Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Seattle Times: 787 Unsafe In A Crash  
User currently offlinergreenftm From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 296 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 37283 times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...hnology/2012201098_787tests27.html

I'm reluctant to post this link at all, as it seems a little bit too negative to Boeing, and their design efforts. However unqualified Mr. Dominic Gates is to report on Aviation engineering, I thought I'd see what your take is on this article.

I guess what I took away more than anything from the article is that Boeing opens themselves up to a lot of liability every time they sell/deliver an airplane, be it a 737, 767, 777 or the new 787. Virtually everytime there is a lawsuit involving an airplane crash, the manufacturer seems to find themselves on the list of defendants in the lawsuit. That being said, I just don't see how Boeing or Airbus would allow an unsafe aircraft to fly and that alone seems to be enough to point a finger of irresponsible reporting on the author.

126 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15497 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 37255 times:

Quoting rgreenftm (Thread starter):
Virtually everytime there is a lawsuit involving an airplane crash, the manufacturer seems to find themselves on the list of defendants in the lawsuit.

Yep. And it isn't just airlines either. As I understand it, there is a pretty healthy industry of independent accident investigators and engineering consultants who work with crash litigation. Apparently it isn't bad work if you can get it.

Quoting rgreenftm (Thread starter):
I just don't see how Boeing or Airbus would allow an unsafe aircraft to fly

Or regulatory bodies for that matter. The fact of the matter is that the 787 (and all composite aircraft) are certified using the same standards as any other.

And on a final note, even if composite aircraft prove to be somewhat less crashworthy than their aluminum counterparts, I would have to guess that the cost benefit analysis still weighs in favor of CFRP.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 36903 times:

Quoting rgreenftm (Thread starter):
I thought I'd see what your take is on this article.

Not much at all, this came across to me as the sort of story you research and have in your back pocket when you have a slow news week.

The real advantage I see composites have for crashworthiness is the magnitude of kinetic energy that the "aircraft" as a system would have, and the better aerodynamics that result from using a composite wing.

In both cases he mentions, i.e. the BA 777 at LHR, and the AF A340 in YYZ I think the outcomes would have been different if they same aircraft were made from composites.

A composite 777 would have been able to make the runway, not because of the weight saving, but because of the better L/D ratio (best glide angles are independent of weight), also the thermal insulation properties of composites I think would prevent fuel from getting as cold during long flight at cold temperatures.

And for the AF A340, I think they would have had a lower approach speed, and lower total energy that would have made the landing process safer. The most unsafe aircraft in my view from a landing safety point of view are freighter aircraft, they tend to land near maximum landing weight, which normally requires higher approach speeds and sink rates than similar passenger aircraft.

I am also very confident in the engineering and testing that aircraft manufacturers put into their products, while historically new situations do present themselves which make regulators re-examine the certification basis, I am confident when Boeing receives their TCDS for the 787, it is the official stamp of approval to back up the following “Boeing says a key design change and subsequent physical tests prove the final Dreamliner design is now as safe as a metal airplane.”

[Edited 2010-06-27 02:22:30]


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 36837 times:

I'd get on 003 for a ride to Farnborough, in a millisecond. I'd say the the test program has been a success so far, with only minor glitches that raise absolutely not red flags when it comes to safety.  


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offline757luver From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36762 times:

With the way the article seems to attack the idea of composites, it makes you wonder if someone is part owner of an aviation metal supply company. To me there's always a 50% percent survival rate in an accident no matter what mode of transportation you take. It doesn't matter what it's made of, the forces alone can kill you even if the plane remains intact. I myself wouldn't hesitate to climb on board a 787. Just wish the media would get over this whole composites vs. metal thing.


Long live the 757!
User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36740 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 3):
I'd say the the test program has been a success so far, with only minor glitches that raise absolutely not red flags when it comes to safety


Given the entire fleet is currently de facto grounded due to Boeing's inability to guarantee there are no configuration deviations in key structural parts produced by Alenia which can potentially cause disasterous fatigue damage to the plane's rear fuselage and elevator, I wouldn't say it only has minor glitches.

