New polls

These are again under consideration (Polls, Poll completions).

However, in the meantime, support bet2give.

• Current: Test flight in 2008
• Priors: 787 will test flight in Q2 2008, 787 in 2008, 787 on time

Flightglobal polls.

• Has Boeing finally got the 787 programme under control? Apr 11 08 (2228), Yes 23%, No 77%
• Will further 787 delays push customers to the A350 XWB? Mar 28 08 (2422), Yes 58%, No 42%
• Can Boeing still deliver the first 787 next May? Sep 04 07 (2797), Yes 27%, No 73%
• Will the Boeing 787 stick to its certification schedule? Jul 13 07 (2129), Yes 63%, No 37%

As an aside, the July 13, 2007 poll shows the lingering exuberance of the 7/8/7 affair, plus the several years of talking up the program. The April 11, 2008 poll says something about the glow's difficulty of recovery.

Modified: 01/20/2013

Fourth poll series

Note: Poll completion.

Announcements:

- You can support your favorite charity by using bet2give (787 Q2 fly, 787 in 2008 closed, 787 on time closed).

The poll:

The first, second, and third polls are completed. This fourth poll series looks at upcoming Boeing 787 milestones and asks the most probable date for their accomplishment.

- In your estimation, '787 power on' will be before Valentine's Day (Feb), Easter (March), Mother's Day (May), Labor Day (Sept). All are 2008 dates.
- In your estimation, '787 first flight' will be before May Day, Bastille Day (July), Halloween (Oct), Easter 2009 (April). The first three dates are 2008.
- In your estimation, '787 first delivery' will be before Christmas 2008 (Dec), Nowruz 2009 (March), Red Nose Day 2009 (June), Fiscal Year 2010 (Oct, 2009).
- My role is with -- We won't be able to establish any correlations, however knowing who might be taking the polls might be of interest. We'll continue to have this part of a series.

Disclaimer:
Usual poll etiquette assumed; polls are oriented toward information and not mis / dis-information.
- A casual user cannot double vote on any poll. But, there is no guard against intentional duplicate votes by those who know how.
- There is no consistency checking between polls.
- There is no meta-information about who votes or why.
- There is no way to correlate between the polls, however the 'role' poll allows some indication of interest.

Modified: 01/20/2013

Sixth poll series

Note: Poll completion.
The first five polls have been complete for some time; this blog has been taking a greater look at financial engineering than at product engineering; but, recent developments suggest that there ought to be a better balance and that another poll might be in order.

There are several questions to raise this time around.

• Is the 787 program too scattered to be effective?
• Is the IAM strike convenient to the 787 program?
• When will the 787 deliver?
• Will delays cause reversal of 787 orders?

One wonders why there are arguments for the process when the product has not been tested fully; does not that seem backward? The IAM's beefs (who are more doers than not) deal with the future as it is represented by 787 decisions; is it a convenient strike for Boeing (Bell's attitude seems to suggest so)? The delivery date has to be largely unknown; the product still needs to run through its ropes; is it wrong to ponder failure of this program? Flightglobal asked, in a poll, whether 1000 sold would occur before first delivery; well, what are the chances of retractions of orders?

Lessons learned: we'll have to attempt this at some time.
Remember to support bet2give; their poll is Test flight in 2008. See the list of Flightglobal polls related to the 787; the latest asks about the IAM strike (53% agreeing with the strike).

Disclaimer:
Usual poll etiquette assumed; polls are oriented toward information and not mis / dis-information.
- A casual user cannot double vote on any poll. But, there is no guard against intentional duplicate votes by those who know how.
- There is no consistency checking between polls.
- There is no meta-information about who votes or why.
- There is no current correlation between the polls, however the 'role' poll allows some indication of interest.

Remarks:

01/20/2013 -- Change link for bet2give.

Modified: 01/20/2013

100 years old

Illustration: Chad Hagen 

This is a little tardy. IEEE Spectrum featured Boeing's anniversary. Remember the date, July 15. Part of the remarks deal with the 787 which was the motivation for this blog.

How is that? Well, the first posts (August 2007) dealt with mission seeds for posts. This Seeds post was updated for a few years with current topics. Too, this was a month after the event (termed Potemkin, another side of the story) in which the company rolled out an empty shell with a lot of hoopla. Marketing had ruled over engineers (Here we go again). That little thing went on for awhile, then, engineers were given their right of driving themselves, and things worked (2011, lookback).

It was about the time that the program was getting its act together that the effects of financial idiocy started to become so public as to be unavoidable. Actually, that took more of my attention as flightblogger (now history) was doing a good job of following developments. The blogger went over to the Wall Street Journal.

But, continuing with the 787. This blog (started in 2008) is still in operation: All things 787. There are other blogs that were reporting their views throughout the process.

A comment on the All things 787 post is interesting. It concerns an early plane that Boeing cannot sell. This is the suggestion.

For those two 787 frames that are unmarketable, I'd suggest they be donated to the NTSB and FAA for training of emergency crews. Equip one of them to fly unpiloted but controlled from a chase plane and then crash it on a runway that is no longer in use. Firefighters have not yet had to deal with a carbon fiber air frame on fire...with its attendant dangers of toxic fumes and minuscule carbon fibers being released into the air. Key questions would be how to suppress the flames quickly at such a crash site and how to properly outfit the firefighters. Full body hazmat suits? Special masks and air filters? What precautions need to be taken in terms of the spread of toxic fumes and fibrils into the surrounding community? (etc.)

Such training has not yet been done. Are major airports properly equipped and fire crews adequately trained for this new situation?

--

In general, many areas have crept up over the years that are of concern. Of late, Quora has offered a platform to use answering questions as a manner to organize material and thoughts. Activity here will start up, again, sometime in the future. In the meantime, congratulations to Boeing.

