builders.
Stick to the facts and not the spin.
57 days do not equal 2+ years of delay.
on July 31, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply
It looks like Crane already got major changes pushed
at them by Boeing on various occasions.
From Cranes viewpoint a goodly amount of these
are deemed gratuitious and/or lacking premeditation.
Crane does not see further expenditure as "risk sharing".
And this is not a new feeling on Crane's side at all.
The data concentrator boxes seem to find wide use
in a lot of places across the plane.
Being too cheap to spec out the data concentrators for
possible heat soak on the boogies ( that being the main
difference to all other places of use ) is at least a
pronounced lack of planning. And noticing that two years
past the planned date of first flight is just the cherry
on top.
to cite Powell: you break, you own it. ;-)
uwe
on July 31, 2009 3:31 AM | Reply
The heat soak will push the ( new, weightsaving, used
everywhere on the ship ) data concentrators on the
boogies well beyond their working spec ( not clear if
the storing spec is exceeded as well ).
This makes the data collected from that gear leg unusable,
which is a complete NoNo. The thermal stress may kill the
hardware in an unacceptable short timeframe too.
The basic excess thermal energy management should not be
different to other airliners, thus wheelwell heating or
similar things are not at issue here.
uwe
on July 31, 2009 4:59 AM | Reply
Is the real issue not a case of a supplier saying "enough is enough". Say if you contracted with Boeing to supply a part with the expectation that you will be paid once the plane flies and is sold. If the plane does not fly for reasons not of your making and on top of that you are asked to spend more - that sure is an untenable situation. What is at stake for Boeing is a major crisis- if Crane opens a door for the rest of the suppliers to walk through and also starts saying "enough is enough".
What I cannot understand though - if the 787 is a long range point to point cruiser, when would it ever get into a "quick turnaround" mission?
on July 31, 2009 6:00 AM | Reply
This is not really a new issue but i am amazed it has not been resolved until now. The simple facts as far as i am aware is that crane designed the part to Boeing specifications, if they believed it should have been higher specs i am sure they have documented proof they informed Boeing of this. It also appears Boeing did not realise the extra heat being insulated by the composites instead of transferred and dissipated by the metal used in other airframes.
Layman: The 787 especially -8 model will be used by a lot of airlines in a short flights, eg my home carrier Qantas who plan to use it to replace some 767's on MEL-SYD which is about 440mi
Does that qualify as a short flight ? or are they thinking even shorter ?
on July 31, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply
Thank you again Uwe for a clarification of the issues at hand.. It is hard to believe that Boeing has not been able to resolve the differences during this period .
We do not know the costs or requirements or subsidiary issues, but now that this is out on the table, I assume that a resolution will eventually be worked out.
Layman ( above) raises the point that other suppliers may also become impatient but I hope that list is short ( maybe only Crane) and these problems will be overcome when first flight occurs and production begins to ramp up.
Again, I am just trying to raise the question of proportionality or scope of these problems and whether they are solveable over time or represent expensive obstacles in terms of time and costs.
It is not that these dfficulties do not exist...it is whether they are disproportionately exxagerated on this site for personal agendas. We all have our views and preferences...but are trying to get a grasp on the reality of the situation. Uwe certainly expanded the complexities of the Crane issue. My hope ( and preference) is that there are solutions that can reconcile these differences.
on July 31, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply
Is it solvable?
I really don't know.
Crane could well be the tip of the iceberg.
My guess is that most "partners" are hopping
mad at Boeing.
Boeing project management has been abysmal,
The number of design/interface descriptions
that were not changed on a regular basis
seem to be few in between.
Boeing seemingly tried to leverage some
(necessary) informational IP for generating
additional income from the partners.
Boeing and everybody else in B's vicinity
dumped on them for allegedly being third world
imbeciles unable to draft a straigt line
and drill a round hole.
Hindsight lends itself to reversing this view.
Too late.
My guess is that the partners are bound by contract
in such a way that any Boeing shortcomings can not
be leveraged into compensation ( Bend over, hold still )
When the partners renege Boeing will cancel the
Dreamliner and put all blame on the underperforming
partners which will be applauded in local media
and by the US population.
But it will not save Boeing in the long run.
I see similar problems lingering on the horizon
here in Europe as well.
