Blog
Boeing Dreamliner's travails yields lessons for most engineers
Bill Schweber
11/27/2010 11:58 AM EST
You've probably heard about the latest problems and delays with the much-heralded Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Already two years behind schedule, one of the test aircraft recently had a "modest" cabin fire. Note that is not just Boeing's latest aircraft which have had problems: the somewhat competitive, also extremely advanced Airbus A380 (which just entered service) also was several years late, and now has had some very serious engine problems.
The cabin fire, which had some electrical causes, is certainly scary, especially as it also caused the failure of some of the redundant control systems in the highly electronic airplane. Clearly, Boeing engineers and their subcontractors will investigate and make changes; in this case, according to a well-written story in The Wall Street Journal, the changes involve both circuitry and software, see here.
And that's what caught my attention. If "in space, no one can hear you scream" (refer to the tagline of the 1979 movie Alien for the details), then it is also true that "in aerospace, there are no 'small' changes", no quick-and-easy ECOs (engineering change orders). Any change—other than perhaps to non-critical items such as the color of the cabin—will require assessment, evaluation, verification, test, approval, and more. It's a very tough product-design environment, for all the well-known reasons. There is a severe ripple effect subsequent to any changes, and the law of unintended consequences is fully enforced.
I am not criticizing Boeing here, not at all; in fact, I admire their ambition, engineering prowess, and the risks they are taking on this project, with its extensive use of carbon-fiber composites; advanced electronics and mechanical design; use of a far-flung network of subcontractors; completely paperless design using advanced CAD, communication tools, and project management systems; and production tooling and techniques.
There's another lesson here for engineers, and more importantly, for those who depend on engineering success, whether for business or social-cause reasons. It is easy to forget that engineering progress in research, product development, production, and proper evaluation/test is not a linear, deterministic process.
That's why I strongly dislike the concept and mindset of a "roadmap". This is not because we shouldn’t have a plan, but because publicizing and promoting it implies that such progress is scriptable, predictable, and straightforward. It's especially aggravating when the advances that the roadmap calls out don’t happen as expected, and engineers are criticized for not delivering what they probably shouldn't have committed to in such a public way. ♦
|
|
|
|
|
selinz
11/30/2010 3:36 PM EST
Could it be that proliferation of more powerful software is resulting in a depleted workforce, allowing stuff that is typically triple checked to go unnoticed? Certainly the 3D mechanical tools have resulted in a dramatic increase in individual productivity.
Sign in to Reply
sharps_eng
11/30/2010 6:34 PM EST
3D tools increase productivity, and all that time saved is put into more thorough checking, right?
Sign in to Reply
sharps_eng
11/30/2010 6:48 PM EST
Everything in a Jumbo is now obsolete, it was designed so long ago. A new aircraft series needs huge amounts of the design mass to be re-invented afresh. However, it's designed to sell for decades, so there is a way to get the investment back.
Roadmap-based design is fine when assembling a product from a set of pre-defined reference designs provided by vendors who also provide 'tiger teams' of FAEs to get you to market. That will work for TVs, small planes and even medical products. But in vertically integrated companies like Boeing, so much is new and radical in a new series that almost all the subcontractors have to be dragged up into the new paradigm, and very little is re-usable from before.
Compared to aero metalwork, trusted flight software has a vastly better chance of being re-used in huge chunks. There's a comforting thought, eh...
Sign in to Reply
pcsalex
12/1/2010 9:42 AM EST
it does not sounds like rather a management than one engineering problem?
Sign in to Reply
agk
12/1/2010 3:26 AM EST
Completely paper less design! i can not imagine that!Seing in a small monitor screen or a large LCD screen is not sufficient. One needs to print it see it many times for corrections and go back to computers screens is the best way for quick success.Since child hood we are all practiced with paper and pen. All my designs when printed out and checked i could easily find out the slips i have made in the designs!I suggest to Boeing to go for paper verification also which will save lot of time and money
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
1/19/2011 3:22 AM EST
Interesting you should say that, the number of times I've read a document over on screen only to find glaring issues once it's printed :-) Someone should do a study as to this is, it would be good to understand it so we can go truly paperless (maybe)
Sign in to Reply
rajanr
12/1/2010 1:07 PM EST
Good article. It's easy for management to fool themselves and their investors that 3D CAD and other tools will make up for lack of engineering judgment and sufficient iteration and test time.
Let's diagnose the problem as too many engineers and lay off a few more.
Sign in to Reply
pcsalex
12/15/2010 8:11 AM EST
just before we forget it, the Airbus 380 engine problem is traced Rois-Royce, who is building it in Indiana....where the safety engineer-whistle blower was fired..
Sign in to Reply
seshadripn
12/22/2010 4:53 AM EST
Engineering Design is essentially human cognitive process. While CAE CAD helps productivity, Reliability has to be ensured as well.Everything caannot be tested to precipitatae every possible / probable failure mode. A solidly good blend of "amount of evidence and degree of confidence" is the hallmark of all superior design outputs.
Sign in to Reply
Etmax
1/19/2011 3:23 AM EST
Hmm me thinks I will wait until a plane design has been flying for 10 years before I'll fly on it :-(
Sign in to Reply