Remarks: Modified: 08/24/2016

08/24/2016 --

NoooP and aah II

One thing that engineers, who deal with real domains, can do is test with something real, or in a somewhat realistic situation, as was done recently with the 787 wing box. There is an explanatory post at the Seattle P-I that includes links to videos of the 787 test. Too, there is a link to a similar test for the 777 test, similar in the sense that the 787 will still be undergoing the wing load test.

So, congratulations are in order on several fronts.

As said, the test results agreed with the analytic predictions. That is good and an example of the modern way (we know just how much thought, effort, and evaluation went into the massive analytic framework supported by computing); yet, there is an open question that we'll continue to bring up as to when a model is sufficient to be considered data.

An earlier post, in this blog, mentioned a site that will contain information about 787 technical milestones which appeals to those who want to see details for themselves. Too, the post discussed the problems in financial engineering of having any semblance of empiricism beyond the questionable metric of who has more money.

Expect more of a focus in the future, backed up technically.

Remarks:

01/19/2011 -- Update1 and Update2. The focus now will be mostly the idiots of economics/finance.

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

Modified: 01/19/2011

Q2 query

It is interesting that no one has participated in the bet2give poll on whether the first 787 'test-flight' will be before the 'end of Q2, 2008'.

Earlier polls (787 in 2008 closed, 787 on time closed) had activity that was fairly representative of the situation.

If everything was going well, would there have been the overblown reaction reported in the S-PI about an accidental incursion into the 787 area by visitors?

Modified: 01/20/2013

The soul of a new airplane

Yesterday, in his 'Week Ahead' post, flightblogger included a video about the 787 development project (a remarkable project from several angles) in which Al Miller of Boeing gives us some details. Al's talk is followed up by the Chair of the Mechanical Engineering Department of UWash.

It was a great video and well worth watching; having access to details like this will be important; no doubt, there are many more (who has a bibliography?); as well, as the project goes along, we can expect more.

Now, this video is great since it is from the engineering view and not a sales pitch, though one can see the influence of management's footprint in several places. That is, there is a lot not mentioned and a lot that is glossed over; okay, according to the rules, we probably aren't allowed access; I just hope that the company does not think it beyond us or that we are not interested.

Anything other than openness brings on suspicions.

So, why the title of this post? Well, it does allude to Tracy Kidder's book. As we know, there are always interesting interplays between the management and engineering sides of anything.

This is not an in-depth commentary on the video's messages, rather it is just an attempt at characterizing my reaction. Methinks that the focus on the composite breakthroughs allowed too much emphasis to be placed upon the success of getting the thing together. But, a whole machine was not rolled out on 7/8/07; no, it was a lifeless shell, that was some distance from being functional. Just how far that distance was, we do not know yet. But, like any empirical problem, we'll know in time.

Another problem was the headiness (ego trip, or hubris) of the large project, where most of the work was being done elsewhere. Talk about setting up illusory situations; what better framework from which to do this? As well, the sales and marketing pitches just went mad. As said before, a bodyless head is not what we need for success in the world (even the foundational issues suggest that - how can the process people be so unrealistic?).

As mentioned before, Minsky's model of hedge, speculation, and ponziness come into play here in engineering and production (remember, out-sourcing is an analog of leverage in financing), as they do in the financial misery-ness. We'll continue to look at that.

Al's overview was great, especially his talk about the use of equations (the arguments about the abstraction-phile apply here) and testing. We all know that engineering has made great strides in changing the world through applied mathematics and science. What we all need to be cautious about is letting the abstract stand for reality. In this case, usages of models as data being fed into other models is very much dangerous, as we'll all learn as we go toward the future.

But, that brings up testing, covered here, to boot. Any mathematics itself is subject to the same problems as reality (or ought to be), that is the quasi-empirical issue. But, business is top-down and thereby unrealistic (witness what? wake up and look at the Street and the idiots that populate the thing!!). Boeing did create a technical force; where are they? Well, having Al speak does not count, as he is management.

Other points that we ought to consider is that Boeing pushed the envelope on many fronts here, which is really a no-no. So, it's the biggest project, Al says. Well, then, belly up and pay the price for creating it (well, that'll happen anyway). It brings in new technology; well, congratulations. But, don't bring out your cigars yet, your baby still needs to get out of the crib. And, it needs to show its soul beyond all those marketing and industrial views that have been spread around the world (in some cases, mocked up as if the thing were really there - meaning, of course, a photo - see the truth engineering counterpart of this blog - the computer, and its network, can be more problematic than not).

The UWash chair showed the future of composites and current usages. Well, what stood out, is what was asked 4 years ago, where is the precedence for the 787? None, essentially. So, everyone, including Airbus, is going to learn from this experiment.

Thankfully, due to the fact that it deals with reality (as opposed to the dismal science behind the market), the technical issues of the 787 can be worked. Now, the process issues are still open; hopefully, the IAM and SPEEA issues can be resolved in a wise fashion; how many case studies will come from this project?

By the way, at the 7/8/07 rollout, it was said that the 787 was not your father's plane. Oh, indeed it is not! This project has deep signs of the 'game' generation's facility with and belief in the computational. That is not bad; that generation just has to learn that 'reality' rules. Boeing knows this.

Cannot we observe one factor in just about all the bubbles of late? That is, elements of the youth, just recently schooled in new technology, are given free reign to explore. Well, in the computational, the influence can be minimal (though, how many billions have been lost to business through Windows failures?) and reversible. Nature is full of irreversibles (ah, bringing good philosophical arguments to business - is that possible?).

Remarks:

06/25/2009 -- Ah, issues continue to arise.