At the very least I'd say:

The 787 is surrounded by ongoing uncertainties about its long term structural integrity, deep into its now halted flight testing.

[Edited 2010-06-27 02:17:18]

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36667 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 2):
I am also very confident in the engineering and testing that aircraft manufacturers put into their products, while historically new situations do prevent themselves which make regulators re-examine the certification basis, I am confident when Boeing receives their TCDS for the 787, it is the official stamp of approval to back up the following “Boeing says a key design change and subsequent physical tests prove the final Dreamliner design is now as safe as a metal airplane.”

I totally agree with Zeke on this one. Airplanes and systems keep on getting safer and safer. The very low number on crashed B777 (1) and A330 (2), both airplanes flying since the mid-1990's, is proof for this. But if a crash is severe enough, sadly enough I do not think it will make any difference if the aircraft is made from metal or composites for that matter.

It certainly will not effect my choice of aircraft I am going to fly if I am booking a flight now, or in the future.


User currently offlinepylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36565 times:

I'd say the article is quite positive.
It showed issued - and how Boeing addressed those issues.
In reality we can't judge until 787 is certified and actually flies commercially.
But we are all hopeful.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15497 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36550 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 6):
It certainly will not effect my choice of aircraft I am going to fly if I am booking a flight now, or in the future.

I agree, the chances are so small it isn't worth going out of my way, paying more, being more uncomfortable, etc. The cost benefit analysis for me as a passenger grades out in favor of the Dreamliner.

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 7):
But we are all hopeful

Well, not all of us. The previous thread made that clear enough.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36457 times:

Most planes aren't safe in a crash last i checked.  

User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2669 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36392 times:

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 7):
I'd say the article is quite positive.

I agree. Some issues are mentioned, and the steps Boeing took to remedy them are outlined. Indeed we won't know until there is a crash (if there is a crash). But, to a certain extent, this is true for all new airplanes. I agree with Zeke: this must have been in the back-burner for a while. Nothing new. Nothing worrisome.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 36305 times:

Quoting 757luver (Reply 4):
With the way the article seems to attack the idea of composites,


While providing nothing new, I think this article is well researched and well balanced. It raises critical questions, but also tells the story how these critical questions were adressed and how the fuselage design has been changed since then. I wouldn't be too susprised to find that A and B are collaborating on this topic, because safety is their common number one concern. Perhaps here's were the article is falling a little short: Dominic could have asked how this is addressed with the A350 or any other composite aircraft, like the Raytheon Permier One, Hawker Horizon, V-22 Osprey etc. Also, NASA did extensive drop-tests using a real Learfan 2100 and the Sikorsky/Bell ACAP composite helicopter airframes. It's not like the problem is new, it has been worked on for at least three decades.


User currently offlinezainmax From Pakistan, joined Jul 2009, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 36068 times:

Boeing has only conducted the wing stress test in order to check the strength of the wing.
But these documents have raised questions and may be now FAA is looking in the matter because hardly 4-5 months are left when its expected that B787 will get FAA certification. Hope all gets well soon ...... !



ZAINMAX APPRENTICE MECHANIC - PIA
User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6957 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 36044 times:

The FAA will not certify an unsafe aircraft.

I expect the FAA to certify the 787



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9840 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 35770 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 6):
I totally agree with Zeke on this one. Airplanes and systems keep on getting safer and safer. The very low number on crashed B777 (1) and A330 (2),

And there is no evidence that I'm aware of that structural failure was in anyway a cause of any of these...

Quoting rgreenftm (Thread starter):
Seattle Times: 787 Unsafe In A Crash

I have to say rgreenftm, that I think the title of the thread is completely misleading.

The article that is written clearly shows the steps gone through by both Boeing and the FAA to ensure that the 787 IS safe in a crash.....

Thought it was a good article, actually.

