The dream of 787 Dreamliners does not appear sweet despite having the best aircraft engineers in the world and long experience in plane making. Why? It fails to anticipate the fire problem – the li-ion battery.
 |
| The burned auxiliary power unit battery from a JAL Boeing 787 that caught fire on Jan. 7 at Boston's Logan International Airport soruce: Businessweek.com |
The
way the PAP runs the economy is like the 787 Dreamliner without considering the
fire problem. In order to save cost and boost the economy, we allow the
population to increase with no control. In order to be the new Switzerland, we
allow our financial and legal system to be used by foreigners for their secret missions.
Boeing
is not an ordinary company and its management, technology and many other
aspects are all world class. And yet,
they fail to notice the fire problem. Or
is it because of competition and cost savings (fuels, efficiency), they rush to
produce a Dreamliner with safety problem?
[The first thing to know about lithium-ion batteries (li-ion batteries, for short) is that lithium is extremely flammable. The other thing to know is that li-ion batteries carry much more energy per weight than any other battery; in technical parlance, they have a higher energy density. That’s why they’re the battery of choice in everything from iPhones to laptops to electric cars, whose designers want to get the greatest potential power out of the smallest, lightest power source. In the Dreamliner, the use of li-ion batteries was part of what made the plane so much lighter—and therefore more fuel-efficient than its predecessors.]
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-18/why-the-batteries-in-boeings-787-are-burning
If
we look at the PAP policies, we will see some familiar things here: to save labour
cost, we just import foreign labour; to increase price of HDB flats, we cut down
supply and add more premium features (really?); no
baby, import foreigners; …
The
worst things are to be more efficient like the Dreamliner, the PAP government encourages
old and sick to move out of Singapore; refuses to reduce class size and to increase
university places; crowded public hospitals,
clinics and transport system…..
These
are to make Singapore lighter and so like the Dreamliner Singapore under the
PAP administration can fly longer and higher with lesser fuel consumptions
(caring of the needy). Yes, without the
poor, sick, old, less educated and low income Singaporeans, the PAP piloted
Dreamliner can fly to another higher level of richness.
Unfortunately,
in the commercial world, even Boeing must place the safety of passengers
first. No airports will allow a Dreamliner
to land and take-off with a known firing problem. No matter how smart you are
or how much risk you want to take, you cannot ignore the people’s safety or
voters’ demand.
When
the PAP decides to use ‘li-ion battery’ type of policies into Singapore economy,
like Boeing they only look at the efficiency, cost savings, productivity and
sad to say, they fail to see the fire in the money making process of a high GNP
growth.
Like
Boeing, the PAP-run Singapore Inc. is a world class institution. If Boeing fails to see the battery fire, so
do the PAP fails to see the rich-poor problem in Singapore.
In
another follow-up article on Dreamliners, there is another consideration that Singaporeans
need to pay attention to. We certainly have to avoid the situation like ANA and
JAL:
[NEARLY a decade ago All Nippon Airways (ANA) brushed aside doubts about Boeing’s as-yet unbuilt 787 “Dreamliner” and placed the biggest launch order for a new jet in the planemaker’s history: 50 aircraft. Today, Japan is the world’s largest market for the 787. ANA and its domestic rival Japan Airlines (JAL) between them fly half of the 49 Dreamliners in service. As they have now discovered, that makes them the guinea-pigs in a complex aviation experiment.]
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21569746-what-dreamliners-troubles-mean-airlines-and-other-planemakers-bad-dreams-all-round
ANA
and JAL are both the victims of the troubled Dreamliners. We, too, can be the guinea-pigs
of the PAP Dreamliner. We are putting all our hopes and confidence in the PAP
policies and institutions. And at the
end of the day, we may then find out it is due to the certification process
(see below). Voters in Singapore like
FAA and others finally realize we have failed to examine properly the safety of
an aircraft:
[There is some risk that the detailed review of the 787’s safety launched by America’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) turns into an examination of the way the FAA and its equivalents worldwide go about certifying new planes. If so, and if there is any suggestion that the regulators should have required more tests before letting the 787 fly, then all the other new airliners now being worked on—Japanese, Canadian, Chinese, Russian and Brazilian as well as American and French ones—may take longer to get airborne.]
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21569746-what-dreamliners-troubles-mean-airlines-and-other-planemakers-bad-dreams-all-round
In
the past 50 years, we have failed to examine the PAP policies and institutions.
We just give them the safety certificate as they wish. Only perhaps until GE2011 and PE2011,
Singaporeans begin to take a closer look at the fire problem of the PAP
policies, like the Population White Paper.
The
PAP is not so stupid. A further safety
examination of PAP Dreamliner by voters will result to less PAP MPs being
elected. So, you see the call of ‘PAP NCMPs being appointed as ministers’. They know they will lose more GRCs, and more
sitting ministers like the case of Aljunied GRC, so they come out anther safety
procedure for themselves. In case they
do not have enough elected MPs for minister positions, they can co-opt NCMPs as ones!
This
is really kiasu plus kiasi!
Voters
in Singapore must look at the real danger – the battery fire of the PAP Dreamliner,
and give a thorough check before issuing them a certificate to run the country again. If they fail the safety test, we must have
the courage to ground the PAP Dreamliner and let another plane to take off.
Comments
Post a Comment