05/27/2009 -- People need to be rewarded about how smartly they plan for, and handle, uncertainty (it's more than just risk -- topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense).

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

Modified: 06/25/2009

Zeno, in the modern context

It's common knowledge that the modern world knows things through computers. This is true from the most recent phenomena, of noses to smart phones parading as intelligent behavior, to the wide expanses of cosmology's modeling of the heavens and exploration of multi-universes as an explanation, of sorts. In between, we have IRS's use plus business computing, such as design, planning, and a number of other things.

So, where does one go to look at issues related to such knowledge? The ACM is a good start. Say, their Communications of the ACM. Then, we have a whole lot of other folks, such as IEEE, IJCAI, and such.

---

The following is motivated by a viewpoint, expressed by Phillip G. Armour, in the ACM. His article is titled: The Business of Software: How We build Things (in paper, slightly different on-line). There are two things to mention here, though the article ought to be read.

He uses Zeno in talking about what I had called Earned Value. I only used Zeno once (Fedaerated) in several posts on three blogs. Why? I had talked about this with my colleagues on many occasions. It seemed that referencing the guy was more useful in person as then one could get off on the peripatetic issues.

Zeno, Veritas et Falsitas

Why Zeno? He's the guy of the arrow. Or, as the joke goes, the mathematician who doesn't get the girl. So, Phillip asks: why do people guess that they're 95% (or some such number) complete on a task as if they're monotonically approaching, with no end in sight?

Phillip laughs it off. I don't as it was a regular occurrence as we tried to assess completion of a project with lots of people and oodles of modules. Nowadays, it's not an issue (say, with Zuck's stuff) as they can just push out system changes (with a recovery method, hopefully, to use if things go bad) without regard to testing status. This is not true for other parts of the business world, say like the 787 (even a most-specified test plan will still leave room for judgment calls -- we'll get to that).

---

Phillip's use gets me thinking, that I need to bring the topic forward, again.

First, though, a useful exercise would be to gather all of the posts, for each of the blogs, that dealt with the subject of earned value. For each of the blogs, I have a list of posts that include the term. Then, I provide a list of a few of the important posts and the count of posts with the term.

 Fedaerated (18)     7'oops7 (41)     Truth Engineering (20)

Now, for this blog, all but a couple of the posts were in 2009 and before. That sort of indicates the shift to looking at finance. Engineering worries about things like this. Finance seems to have this short-term view of the content of the current day's pocket. That is idiotic, pure and simple.

So, we'll bring this subject up to date and relate it, as it ought to be, to fair value.

A sampling of posts follows:

• Earned value II (Jan 26, 2009) -- Looked at some of the factors that relate to the hardness of the problem. 
• Earned value (Jan 23, 2009) -- Two years in, decided to tackle the definition'l issue that had been ignored from the start in 2007.  
• Here we go again (Jun 24, 2009) -- Tied earned value with its compatriots in the context of planning and managing a project. 
• Middle and out (Jan 29, 2008) -- Management, like Jamie, like top-down in their illusion of being in control (Hey, can they even control themselves? That's more of an open issue than you might believe (or want to accept).) 
• Carts need horses (Nov 2, 2007) -- It looked for a long time as if the tail was wagging the dog. We'll not go into details, at this time, but the whole thing relates to the above bullets (know where you're going, how far you are, etc.), especially the middle out. 

There are a lot more posts to look. We'll get back to that.

---

Phillip used some mathematics to show the problems related to knowing where you were with a project (the managers, like kids, say: are we there, yet?). Nice article.

Remarks:

01/24/2013 -- Article from New York -- The Digital Skeptic: Dreamliner Brings iPhone 'Reliability' to the Skies. With something as complex as the 787, how many operational issues can be expected to crop up (at 35K feet -- rhetorical answer? A bunch.)? A student paper at Uniz of Az looks at 787 outsourcing (see Mahmoodi). Boeing Tech Fellow's cautionary note, on outsourcing (2001 - there was quite a bit of discussion at the 2004 conference in LA, to boot, about matters of technical design -- also, whistle blower?). Related, 787 blog.

01/21/2013 -- WSJ has a nice recap from the beginning. Look at how management kept promising that they would hit a milestone when most figured that they would not. Then, the guy would switch gears. In July 2007, most knew that the shell was empty, yet the claim was for delivery in May 2008 (a mere 11 months later). Then, in October 2007, the message was that they would fly in March 2008. It didn't fly until December 2009. Finally, things quieted. It was obvious that engineers were taking the lead. 

Modified: 01/24/2013

Groundings

Airlines need to protect their customers and their crew, thereby their reputations. Engineers need to be able to work things, as necessary. Marketing? Management? Other players? Such as?

The arm-chair critic, for one. Well, amuse yourself with this blog.

    http://engineermemes.blogspot.ca/

------- later in the day -------

CNN report. Earlier, a Japanese airline, or two, had decided to ground its aircraft. Now, FAA has made a similar decision. We will watch this closely. The hope is to be flying soon.

from CNN report

Aside: We got started here in 2007 because there was an announcement that a major section was ready to ship from a supplier. And, I knew that it could not be true from what I seen two years before. Well, the piece did ship. Boeing put pieces together. Then, it had the audacity (ah, engineers, don't you love those marketeers) to roll out an empty shell under great fanfare (some termed this a potemkin affair). You know, everyone had the expectation that the thing could fly soon. You know how long it took to get to the flying state? Several parts of a year. Now, of course, as problems surfaced, engineering found ways to get things to work. Eventually, the marketing view was told to let engineering take the lead. That thing of idiots driving the world is one big problem with the world, but everyone knows that do we not. We'll visit the issue, again, as we're getting to where complicated states will require, continually, our collective intelligence, with minimal gaming. It was about that time that the financial idiocy was coming out. You see, the engineers finally got the 787 out, albeit there may be still things that need to be worked out. Finance? Ben has done his best to float the idiots. It was just a little while ago that Jamie was arguing that they knew what they were doing and ought to self-regulate. Then, the whale plopped in his lap, poor guy. Fortunately, there are people looking into these matters, such as Rick Bookstaber (his post points to related research).