Rgds


User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2125 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 35155 times:

Quoting rgreenftm (Thread starter):
However unqualified Mr. Dominic Gates is to report on Aviation engineering

Why all the negativity about Dominic Gates? I think the current article about 787 composites is a reasonable and balanced report on the back story behind the concerns of survivability of a 787 composite fuselage in a crash.



The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 34665 times:

Quoting rgreenftm (Thread starter):
I guess what I took away more than anything from the article is that Boeing opens themselves up to a lot of liability every time they sell/deliver an airplane, be it a 737, 767, 777 or the new 787.

Yes. I think it's a matter of course to sue the airframer as part of any crash these days.

Quoting slz396 (Reply 5):
The 787 is surrounded by ongoing uncertainties about its long term structural integrity

No more so than any other airliner. The current tail issue is a manufacturing error (it wasn't built per drawing). So ver is zero evidence that, if built correctly, the 787 has any more long term structural integrity issues than any other aircraft. There's actually a lot of evidence that it will have *less*.

Quoting zainmax (Reply 12):
Boeing has only conducted the wing stress test in order to check the strength of the wing.

Boeing has conducted *far* more tests than that, including all of the fuselage and empennage and the fuselage drop (crash) test.

Tom.


User currently offlineLtbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 34045 times:

It is an interesting question raised by the author. We are going into a major change in aircraft structures with majority non-metal structures, new territory with new and unique risks. Computer testing has it's limits, but so does 'hard' testing especially as to crash scenrios. What if these composite structure aircraft crashes at or very near an airports and hits various land objects such as fences, radio equipment, small buildings, lighting systems, land berms etc.? Of course, such objects will rip apart a 'metal' bodied aircraft as well - look at the A340 in Toronto several years ago. With composite strucures hitting such objects, they may behave differently.

We also have to acknowlege that crashes have been much rarer over time due to many other changes. It is also possible that composites may be less subject to tempature affected expansion and contraction, thermal transfer (ie: possible factor with BA 777 crash at LHR), less subject to corrosion issues, but on the other hand may raise new issues.

Let us hope that the testing results are valid, that we never have to see in reality of a crash of a 787 or other composite majority a/c and if it happens, that the results are the best possible or even better due to composite strucures.


User currently offlinemd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2659 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 33504 times:

Aren't all aircraft unsafe in a crash?

User currently offlineSomePlaneGuy From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 33310 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 5):
Given the entire fleet is currently de facto grounded due to Boeing's inability......

Keep up. Some of the fleet has already been cleared to resume flight tests as also reported by the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ospace/2012217281_787update27.html

Quoting slz396 (Reply 5):

At the very least I'd say:

The 787 is surrounded by ongoing uncertainties about its long term structural integrity, deep into its now halted flight testing.

And yet still manages to thrash A350 and will likely do to A330 what 777 did to A340.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 33268 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 2):
zeke

I know several people here are going to be shocked here while I say I fully agree with Zeke here.

No, the Earth has not left its orbit around the sun..............

Any airliner crash has a negitive effect on survivability. That said, almost any accident has the potential of no injuries or fatalities up to no survivors. That has nothing to do with the materials the aircraft is made from, but has everything to do with the various dynamics of any crash. Fire, or the time between the fire starts (if it starts at all) and the impact is the number one factor in determining survivability. Most people are killed by fire and not impact forces. Although impact forces, and each person's location within the aircraft, do determine if any one person survives. Look at the CRJ-70 accident in LEX a few years ago, the co-pilot was the only survivor, and then only because he was rescued within a short period of time (that aircraft was burning). The recent A-330 and A-310 crashes each also had only one survivor, and the same has happened on numerous Boeing crashes, too. The AF A-340 and BA B-777 each highlight total survivorability, and few injuries due to impact forces, and in the case of the B-777, parts seperating (the main landing gear) and penertrating the hull. The A-340 crash highlights the time from the final crash impact to the fire getting big enough to become a threat to life. In that crash, there was time for the evacuation. The B-777 crash did not cause a fire, so it would be difficult to determine if a fire would have threatened anyone or everyone.

