November 14, 2024

Battery Is Not Suspected in New Fire on Boeing 787

The British Air Accidents Investigation Branch said in a statement that the fire resulted in smoke throughout the plane and extensive heat damage in the upper part of the rear fuselage. But while the investigators said they had not found the cause of the problems, the damage was not near either of the plane’s lithium-ion batteries. “At this stage,” the statement said, “there is no evidence of a direct causal relationship” between the batteries and the fire.

That initial finding was a big relief to Boeing, its investors and the 13 airlines that have bought the planes, which were grounded for four months worldwide this year after two episodes involving fire or smoke from the batteries. But the eventual findings about the cause of the latest fire, which occurred on an unoccupied Ethiopian Airlines 787 parked at Heathrow Airport on Friday, could still be a setback for Boeing if the investigators find problems with another crucial system on the plane.

The investigation branch said its initial inquiry would most likely take several days, and it did not offer any other comment on possible causes. Other safety experts said the possibilities could include heated elements left in a galley just below where the fire burned through the jet’s carbon-composite skin, a poorly installed part or a short in the plane’s electrical system.

The innovative planes were grounded in mid-January after the incidents involving fire or smoke coming from the new and more volatile types of batteries. But the first 50 planes began flying again between late April to early June after regulators approved a series of fixes, including adding insulation between the battery cells and encasing the batteries inside a steel box.

Ethiopian Airlines said in a statement earlier on Saturday that it was continuing to fly its other 787s because the fire at Heathrow occurred after the jet had been on the ground for eight hours and “was not related to flight safety.” The airline did not comment on the possible cause of the fire.

The other airlines with the planes, including United Airlines and 11 other foreign carriers, have also continued to fly them while the fire at Heathrow is investigated.

The fire caused no injuries, but it disrupted travel, and investors reacted nervously, sending Boeing’s shares down 4.7 percent on Friday.

Smoke came from the plane, named the Queen of Sheba, eight hours after it had been parked in a remote space at Heathrow and about four and a half hours before it was scheduled to depart for Ethiopia. No passengers were on the plane, which was connected to an external ground power source, according to people briefed on the episode.

It was also not clear if any maintenance was under way or how long the fire had been burning, though it was intense enough to burn through the top of the fuselage near the tail. That area is in a complex section where large parts of the plane are joined together. The two lithium-ion batteries, which were used instead of conventional nickel-cadmium batteries to save weight and provide more energy, are under the cockpit and just behind the wings toward the bottom of the plane.

In addition to the British investigators leading the inquiry, a team from Boeing was on site along with representatives from the airline and from two American government agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.

Boeing, the F.A.A. and the N.T.S.B. had no comment Saturday on the possible cause of the fire, deferring to the British investigators.

Other experts said that some of the plane’s wiring, and the oxygen systems for passengers, would have passed through the damaged area, which was above the rear galley. It was also possible the fire migrated from another part of the plane, they said.

The Financial Times quoted an Ethiopian manager in Britain as saying that maintenance workers had discovered a problem with the plane’s air-conditioning system during a routine inspection and had seen sparks but no flames. The report did not say when the inspection occurred, and aviation-safety officials in the United States were not sure what to make of it.

Thomson Airways, a charter airline, said on Saturday that it had replaced and tested several parts on a 787 that had cut short a flight on Friday. It said the plane would fly again on Sunday.

The 787 has had a history of other mishaps since entering service in November 2011. Several airlines, including United, Qatar Airways and All Nippon Airlines, have been forced to divert flights because of electrical problems or other reasons. Still, airlines have eagerly anticipated the plane, which has cut fuel costs by 20 percent.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/fire-on-boeing-787-dreamliner-at-heathrow-in-london.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Preoccupations: In Defense of Working Mostly From Home

The idea that all employees should sit in the same place for eight hours a day, five days a week, seemed maddeningly inefficient to me. I knew that I was at peak productivity at certain times throughout the day, with regular lulls in between. The flexibility to determine when and where I worked made me a better worker.