---

Now, we all ought to consider that complexity is something that ought to keep us from hubris (see Business, as stupid - written before I knew about Rick's post). We have two factors that are at large here. Mathematics and its descent into common use is a prime one. That applies in this case (we noted that earlier) and in business. It's really the same failing for both engineering and business (where these two do not overlap, okay?). In case of business program management, we have ideas that "risk" has been conquered; just think back to idiotic claims in the 2007/2008 time frame. I know, Ben with his largess has open a spigot to imaginary bucks that has aerated the gaming (so what that the DOW is up? tell me, please, in detail, what is behind that? now, please, follow it up with something of value that is real? can you find some balance in your analysis? oh, you're considering that we've hocked the future for our progeny?). Now, engineering has similar problems. Their success with modeling, especially dynamic systems, has caused many to run off as if a model equals reality (again, we can go into depth here and intend to).

What is the second factor? Human nature. In the case of business, it's all of the greed and other positions that push toward things like dark pools and other idiocies. Too, you get people, like the ad-men, using analysis to look for soft parts of yourself (as in, trying to determine how to lure your little arse into a compromising position, essentially). In engineering? It's the complexity, and a bunch of guys, usually, pushing mathematics, perhaps, way beyond its limits. My mathematician friend/mentor always complained that engineers just read the book. They don't prove theorems or work derivations (as in, guys, from a foundation'l sense, tell me why your methods work and what might be their limits). Oh, it computes (acknowledging, of course, that all of these issues go back to that artificial creation of ours) is sufficient? From whence do you make that to be your verification? Oh, because the computer model agrees with what you see in the real world?

Now, as said before, with engineering, you can test in reality (finance cannot do this the same way). With a plane, you can fly the thing, put it through some paces that are significant, and measure performance in the testing situation. Earlier, I left the engineering side alone since the financial idiots were still running amok. Will this latest event push me back to some balanced view? After all, we do have engineering failures. Many times, though, they seem to point back to human failure. I'm not so sure that such is always the case, albeit it is nice when we can do that (to be human is to err - nice little excuse, too many times). 

Remarks:

07/15/2013 -- A fire late last week bring an opportunity to see what goes into determining whether to do composite repair or to undergo a section replacement.

03/12/2013 -- Boeing has fixes that it wants to test.

02/28/2013 -- Boeing has proposed a solution; FAA is reviewing.

01/24/2013 -- Article from New York -- The Digital Skeptic: Dreamliner Brings iPhone 'Reliability' to the Skies. With something as complex as the 787, how many operational issues can be expected to crop up (at 35K feet -- rhetorical answer? A bunch.)? A student paper at Uniz of Az looks at 787 outsourcing (see Mahmoodi). Boeing Tech Fellow's cautionary note, on outsourcing (2001 - there was quite a bit of discussion at the 2004 conference in LA, to boot, about matters of technical design -- also, whistle blower?). Related, 787 blog.

01/23/2013 -- A look at the battery and related comments. Worth a read.

01/21/2013 -- WSJ has a nice recap from the beginning.

01/20/2013 -- WSJ story from the flightblogger.

01/18/2013 -- Problems, such as those alluded to in this blog, wouldn't have happened under Mullaly? Alan was an engineer; so, he knew his stuff and airplanes. Too bad that we can't go back and see how he would have handled all of those issues over the past few years. I would suggest this: no potemkin event.

01/17/2013 -- One criticism, that might stand up (we'll see), is that engineering took the back seat many (perhaps, too many) times.

Modified: 07/15/2013

Retrospectively speaking

Jon is gone (flightblogger). He started his blog not long before this one. Similar subject, except he was a little more specific in focus. My interest was, and still is, truth engineering. The TE blog predates this one by one month. The idea was to look at the general issues related to computing and to discuss these with some notion of contribution to the general welfare. Of course, what was taken as the generality was the human condition of being prone to err (especially, those who are in the position of blaze out). And, this blog came about as there was the program for motivation. Hence, 7 oops 7. We'll go more, below, into what was the common interest that helped get the Jon's and my blogs started.

Jon's blog was picked up by a publication firm later that same year. This afforded several things to Jon and the firm (will look at this some later time). Needless to say, Jon's blog had a lot of readership and was there with the news during the 787 recovery process. Of course, now that the work of the program is oriented toward delivery issues, Jon is off to better things. His blog? Not as active (for several reasons that would be interesting to consider).

787 recovery? Yes, 2007, specifically 07/08/07, was when a 'potemkin' event took place that, in retrospect, is still not believable. What were they thinking? But, we'll leave that for another time. Let me quote from a recent article which appeared first in a Seattle paper (mind you, there is now a final assembly plant that is not in the SEATAC area -- who would have known in 2007? -- so, sarcasm out of the northwest would be expected): Jones said the plane rolling out Friday had fewer than 100 jobs incomplete, a very small number. In comparison, when Boeing rolled out the very first Dreamliner in 2007 in Everett, the plane was a shell with a few fake surfaces painted to look real. That plane didn’t fly until 2 ½ years after rollout.