The geographic location the wreckage also is a factor in determining survivorability. The AA DC-10 crach at DFW in 1994 is a good example of that. The wreckage ended up less than 1/4 mile from DFW Fire Station #1, and started to burn, but the fire was put out quickly. The same happened in the CO B-737 crash at DEN a few years ago, too. Sadly that is not always the case. The DL L-1011 crash at DFW in 1985 was not far from Fire Station #3, but that aircraft hit a million gallon ground level water tank, which killed or drowned most of the people aboard, fire killed more, ending up with some 132 people killed, but those in the tail section survived after it broke away from the main portion of the wreckage.

Each airplane crash is unique. Yes, the causes of the crash may be indentical to one or more crashes in the past, but the way the airplane acts during the crash is unique due to various other things going on, like weather, airspeed, angle of impact, location of the first impact on the aircraft, etc.

To say any aircraft, once it is certified, is dangerous is disingenuous.

Quoting slz396 (Reply 5):
Given the entire fleet is currently de facto grounded due to Boeing's inability to guarantee there are no configuration deviations in key structural parts produced by Alenia which can potentially cause disasterous fatigue damage to the plane's rear fuselage and elevator, I wouldn't say it only has minor glitches.

Incorrect. Neither Boeing, nor Airbus, or any other OEM can guarantee each and every part manufactured by a subcontractor fully meets the design specs. This is just the latest example of that. Airbus recently had a problem with seats from a subcontractor. They found the problem and have/are correcting it and did not deliver those few aircraft until it was corrected. Boeing is simply doing the same thing here. All this does is bring into question the quality control or QA/QC of the subcontractors.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2669 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 33223 times:

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 18):
Aren't all aircraft unsafe in a crash?

It seems that current planes are safer than in the past. Examples: BA 777 crash landing with zero loss of life, AF 340 runway overrun with zero loss of life, US 320 ditching with zero loss of life. I'm sure that there were many reasons, but I guess the design of the new aircraft had something to do with the benign outcome of these accidents.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11947 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 32882 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
I have to say rgreenftm, that I think the title of the thread is completely misleading.

  

Especially given that the article itself is titled "How will 787's new materials fare in a crash landing?".

ST is not saying the 787 is unsafe in a crash, as this thread title suggests, they are just asking how safe can we expect the 787 to be in a crash relative to an aluminum airliner.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29694 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 32712 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Back on topic for this thread, CFRP and composites in general are here to stay and have been for well over a decade. The 777 uses CFRP in her floorbeams and the A380 has a number of large CFRP and non-carbon composite structural sections. Both aircraft successfully passed their certification tests and the first 777 hull-loss involved no loss of life.

In addition to the 787 and A350, it's pretty clear that the replacements for the 737 and A320 families will employ significant use of structural composites and they will see sales into five figures together. Neither the OEMs nor the operators can risk putting an aircraft they either know or believe to be unsafe nor can the governmental agencies that certifies those aircraft allow such a plane to be certified for passenger operation.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2669 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 32713 times:

Quoting SomePlaneGuy (Reply 19):
And yet still manages to thrash A350 and will likely do to A330 what 777 did to A340.

Thrash? Why the violence? 787: 866 net orders in 7 years. 350: 530 orders in 5 years. Since the 350 was offered: 576 orders for the 787, 530 for the 350. In the last two years: -44 for the 787, +47 for the 350. Trashing indeed.