But as my company grew, something surprising happened: I started to feel the pull of the office. As an employee, I still had little desire to spend all of my day there. As an employer, however, I wanted to ensure that my employees were working efficiently. Requiring everyone to be in the office for at least part of the week seemed the easiest way to do that. I also saw the value of the conversations that arose when people were physically together in a room.

When I heard last week that Marissa Mayer, Yahoo’s chief executive, was banning its employees from working at home, my first thought was, “I’m glad I don’t work at Yahoo.” But I also understood why she felt compelled to enact the policy, at least for now. She is in charge of a huge company that is known for its bloat. This may be exactly what Yahoo needs to get back on track. The question is whether the policy will improve productivity in the long run.

The idea that everyone must be in the office five days a week harks back to a time when workers didn’t have the proper tools to work from home. But we live in a very different world today. Given that technology has made employees accessible around the clock, and that they are often expected to work after hours, the traditional 40-hour schedule is in many ways an anachronism.

Yahoo argued in a memo announcing its new policy that “some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people and impromptu team meetings.” That is certainly true. But it is also the case that some of the most creative insights come only when you give the human brain unstructured time to think. Opportunities for such freewheeling thought rarely present themselves amid the hustle and bustle of daily office life.

IN today’s world, where we are constantly connected, the office should be reconceived as a gathering place to communicate ideas and to reinforce personal bonds. Beyond that, employees should be given the respect, and the responsibility, to manage their own schedules and complete their work on their own time, from wherever they choose. This is the principle we followed in my business, called Khush. We came to the office three days a week for five hours a day, starting around noon.

In 2011, a larger app company, Smule Inc., acquired us, and I learned that complexity grows along with the size of a team. Communication is an ever-bigger challenge. Details can be overlooked. Opportunities for spontaneous collaboration can be missed and the best of intentions misunderstood.

And yet, regardless of a company’s size, the fundamentals of productivity do not change. Smart people still work best when they can choose when and where they are working. Such flexibility also helps employees who are parents. Some of our employees take a break in the afternoon to pick up their children from school, then come back to finish their work. And the work always gets done on time.

Smule was already fairly flexible about scheduling, asking its employees to work a minimum of five hours a day, four days a week, in the office. Recently, as our businesses merged more fully, the company asked the employees from Khush to switch to Smule’s schedule. But instead, I persuaded Smule’s C.E.O. to switch all employees to the three-day-a-week minimum that my company had maintained. He agreed to the change even though he had reservations about it — he is a big believer in face time.

I think this policy comes closest to a middle ground that satisfies the needs of both employers and employees. Rather than leaning on organizational principles designed for an older time, companies should collectively develop new strategies to remove the remaining challenges to working from home.

Prerna Gupta is chief product officer at Smule Inc., a music app developer that in 2011 bought Khush, the company she co-founded.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/jobs/in-defense-of-working-mostly-from-home.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Preoccupations: Maybe a Management Job Isn’t Your Style

You can point to any number of reasons for this situation: insufficient training, poor communication, etc. But I say a bad boss is born each time someone goes into management without knowing whether he or she is truly suited to the role. When people are offered a managerial job, they may become intoxicated by the idea of more power and a bigger salary. Refusing such an offer can seem out of the question.

“It’s hard to stop and think rationally when you’re being offered a promotion,” said a former client, whom I’ll call Phil. “You’re flattered. Your boss is telling you it’s a great opportunity, not to mention that it’s really good for the team and will help him a lot. Are you really going to tell him you that you’re not sure if you want it, or that you’ll need some help learning to manage the team and the new responsibilities? I don’t think so.”

Phil, a sales star for a sizable Midwestern manufacturer thought it better to charge ahead and accept his promotion as head of sales for a newly formed territory, rather than to politely decline, even temporarily, or to ask his boss for more time to consider it. The risk that his boss would think that he wasn’t prepared for the job or, worse, that he didn’t want more responsibility, was too great.

Move ahead a year. Phil’s effort at leading the territory proved to be a nightmare. The interpersonal dynamics, the 24/7 monitoring and a near coup in the department made him realize that he disliked managing people and had no talent for it. Maybe if his company had given him more than eight hours of management training, or had coached him through his first three to six months, he would have developed an affinity for the role. Instead, both he and the team floundered.