Ignoring, for now, who is Jones and what plane (787, of course, but what number?) is rolling out, we can see that the first plane (in a state that was long way from being operational) was used for a media event that was highly touted and attended (as if the thing was going to be in the air in a matter of weeks -- in fact, delivery was planned for mid-2008). Too, there were reports in papers, at that time, that the snap-together approach was ready to go (the pieces to be joined had been designed by disparate firms -- across the world, mind you -- so as to be brought together in a matter of days -- the pieces were fully stuffed, it was claimed). All sorts of things can be pulled together to sketch the message and mindsets of that time which was five years ago (and what happened afterwards - such as pulling back work, building a new assembly plant, and more). Too, thanks to the new media, we can trace what happened the past few years as the program turned itself around (including some of the engineering issues that were resolved).

Aside: much water has passed 'neath the bridges, if you would. There was a major recession caused by financial mismanagement. Its effects are still being felt. And, a certain banker still thinks that he's the 'last man' standing. At that time, Facebook was relatively unknown. Since then, it has boomed (as in, having the record for the number of users - huge number). An IPO is planned which is making some go gaga. Are we better at things like 'risk' and other management? Well, again, are we?

---

In 2007, new media (including social) was still an unknown entity used by few. The effects of these new methods have become phenomenally distributed widely. Too, though, all of the issues are still there. Jon's emphasis was semi-journalistic, and he had sources that may, or may not, have been reliable. Some of these seem to have been within the company. The Company, itself, started a blog to give its message. And, we know that FB has become a medium for corporate expression. What major company is not represented there (well, many actually)?

The past two days have given us another look at risk and its management. In 2007, prior to things unfolding, those in the game were talking as if a downturn was not ever going to happen. No, we have things under control was the message, and the feeling, albeit the unraveling went much deeper than many had allowed for. The blogger felt like old Rip as he caught up with what he had ignored (in his interest in cyber matters) for so long (a bunch of idiots had screwed up the world, essentially).

So, we'll have to keep revisiting computability issues (and the underlying mathematical paradigm). Of course,  even with all of the problems there has been strides forward. One might say that the success can be measured by its associated grief (let's take the LT 0.001 and GT 9.999, as an example -- the haves have been very successful in bloating their smelly selves -- the have nots did not see the looming troubles -- we'll be getting back to all this, again and again).

---

As we said before, "we're not back" except for retrospective concerns that relate to larger things. What does that mean? Engineers know what they're doing. Management is mostly the issue. Zuckerberg will see this. In a company with a long history of engineering success, there ought to be rewards for those of that mindset (though, things, like IPOs, dazzle some). And, processes that accrue results ought to be favored over hype (somehow, new media seems to be more this than of any substance).

Remarks:

09/16/2013 -- So, the five year retrospective time. Business week devotes a whole issue. It will be interesting to read all of the perspectives, WSJ, FT, etc. We will have to say some things about Raytheon's push out of Hawker and its subsequent bankruptcy. Like Spirit's split from Boeing, wishful thinking on the part of management and the company led to problematic results (for a lot of people).

09/21/2012 -- To err is human; but, to be human is to be error-prone. We can 'hope' that if we're careful, we'll not get bit. It (as in __it) happens, goes the saying. Now, computers are error prone, to boot. Just in a different manner than we are, yet there is an overlap which we'll get to.

08/24/2012 -- Jon reports that there have been seventeen 787s delivered so far, each costing Boeing about $100M. The question is when will the company meet the break-even point.

05/31/2012 -- Today, the module left the ISS, got itself out of orbit, jettisoned as required, got through the heat of re-entry, and parachuted itself down. Successful, in other words, completion of a test shot that also performed (functional orientation during test, we'll look at that further). Essentially, SpaceX demonstrated a way to get material up to and down from the ISS. We'll be watching now as they go toward manned attempts.

Modified: 09/16/2013

Design and design

We all know that the 787 program is dealing with a complicated product that introduces and integrates new technology, that is undergoing development with new processes proving that may prove to be more difficult than not, and that has an unparalleled visibility due to the internet.

So, we will probably see many lessons to be learned. There are several places where one can read about the program, its history, and the status.

It might be a good idea to pull some of these together with commentary, such as the below one. This would establish a viewpoint totally from externally-derived information (meaning, nothing from inside the OEM). The motivation will be explained fully.

For one example, look at this triad: what led to the decision for the 787, some of the debates on technology, initial reactions and responses.

Another example is a recent article on the flightglobal site that talks about some things that are different with the 787 in comparison with earlier planes.

The comparison of two images (which are from two sources, yet they have a common orientation) offers several points of discussion. The images are the following.

• from flightglobal - This is an early design image that illustrates an emphasis on a look that would be natural and suggestive (see Emery's comments on the looks).
  
• from seattlepi - This is a rollout image from July 2007 that shows the as-built condition.
  

It's the disparity between the as-desired and as-delivered view that is of interest as it demonstrates how a real part that needs to meet physical constraints cannot fit exactly the design which may represent some ideal concept.

This disparity as shown here (subtle though it is) is a good metaphor for the management problem (both program and executive); we find this disparity in just about any context involving planning and actuality. Now, an improvement in our processes might be means to know when something is physically attainable. The computer is helping here in allowing better modeling (CAx), improving risk management, and providing the means to bridge cultures (ah, but watch out for those ontologies and other issues)

These are not easy matters that are resolved a priori (hindsight is usually better than foresight, but that in itself is not a given) ; operational aspects (the necessary) related to this type of convergence is one interest of truth engineering.

Modified: 11/24/2007

Poll or not

Note: 01/11/08, Fourth poll started.

-----

Time is passing, so things might get more interesting.

You can support your favorite charity by using bet2give (787 in 2008). Things seem to be going better than with the first poll (787 on time).

We'll look at other polls and reassess whether to have more here this year, (such as Will the 787 stick to its certification schedule?).