Now, orders for the 330 in the 7 years the 787 has been on sale: 607. In the last two years: +50. So the 787 may one day obviate the 330, but so far the 330 is holding its own pretty well. The 767 on the other hand...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
25 NASCARAirforce : I don't think it is a big deal. It hasn't stopped the auto industry. Look at how cars back in the 1960s and 70s were big and boatlike made out of real
26 KC135TopBoom : Not an apples to apples comparison. The B-787 is a B-767/A-330 replacemnent, the A-350 is a B-777/A-340 replacement.
27 someplaneguy : Violence was not the intention. To me, outsold by 61% qualifies for thrash. I agree. Much in part due to it's role for filling short term leases unti
28 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...and from the article: "the FAA to conclude it is safer in a fire than a traditional metal fuselage. " Yet we have this: Go figure..
29 UALWN : But the post I was replying to (# 19) did compare the 787 to the 350 (actually, he claimed the former "thrashes" the latter). What can I do? I know:
30 rottenray : My "take" on the article is that it is actually well-written and seems well-researched, at least in comparison to most mainstream media pieces regard
31 Post contains images EPA001 : Not really, the facts are as they are. Zeke pointed them out correctly. (as usual ). As you did yourself so I agree with you as well. Should we call
32 Aesma : The car, yes, the passengers, not so sure.
33 kanban : don't take the bait... Zeke seems to have the best summary and as others have noted every incident involving the ground and sudden decelleartion is d
34 F9Animal : While I can't predict the future, we will eventually see a 787 go down. The big question is this.... What will be the cause?
35 spacecadet : The article is not about a crash per se, it's about an otherwise survivable crash landing. If you'd read the article, you'd see that Boeing's own ini
36 EA CO AS : I'm not sure this thread topic is accurate. In fact, it's rather misleading - the Seattle Times article is saying that the original 2005 design proved
37 Aerosol : Have composites made Formula 1 less save? No, just the opposite!
38 flylku : I'm not even going to read the article but I will say I am still waiting for the day the headline reads "Aircraft Safe in Crash".
39 AirNZ : In what regard?
40 AirframeAS : I have not read the article but whatever happened to Steven Miletech, their Seattle Times aviation reporter?? That dude seemed to have a grudge again
41 Post contains images okie : If you want to really know the risk go to the insurance rates. They go to great lengths to know when they are going to replace an airframe and pay in
42 SSTsomeday : There seem to be two separate, albiet related issues here. If I recall correctly: 1) Aircraft manufactures prefer to concentrate more of their design
43 Stitch : Mark Webber is proof of that today...
44 UALWN : Yep. Even more impressive was Kubica's accident in Montreal in 2007. He was driving at 186.5 mph. He suffered an average deceleration of 28g, peak at
45 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : God, I hope you guys are wrong. I hope no B-787, A-380, or any other airplane ever goes down. Actually, composites have made those race cars safer. C
46 Aesma : Composites have not much to do with it. There are regulations, crash tests, etc. For starters there is a minimum weight, so past a point it doesn't m
47 soon7x7 : My clients have been flying the Hawker series aircraft and the pilots report that with the 4000 series (CFRP's), it touches down with a noticable hard
48 denverdanny : Technology and regulations for preventing crashes have improved flying safety. With each successive generation of planes, crashes are becoming less fr
49 USAirways787 : I wasn't aware crashing was safe. US
50 spacecadet : Gotta read the article. It starts with two recent examples where the construction material did matter. And in fact, Boeing themselves acknowledge thi
51 jreuschl : IMO the title of this thread is a little misleading, in fact, the article seems to how Boeing feels the opposite is true.
52 DocLightning : It's true. The human cost of a plane crash is astronomical. The financial cost of a plane crash is astronomical. Nobody, no matter how bureaucratic,
53 Post contains images terryb99 : I was actually thinking someone had stolen Zeke's login credentials, IMHO, the tread title was poorly worded, but the article was well written, and Z
54 soon7x7 : I feel the article has some valid points to be considered. Crash survivability is not key to design, it is a by product of the design with degrees of
55 Post contains links rheinwaldner : No, the outcome often is not black or white: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29394003/