Think of us as Rome and Byzantium.
uwe
on July 31, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply
Boeing managers have been trained, or beaten into them, to place blame somewhere else. They should be like Japan, get it fixed, and discuss it later. Having worked for Boeing for over 25 years, I got sick of waiting to get things done. Manangers argue and days go by and people switched. It should be whomever is the best to correct it, do it and negotiate later. Not in Boeing's vocabulary.
on August 1, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply
Hyperbole seems to be the Modus Operondi of the comments on this blog. The Crane issue is just that, only and issue. It is a spat between contractor and subcontractor on weather a change to the software is to be considered within the scope of expected but undefined changes to a new product. In the aerospace business this is normally covered in a condition which says disputes will be settled by arbitration but under no circumstances will the work stop.
on August 1, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply
Jon, Your headline says Boeing and Crane are deadlocked on the BMCS. I have 2 questions, 1) Who is Crane's contract with, is it Boeing or GE Aviation? 2)If their contract is with GE Aviation wouldn't their "deadlock" be with GE Aviation especially since they provided the RDC which is the cause of the problem? The CNN article says Crane has had no progress with GE.....not Boeing. Quite frankly this is a contractual problem to be settled by arbitration, not an engineering, show-stopper. And personally I would put my money on GE's position. Your article is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
UWE, I don't know if you are a shill for Airbag or just a person with a little engineering knowledge, no factual knowledge and therefore dangerous. First of all you make accusations and suppositions in your three rants that are completely unfounded in fact. You know nothing about the procurement specification that Boeing let or who is responsible for the design and operation of the 787 electric break system. You might start by reading the CNN news article dated July 30, 2009. I doubt that it will change your mind about Boeing and building airplanes but it will help you, maybe.
on August 1, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply
I think the internet allows people who know very little about what they talk about voice their opinions in a very public forum, something we've not had in the past. Thus, every little glitch gets blown up far out of proportion to it's importance, and makes things appear far more serious then they ever have been in the past.
Even with the 787 wing screw up, airplanes of the past have had problems of the same scale, and they were never beat to death as they are now on the internet by people anxious to berate Boeing for their own reasons. These things are not new, folks.
What is new, however, is the stupid and misguided schedule Boeing Corporate unwittingly set for the entire program, with it's new assembly paradigm. It's not the airplane's fault, it's theirs, and if it weren't for that, the program wouldn't look that bad. With the analysis and testing to be done to qualify the airplane for certification, I have no qualms about the structural integrity of the airplane.
on August 2, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply
To airplanejim on August 1, 2009 6:56 PM
and bruce on August 1, 2009 11:35 PM
So, you both are not happy with my interpretation?
Could you then kindly project this unhappyness into
constructive criticism in leu of turning to
(offensive) naming games and personal insult?
Now, do you think that I have my facts wrong ?
Or is it the interpretation you find fault with ?
uwe
on August 2, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply
UWE, My constructive criticism is as I said you are making accusations and suppositions unfounded in fact. Some examples are as follows:
1)"It looks like Crane already got major changes pushed at them by Boeing on various occasions."
2)"The heat soak will push the....data concentrators on the boogies well beyond their working spec."
3)"Boeing project management has been abysmal,
The number of design/interface descriptions
that were not changed on a regular basis
seem to be few in between."
4)"Boeing seemingly tried to leverage some
(necessary) informational IP for generating
additional income from the partners."
In answer: 1)Where does Boeing push major changes on Crane? GE has the spec. responsibility. The RDC was provided by GE and was qualified. The RDC operating environment spec would be set by GE not Boeing. I highly doubt that Crane code change would be considered major.
2)How do you know that? The RDC was qualified.
3)and 4) Where do you get the facts to make those assertions? And how does Boeing get income from a supplier? All the suppliers use a common data base for their common cad/cam system that is updated nightly.
on August 3, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply
For those of us who are not engineers and can be easily influenced by material we do not understand, the above comment by Bruce is a overall viewpoint that has logic and sense to it. It is also reassuring.
The dialogue between Uwe and airplanejim is very interesting because it ponts out the confusion that can be generated by those who appear to be knowledgeable and those who genuinely are. At least there is a dislogue which we readers can weigh and try to decide which is the truth.
At times these comments are very informative, confusing and at times
misguided.
I always find it most constructive when there is a constructive dialogue between the writers or, at best, when Jon reads them all and sorts through the main thread and tries to address it with more clarity.
That is very helpful.
on August 3, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply
Bruce. I would agree with you is this was just internet discussion. But here you have a supplier making discrediting statements to CNN. This is well unprecedented.
Crane and boeing are in the same ship. They both need to sell, build and deliver aircraft (preferably as many as possible). Rocking the boat is not in Crane's best interest. Especialy about a subject like this. It might be about money, but what will stick in the publics brains is that there is something wrong with the brakes.
This might be a case of an exec talking to the wrong guy in a hotel bar, but the fact that neither Crane nor Boeing is pushing for a rectification or other forms of damage control, is telling.
on August 4, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply
Crane not being happy with the state of the software
and connected moneyflow started a couple of month ago.
( public dispute starting in Feb. 2009 or earlier:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/20/322848/added-787-development-work-creates-cost-dispute.html )
Under the assumption that this then is not wisdom
found at the bottom of a drink what could create
pressure to go public on this?
uwe
busy writing an answer for airplanejim, takes time.