Prior polls: first , second, third

Modified: 01/20/2013

Second poll series

Note: Poll completion.

Announcement: You can support your favorite charity by using bet2give (787 on time).

With the first poll completed, this is a short-time poll so that we can get a couple iterations done by end of October (hopefully, getting useful information).

- I would fly on the 787 -- Let us know how much of a delay you would allow prior to flying the new technology (after its first delivery, of course, meaning post the test phase). This might help gauge the implied risk as seen by the flying public.

- First delivery (787) will be in -- We cannot know this except for a range that might be provided by the OEM. This is your assessment, not what you expect will be announced with the next month or so.

- My role is with -- We won't be able to establish any correlations, however knowing who might be taking the polls might be interesting. We'll continue to have this part of a series.

Disclaimer: Usual poll etiquette assumed; polls are oriented toward information and not mis/dis-information. A casual user cannot double vote on any poll. But, there is no guard against intentional duplicate votes by those who know how. There is no consistency checking between polls. There is no meta-information about who votes or why. There is no way to correlate between the polls, however the 'role' poll allows some indication of interest.

Modified: 01/20/2013

Out on a limb

It seems that Boeing may be out on a limb with its 787 project with the limb cracking. We're almost two years past the 'potemkin' roll-out. That there was recently delay news (again) opens up a can of worms requiring analysis and comment.

Here are a couple of items to start a long list.

-- Announcements just prior to the recent delay news were awfully hopeful and essentially misleading (actually, can we say that they were untrue?). Where is the board? What is the disconnect that we see with Boeing's board and management? How can the board sit idly by and let this comedy of errors continue? Two years ago, a Boeing press release exclaimed that the first 787 was getting put together for the roll-out and reminded us all that the plan was to fit pieces from far away places together in just three days. That same year, management kept promising that first delivery would be May 2008 until late in the year. In fact, one manager (PR type) was talking this just a day before Boeing announced its first delay. This type of disjoint communication speaks a lot about underlying problems. Of course, many of the problems may be technically beyond the grasp of the board. But, are they making proper efforts?

-- There seems to be a disconnect between engineering and management. But, how can we know with the widely scattered team that bridges across countries and cultures? Now, the computer was ostensibly the means to bridge the disparity. But, we have already seen Boeing recognize that it has to bring some of the work back in house and more thoroughly monitor the work of partners (sub-contractors) as a means to reduce the rework. Too, the computer was used in lieu of prototyping as a cost-saving measure. Hah! Those who know realize that the physical modeling is not mature enough for this belief. Would the wise advise caution since the science of composites is so new compared to metals? How could the board allow this belief to grow to such an extent that it put Boeing out on the limb and it culminated in a sequence of misadventures that would be comical if the matter was not so serious?

These are only two of many items that will be discussed further.

But, let's be specific, please. The blog is written by someone who has worked CAD/CAE, KBE, and the like. Okay? But, he also knows that we have run off way too strongly after the sirens (yes, of mythology) of computation. That we have many of a gaming generation can be a little disconcerting. The metrics of reality are quite a bit different than that of 'virtual' reality. The 787 has to fly in the natural and not the computational world. See discussion on Truth Engineering.

flightglobal's poll shows that about 300 people think that the project is doomed. Interesting, indeed. We could probably find a few who thought this back in 2005.

Remarks:

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

09/01/2009 -- Scott C is riding off to the sunset. Jim A will take over the reins. Everyone wonders what the new schedule announcement means in that it was right before this changeover. Just as with the finance folk, it has been exacerbated and accelerated by common use of mathematics and computing. See prior Remark.

07/23/2009 -- Some confoundedness results from not handling underdetermination properly. Of course, the whole thing is not new; it has been exacerbated and accelerated by common use of mathematics and computing. The genie is out of the bottle, folks. Hubris, in the modern age, will not relate back to engineers who have pen holders in their pockets. That is, those who resolve issues like we're seeing here will mostly be non-elite, and money does not buy the solution.

07/05/2009 -- Recent comments suggests a too strong belief in the computational.

Modified: 09/02/2009

Poll completion 5

23 voters showed up for the 5th poll with most being of the flying public (38% of 18) or suppliers (31% of 18).

Most saw that first flight would be after 2008 (77% of 23) and that the 787 would be delivered (90% of 20)

Support bet2give: 787 will test flight in Q2 2008

Prior polls: First, second, third, fourth.

Remarks:

01/20/2013 -- Change link for bet2give.

12/30/2008 -- See, will the 787 test flight in Q2 2009?

05/13/2008 -- It's not a scientific poll, yet the numbers might be interesting.

• In September of 2007, most in the poll said that first flight would be after mid-2008
• In October of 2007, most in the poll said that delivery would be in 2009
• In November of 2007, most in the poll said that delivery would be in 2009
• In January of 2008, most in the poll said that first flight would be after October of 2008 and that delivery would be after October of 2009
• In April of 2008, most in the poll said that first flight would be in 2009

Participants have identified themselves as both Supplier and Airline.

Modified: 01/20/2013

Other side of the pond

The engineering oops focus to date has dealt with this side of the pond, for the most part. Today, we get motivation from over there. Flightblogger released an analysis done by Airbus on the problems of the 787.

Well, we all knew that there were problems ever since the rollout of the 'Potemkin Dreamliner' on 07/08/07 in which an empty shell was glorified as if it were ready to fly. Leelaw wrote (9/4/07 12:06 PM): It's beginning to look like the potential negative legal, financial, and PR consequences resulting from the unfolding "Tale of the Potemkin Dreamliner," could make the process of recovering from the "Defense Procurement Scandal of '03" and/or the "Industrialisation Meltdown of '97-98" seem like relative cakewalks.