56 Post contains images meister808 : I think suggesting that an airplane crash is inherently 'unsafe' is really missing the point... if all bets were off once an airplane 'crashed', we wo
57 SEPilot : While crash survivability is an important consideration, keeping the plane from crashing at all is far more important. In this area Boeing, Airbus, an
58 Post contains images astuteman : For what its worth, my prediction is that, if they're designed, and certified, to the same FAA/EASA acceptance criteria, they'll perform about the sa
59 JBirdAV8r : Side note...those airbags are really fantastic. It's really mind-boggling how many fatal injuries could have been avoided with airbags. So many pilot
60 isitsafenow : If they certify hang gliders and ulti-lights, they'll certify the 787. You're right................... safe
61 KC135TopBoom : Correct. The artical goes into assumptions that are not real world, such as metal hulled aircraft shins crumble, as opposed to tearing. The skin on a
62 Post contains images bikerthai : LOL. Don't you mean the reverse? During long flights, the wing/fuel will be cold soaked whether it's composite or metal (unless they have heating ele
63 longhauler : They have in the past. Hopefully they wont in the future.
64 SEPilot : Actually, I believe that they will perform better. As the article notes, the fire resistance is actually better, and I believe that the fact that CFR
65 United787 : Both ZA002 and ZA003 flew yesterday... After reading the article, in my very humble opinion, no one knows exactly what will happen to a 787 in an acc
66 StuckInCA : Troll much?
67 Post contains images astuteman : And yet it is this very "shattering" that the article linked in the OP describes as the principal safety concern that Boeing have had to overcome, as
68 SEPilot : But it was in the context of the floor failing that they concluded that the acceleration would be excessive; once the floor attachments were redesign
69 Post contains images bikerthai : There would be many reason why: One of which is by PURE COINCIDENT. Then, it would then cost too much money to re-design it so it would BARELY EXCEED
70 Post contains images astuteman : It gives me great delight to see us both in complete agreement my friend Boeing did indeed, in their own words, on their own aircraft, re-design the
71 bestwestern : I take them at their word. Boeing won't knowingly release an unsafe aircraft into the market. The aircraft will be thoroughly tested, and retested. T
72 rcair1 : In fact, it was the design of cars to progressively crumple and disintegrate that made them safer. In the bad old days, particularly in racing, they
73 astuteman : And yet the article clearly states that the problem Boeing encountered was that because the CFRP shattered rather than deformed, as aluminium would N
74 KC135TopBoom : Actually, the number of accidents, as a percentage, caused by pilot error has stayed consistanly around 90%. The number of accidents has reduced grea
75 spacecadet : No, they would have just died earlier from excessive g-forces. Currently, most people die in aircraft crashes due to post-impact fire. That's because
76 PolymerPlane : The whole article is worthless anyway. From all we know, Boeing might have run 100s of these simulation to find the best structural configuration, and
77 justloveplanes : Your conclusions aren't supported by any facts that I can see. You say (as have others) that passengers will absorb most of the crash impact as the a
78 tdscanuck : You're assuming that the composite is conductive enough that you achieve cold soak in the first place...it's not obvious that that's the case. And a
79 Post contains images astuteman : I was actually attempting to do exactly the opposite, Tom, and discourage others from "overreaching" in the manner you describe above. So please acce
80 Post contains links rheinwaldner : CFRP allowed to build much more rigid race cars. The weigth advantage is used to build a driver protecting features that would not be possible with o
81 Rheinbote : I think the baseline difference in characteristics between CFRP and Aluminum ist that the latter can absorb ~60 times more energy by plastic deformat
82 SEPilot : But the article clearly stated that this scenario was for the design BEFORE THEY REINFORCED THE FLOOR ATTACHMENTS. The bottom line here is that the p
83 Post contains links rheinwaldner : Here is a document that shows studies about CFRP fuselage crash crashworthiness. It has nice pictures on the last pages that show how a crash is abso
84 bikerthai : The seats themselves are not collapsible, but some uses deformable/shear away teeth to absorb the energy involved in the 16G crash requirement. Maybe