Many newly minted leaders rarely stop to think about the enormous time commitment and learning curve as they transition from successful individual contributor to manager of a group of diverse people. They often fail to consider the demands of an expanding work schedule; the complexities of hiring, training, supervising and firing workers; or the needs to develop a vision and a tactical strategy, to create budgets or to be accountable for others’ productivity.

THE lesson is this: When offered a management position, talk to your future boss, to the person you’d be replacing, to team members and to anyone else who can tell you what the job entails. Assess your strengths and limitations by scrutinizing your performance reviews and asking your boss, mentors and trusted colleagues for feedback.

Reflect on your motivations, then ask yourself these questions: Do I enjoy working with people, helping them to grow and to become successful? Do I handle uncertainty well, and do I mind making decisions without knowing the entire picture? Do I communicate well, in good times and bad? Do I have the time to take this on? If your answers are yes, then you could well have the makings of a good boss.

On the other hand, do you need for everyone to like you? Want immediate and constant reinforcement? Feel nervous about having legal and financial responsibilities for others? Balk at the idea of evaluating or firing someone? Then it’s possible that you’re just not cut out to be a boss.

Before deciding, find out what kind of leadership training the company offers, especially if you are new to management. Will you receive training at this level and for this job? How about mentoring support along the way?

If you decide to take the plunge, accept that being a great manager, or even a good one, is a learned skill. Like many talented professionals, whether N.B.A. players or opera divas, you will become successful by honing the right skills with huge amounts of practice.

Remember, you don’t have to say yes. Depending on your field and your company, there are ways besides management to further your career. One thing is certain: the more you are perceived as really good at what you do, the more options you’ll have to carve out the path you want — whether in management or not.

Peggy Klaus is an author, executive coach and leader of corporate training programs.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/jobs/maybe-a-management-job-isnt-your-style.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Pictures From the Week in Business, Jan. 11

The decontamination crews at a deserted elementary school in Naraha, Japan, are at the forefront of what the country says is the most ambitious radiological cleanup the world has seen. But much of the work at the Naraha-Minami Elementary School, about 12 miles from the ravaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, tells another story. For eight hours a day, construction workers blast buildings with water, cut grass and shovel dirt and foliage into big black plastic bags — which, with nowhere to go, dot Naraha’s landscape like funeral mounds.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2013/01/12/business/weekly-business-photos.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Gadgetwise Blog: Spectacles That Change Prescriptions on the Fly

EmPower's Pixel Optics glasses change magnification when an electrical current runs through it. They rest in its charging station.EmPower’s Pixel Optics glasses change magnification when an electrical current runs through them. They rest in its charging station.

LAS VEGAS — At the International Consumer Electronics Show you find electronics in everything, even the glass of spectacles. A company called Pixel Optics is demonstrating eyeglasses in which an electronic current is passed through liquid crystals to change the prescription on the fly.

DESCRIPTION

Called the Empower line, the glasses are frames with progressive lenses with three focusing zones. Only two focus zones work at a time, eliminating problems some progressive lens wearers experience when the upper and lower prescriptions interfere with the middle. (It’s called “swim”).

When the wearer touches the temple of the Empower glasses frame, the lower portion gets added magnification for close-up reading. When it’s off, the distance and intermediate zones are on. The glasses can also be set to automatically turn on the magnification when the wearer’s head tips down, as when reading, then turn off when the gaze returns to level.

The frames have batteries in the earpieces that are charged on an inductance stand. It takes about eight hours to get a full charge, and the company said to expect a charge to last two to three days. While the batteries can be replaced, the expectation is that most people’s prescriptions will change before the batteries wear out.

The glasses are available in most major markets and in nearly 1,500 shops nationwide, the company said.

But the price may leave you cross-eyed. Expect at least a 20 percent premium over the highest end progressives. That would be around $1,200 to $1,500 a pair.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=56e1241936b91c62820c1731143a0e8a