As of today, we do not have a date for first flight which is probably good if it reflects that Boeing is being more thorough in collecting the information required to firm up the plan.

Given the list of issues in the above report, it may be awhile before there is more firm information. The last poll here suggested that 2010 was the likely deliver date which would could happen with a first flight anytime in mid-2009.

The following was not invented here (seen in a flightblogger comment):
What will happen first? The first pitch at the new Yankee Stadium or 787 first flight?

Remarks:

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

07/14/2009 -- Nope, confounding continues.

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

12/12/2008 -- 787 delays continue.

Modified: 09/02/2009

Another round

Today, a six-month slide was announced for the 787. This was anticipated in the 7oops7 poll (see poll disclaimer), at the flightglobal.com poll (Will the 787 stick to its certification schedule?) and at the bet2give (787 on time).

With the announcement was a disclaimer (Forward-Looking Information is Subject to Risk and Uncertainty) that pertains to the subject of this blog and to truth engineering (Effort and truth - written way before the announcement without access to any inside information).

We will need to revamp the polls and adjust our dialectic.

It can be frustrating to have a highly-detailed plan not converge, except, even the determination of convergence has to be done in retrospect. It's not that we must live looking in the rear-view mirror, but the metaphor is not far off (we're very myopic going forward, at least as far as detail is concerned - foresight cannot be 100%, yet it does exist). For some reason, the lessons behind the mirror metaphor (and there are plenty of morals related to the phenomenon, not 20-20, etc.) goes unlearned (perhaps, because of our understudied talents). All any of us really need to do is reflect back upon our life and the related progressions that we undergo and then try to apply this to the forward-looking situation. We cannot look forward too much but consider some aging person that you know as an example of this progression. As lifeforms, we grow; we peak; we decline. In the case of a program, it's the transition from the growing to the peak that is unknown. If a program is not a replay along any of the important axes, the whole thing has to be a learning experience (experiment, if you would). Well, as we've learned from school, time and repetition are important. Methinks that the notions we learn about problem solving can be somewhat contributive to the issue to boot. So many things to think about.

Remarks:

01/20/2013 -- Changed link for bet2give.

09/02/2009 -- Lets face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

Modified: 01/20/2013

Third poll series

Note: Poll completion.
Announcements:

- You can support your favorite charity by using bet2give (787 in 2008).
- Also, flightblogger is back; we'll see what information comes from that source; the context will change due to the flightglobal connection.

The poll:

The first poll and second poll are completed. This third poll is a short one to start to get some feedback on opinions about when the 787 might be delivered.

- Based upon the current information that we can know, when will the 787 be delivered? -- We, outside of OEM, only have limited information with which to make a determination about this, however there are many rumors floating around that cover a spectrum: will things go forward nicely such that the product will deliver with only a minor delay (2009/10)? Or, are there more problematic issues that will be difficult to overcome (much later)?

- My role is with -- We won't be able to establish any correlations, however knowing who might be taking the polls might be of interest. We'll continue to have this part of a series.

Disclaimer:
Usual poll etiquette assumed; polls are oriented toward information and not mis / dis-information.
- A casual user cannot double vote on any poll. But, there is no guard against intentional duplicate votes by those who know how.
- There is no consistency checking between polls.
- There is no meta-information about who votes or why.
- There is no way to correlate between the polls, however the 'role' poll allows some indication of interest.

Modified: 01/20/2013

What's in a name

Note: This post is a mere recap. Related blogs will be linked to, later. Part of the motivation was a post by Jon Ostrower with respect to relations of Spirit and the unions from a year ago. Of late, the new is that the bad work seen might be handled by Boeing buying back the old organization. Where do I stand? Merely as having been there, did not take an offer from NewCo (lots of reasons), watched from afar (only talked to a couple of people there in a very indirect manner - feeling out the situation), went onto the modes that Boeing inspired (truth engineering, KBE - knowledge-based engineering, and a patent dealing with the filtering and smoothing of data - core issue of AI and ML). So, here goes. 

---

It is no secret that I worked for Boeing. The sister blog (Truth Engineering) to this started about the same time. It deals with truth engineering which, for me, was motivated by working in engineering support for the 777 program, in the role of applying knowledge based engineering. The prior post in this blog mentioned a recent paper with regard to AI being more than ML. 

Wait, what does that have to do with the current problem that is associated with an earlier program? After the 777 program demonstrated remarkable results which have stood up in time, KBE was applied to subsequent work which eventually led to the 787 project. It was about then that Boeing farmed out work via a NewCo. For several months, I worked on setting up that split and have written some general posts on the deal. 

The same thing was done at Beech. There's a post titled Hawker spooked, or similar. Yes, I gave some of the details. We can recap that. Essentially, private equity ruined Beech just like it ruined that NewCo of Boeing that became Spirit. I watched this through the news and a bit of talking to local people. 

So, on the technical issues, we will address those a couple of ways. One is that these are interspersed in this blog over the 17 years. Too, they deal with the future. Say, the idiocy of the OpenAI premature release in 2002? Bears with the same mentality. 

Engineers are the mainstay of the economy. Without them, we'd be dragging our knuckles. Wait, do we see some of that even now? 

The name, 7'oops 7? Well, 2005, July was my first day of retirment. Yes, coming on 19 years. One of my friends stayed with NewCo. The last time I saw him, we talked the reality of his situation. Yeap. Screwed by private equity. But, that'll be addressed in another platform. Though, I have to note that union busting was not unknown in attitude (I was in the rat hole that they said later was a bat cave - will depict some of that). So, from day one, there was stress. Not just of late. 

Note: Boeing gave each employee an estimate of retirement benefits. Depending upon age, some went to NewCo with their full benefits. Many did not. Myself, I opted out and retired. My friend and I would go through his and ponder the future. That changed, drastically. Employees and the unions could give a better summary. I was in the Technical Excellence program and not of the union. 

