NH: "787 window shades not dark enough for longhaul flights"
I was listening to WGN on the way to work this morning, and their news update featured a brief story on the 787. Apparently, ANA flight attendants are complaining that the no-touch window shades are not darkening the cabin, making it difficult to work (and difficult for passengers to sleep or use IFE) on the westbound longhauls. As a result, NH brass are asking Boeing to fix the issue to make the shading darker. In the meantime, NH are retrofitting two 787s with traditional pull-down window shades.
Seems that, if there is to be a first-year glitch, this is not a bad one to have. Interesting nonetheless, and I wonder if this will further delay delivery to United and others.
__________________
Just a humble Y-flyin' bottom feeder and self-proclaimed King Prole
Seems that, if there is to be a first-year glitch, this is not a bad one to have.
...except for the fact that this feature has been presented ALL over the place (every news story I've seen about the 787 mentioned this). If you're going to tout the window shades, it better not be the first feature to be uninstalled.
__________________
I'm in the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location.
I flew the 787 and agree the windows do not get dark enough and take a very long time to go dark. As for a solution, apparently there's an electronic tinting window that goes completely dark and switches instantly that has been flying on bizjets. I found a video about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWUnmq9nFgk
...except for the fact that this feature has been presented ALL over the place (every news story I've seen about the 787 mentioned this). If you're going to tout the window shades, it better not be the first feature to be uninstalled.
Sure. I guess I would just argue that the need to tweak the new window shading system is a better growing pain to have than, say, some kind of failure in the composite material of the fuselage.
__________________
Just a humble Y-flyin' bottom feeder and self-proclaimed King Prole
I was listening to WGN on the way to work this morning, and their news update featured a brief story on the 787. Apparently, ANA flight attendants are complaining that the no-touch window shades are not darkening the cabin, making it difficult to work (and difficult for passengers to sleep or use IFE) on the westbound longhauls. As a result, NH brass are asking Boeing to fix the issue to make the shading darker. In the meantime, NH are retrofitting two 787s with traditional pull-down window shades.
Seems that, if there is to be a first-year glitch, this is not a bad one to have. Interesting nonetheless, and I wonder if this will further delay delivery to United and others.
Maybe so, but it's easy to test in a lab. Unlike issues that arise only in field trials, air trials or in operation, how much light the windows will block is easily tested in labs.
I bet that they did not account for additive effect of a small percentage of light coming through each of a hundred or so windows.
I am not making that argument, but one can make the argument that if Boeing cannot get something so simple right, how can it be trusted to have done other things, especially which are not so obvious to a lay person, well?
I flew the 787 and agree the windows do not get dark enough and take a very long time to go dark. As for a solution, apparently there's an electronic tinting window that goes completely dark and switches instantly that has been flying on bizjets. I found a video about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWUnmq9nFgk
Hello! Welcome to FlyerTalk, JuanM and enjoy for your stay. Yes, we all agree that they needs to get a darker windows. Because those passengers are complaining about windows. That's why the Boeing did not have to install the windows shades at all. Those passengers want to keep darker during on longhaul flight. They needs to get some sleep.
Maybe so, but it's easy to test in a lab. Unlike issues that arise only in field trials, air trials or in operation, how much light the windows will block is easily tested in labs.
Maybe the lab was very, very poorly lit.
__________________
I'm in the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location.
Maybe so, but it's easy to test in a lab. Unlike issues that arise only in field trials, air trials or in operation, how much light the windows will block is easily tested in labs.
I bet that they did not account for additive effect of a small percentage of light coming through each of a hundred or so windows.
I am not making that argument, but one can make the argument that if Boeing cannot get something so simple right, how can it be trusted to have done other things, especially which are not so obvious to a lay person, well?
Maybe--and remember, every piece of equipment on that plane was manufactured by the lowest bidder. However, I'm not sure you're comparing apples to apples. Just because the window dimmer needs to dim a bit more doesn't mean the engine cowlings are going to fail.
__________________
Just a humble Y-flyin' bottom feeder and self-proclaimed King Prole
Maybe--and remember, every piece of equipment on that plane was manufactured by the lowest bidder.
Awarding work to the lowest bidder s a normal practice and not an excuse for lower quality. When you have a contractors and subcontractors, you need to ensure that the contractors are complying with requirements. Of course, if requirements are wrong, contractor excuse won't fly either. Regardless of what you pay your contractor, you are responsible for ensuring quality. Boeing can't blame it on a contractor. That dimming is discovered when the plane is in service tells me something is amiss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zcat18
However, I'm not sure you're comparing apples to apples. Just because the window dimmer needs to dim a bit more doesn't mean the engine cowlings are going to fail.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I specifically noted that I am not making such a claim, that some people might, just as some loyalists of Boeing and Airbus do everything there is a delay or some issue involving the "other".
Even raising a question does not mean that some part is going to fall off. Issue it raises is did Boeing exercise due diligence in determining not just system level requirements but in detailed design. Clearly in this case it did not, nor did it discover that their claim was not met in finished unit until after it went into service. We don;t know whether Boeing was as careless about other things. Probably not, but we don't know. If they were sloppy, cowling may indeed fall off. Not saying that it's time to pull everything off an aircraft and introduce an inspection regime.
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP, Hertz 5*, Hyatt Diamond, Ma:rriott Gold
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaatri
Maybe so, but it's easy to test in a lab. Unlike issues that arise only in field trials, air trials or in operation, how much light the windows will block is easily tested in labs.
I bet that they did not account for additive effect of a small percentage of light coming through each of a hundred or so windows.
I'm not sure it's an oversight or a calculated trade off. Windows that don't go completely dark is a feature: it is meant to allow others to see what's outside without disturbing seatmates. How much light is too much is subjective, isn't it?
Maybe the real oversight is not allowing airlines configure the maximum and minimum setting?
__________________
Is there light at the end of this dAArk tunnel?
Wirelessly posted (Samsung Galaxy S: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.6; en-us; SGH-T959V Build/GINGERBREAD) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalalien
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaatri
Maybe so, but it's easy to test in a lab. Unlike issues that arise only in field trials, air trials or in operation, how much light the windows will block is easily tested in labs.
I bet that they did not account for additive effect of a small percentage of light coming through each of a hundred or so windows.
I'm not sure it's an oversight or a calculated trade off. Windows that don't go completely dark is a feature: it is meant to allow others to see what's outside without disturbing seatmates. How much light is too much is subjective, isn't it?
Maybe the real oversight is not allowing airlines configure the maximum and minimum setting?
That's a possibility too. It's neither difficult, nor expensive to do a study of how much trnaamission od light into the cabin is acceptable for sleep. If it wasn't done, it was sloppy on the part of Boeing. Blaming a contractor as a poster did, is untenable.
I know that it is sometimes hard to discern tone from written communication, but methinks you took my post in a different spirit than that in which I offered it.
I have no argument with your other points.
__________________
Just a humble Y-flyin' bottom feeder and self-proclaimed King Prole