What has changed? Lots of things. We'll review those. 

Okay, two years later, July 8, 2007 (7/8/7) was approaching. By then, I had heard that things were not progressing as expected. Okay. We'll punt that down the road a little to let me assess the situation. Remember, we're talking what was before the 737 problem. Process knowledge applies. And, there seemed to be a huge gap between the expectation and the status of the section to be delivered by Boeing at the time. But, it was going to be shipped anyway. What? Boeing had a huge media deal scheduled. 

I was talking to my wife as we discussed what was going on. She said, seven 'oops seven. It stuck. 

Note: Thi isn't hashing old stuff. With the 787, Boeing relaxed along almost all decision axes. That's not the way of engineering nor mathematics. It's too easy to lose sight of control. I've been in systems enginering from the getgo, in an engineering context. Anyway, this has to be discussed, sometime. 

Now, later in July of 2007, I started the truth engineering blog. After the event mentioned above. Why? I was browsing and saw some use of "truth engineering" in Europe and thought that it was time to make a presence on the web. There are many avenues taken (or to take) with the concept. In fact, it's seminal to AI's future. Academia just doesn't know it yet. Too, it deals with analyzing history as well as the mathematics that everyone is relying on, especially with the computing modes being everywhere densely. 

I started this blog in August, one month later. So, 1st posts of Truth Engineering and 7'oops7, respectively (Truth, can it be engineered?; Mission and method). 

Note, please, that neither of these initial posts mention the "potemkin affair" that happened. But, for both, it had already happened. I was not sure how to address the issues seen and heard. In this blog, I mention Flightblogger who was the first that I saw who was talking about the empty shell (more or less). That was Jon's blog. 

Also, notice that with this 7'oops7 blog's post, after Carson was out of the way (imagine, marketing running engineering?) and engineers took over, we see the 787 making progress. So, guess what? Financial cats out of MIT had misled the people using techniques that have no basis (tsk) except to pick pockets had created a serious situation. So, 2008 happened. That became the focus, for a while, until I pulled that to FEDaerated. 

Then, 7'oops7 blog became oriented toward complex systems which is our reality going forward. 

So, jumping back to now, there 307 posts here of different categories. Truth engineering has 315. FEDaerated has 331. All about the same count. Why? These are differing views of the same thing. We need more of that. I'm the author of all of these. Plus there are others. 

But, mainly, in 2015, I switched to Quora. Same themes, for the most part. The dynamics differ. 

So, I'm getting back to blogging. See this page for status: https://tgsoc.org/papers/. I am working with Larry Walker of the Sperry Knowledge Systems Center (KSC) to establish an overarching view of advanced computing in all of its aspects that is not reduced generally by academic influence. That's my take on the matters. Larry has other concerns. The KSC was thwarted from doing great work by business decisions that were suspect. At Boeing, KBE diminished after Wichita was sold. I will use the patent to start the discussion. 

So, can industry and academia work well? Different hats, folks. As Larry says, no technical brain that he saw in the C-Suite kept his/her mojo. Now, the computer? Another factor? You bet. That's my focus from a view of generalizing western civilization's role in the development. AI needs this overview. 

Remarks: Modified: 03/03/2024

03/03/2024 -- Adding more links. 

Miscellany

The Truth Engineering blog started first (July 24, 2007) with severalfold motivations but without a specific focus which does allow a more general viewpoint. Then, with the rumblings on the web in regard to the 787 missing its fly date starting to increase, this blog started with that focus but then took on a larger scope (these seeds are being updated).

In that larger scope, the idiocy of the financial world will be analyzed much more deeply than can be the 787 program. Why? It is supposed to be open, much more so than can be some proprietary program. Yet, we've seen privatization of mechanism (it allows Grasso keep his take). Not that the engineering/program topic won't be used in the future, after all engineering touches everything and has some blame for the current messes that we see. Of course, the 'real' engineering viewpoint will say that management forced decisions that ultimately screw things up.

As an aside, one task for each blog will be to have a name for reference to 'self' to inhibit the use of the royal 'we' as may have happened now and then. So, we'll use 7oops7 for now.

Of late, 7oops7 has been getting more deeply into what has happened in financial and economic theory (and practice) the past couple of decades than was thought wise before. You see, many have gone mad thinking about these things. How else can we (oops) account for the growing idiocy and all around growth of hapless victims? These are dismal sciences, indeed.

Engineering comes out with something real, such as an airplane which can be tested against its goals. Finance is for the most part a game, as has been said before. 7oops7 has been incredulously poking at shenanigans that the lemmings (from the top, I might add you) have allowed, pursued, and pondered (as it creates holes in the pockets of the many). Gosh, some of these things don't even make sense to most (understanding requires initiation into the brotherhood) and really border on unethical practices (are we in a global blindness here?).

As said before, quoting the recently-departed William F. Buckley, Jr, 'stop' (the madness). Just because the computer and mathematics allow the gaming of the market does not give it any more truth than what it is. What is it? A very shaking system based upon what several metaphors could describe: sand, cards, ...

There have been sane voices, such as Minsky (the economist, not the perceptronist) which is encouraging. Methinks that the genie is out of the bottle, yet putting the more risky in a sandbox is not impossible. All it would take, to start, would be a good explanation about why we have all the instability. Perhaps, 7oops7 could attempt such, knowing, of course, that the myth of Sisyphus is apropos. Let's see, how much time do we have?

Remarks:

09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.

12/05/2008 -- It got so bad that even in a Republican time socialization of loss was allowed to bail out the privatization of profit.

Modified: 09/12/2009