85 Post contains images astuteman : Exactly. The CFRP didn't perform in the same manner as Al would have, so they changed the design until it met the spec as effectively as an Al fusela
86 SEPilot : I guess our main argument is what happens once the design loads are exceeded. My point is that they design both Al and CFRP to not fail at a certain
87 amicus : As a person directly involved in this whole Seattle Times article, I can speak with some degree of background knowledge on this matter, Sadly, given m
88 EA772LR : I get the impression that many feel Boeing simply arbitrarily designed the 787 with little or no thought of the impact of using CFRP other than saving
89 justloveplanes : With all due respect to your excellent artlicle, your statement is incorrect. There was also a burn through test, showing marked superiority to the B
90 amicus : Re justlove planes, reply 89, I am NOT incorrect, both 787 and B-2A use similar epoxies which burn, in case of the 787 Toray 3900-2 epoxy and in case
91 tdscanuck : Any stability calculation includes E (Young's modulus). As a direct result, the structural stability of any aircraft component depends *directly* on
92 BoeingVista : I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned SA295, FAA allowed Boeing to certify the 747 combi as fire safe using a test that was not representative of a
93 ikramerica : For some reason, this topic doesn't frighten me. I consider all planes unsafe in a crash, and never want to be in one. That said, the 787 will be as s
94 frmrCapCadet : After Seattle's historic fire in the late 1800s, just a decade or so before steel construction, they devised a new code for wooden buildings. Essentia
95 Post contains images astuteman : You certainly won't see me doing that It's not me that thinks that. I'll re-quote... I'm quite sure it's possible to build a CFRP airliner that's saf
96 rheinwaldner : What is first? The stability requirement! Which is constant regardless of the material that is used to build the actual part. More simplistic (but yo
97 rheinwaldner : That is ok, but closing the airport for 3 days is very bad PR too. If news station around the world send life pictures from the fire for 3 subsequent
98 Rheinbote : In the interest of safety, there's a gentleman agreement in the industry to never let safety become a competitive issue. Fully agree. That's the prin
99 Post contains images bikerthai : Following this same line of thought . . . given that the 787 will have cabin altitude of 8000ft as opposed to 6000ft, did this force the CRFP skin to
100 Post contains links XT6Wagon : Really? Its been said, but clearly it needs to be said again PANELS OFFER NO EXTRA ABILITY TO TAILOR THICKNESS AND DIRECTIONALITY THAN WOUND BARRELS.
101 BMI727 : I have seen advertisements for passenger smoke hoods, but as far as I know they have never been deployed or used on commercial aircraft.
102 Post contains links bikerthai : Found this on the web concerning smoke hood. http://www.landings.com/_landings/Press-Center/r11257452-1.html " Some 300 of the Fortune 500 companies
103 tdscanuck : No. The stability requirements comes from the loads and, since airliners are highly statically indeterminate, the loads are *extremely* material depe
104 Antoniemey : Most airports have these things called fire trucks that go out and put out the flames of a burning plane... Now, if you crash your 787 in a field som
105 Post contains links and images rheinwaldner : That may be in place. But still countless times the cost driver (= to improve competitiveness) was accepted to create solutions that later killed liv
106 tdscanuck : You're not grasping the fundamental differences between CFRP and aluminum. 0.4mm CFRP *can* be stronger, if you want it to, but that all depends on w
107 bikerthai : Let's back-up everyone and confirm whether this .4mm minimum thickness is true . . . specifically for fuselage skin. Given .4mm = .015 inch. I do not
108 rheinwaldner : Some more thoughts... But airliners did crash with similar impact speed countless times. Alone the MD-11 severall times recently. TK in AMS, BA777 in
109 sydaircargo : B787 unsafe in Crash ? is there any plane called safe in terms of a crash? does it matter if you crash down from 30000 feet if you are in an aluminium
110 Post contains links MarkHKG : That particular brand of smoke hoods were pulled from the market when they discovered they did not work as advertised (i.e. it didn't remove carbon m
111 czbbflier : You beat me to the punch. You also beat me to the punch.....
112 2175301 : Thinking about this as an engineer - the truth is probably along the line that the 787 will perform better in some crash scenarios and worse in others
113 BMI727 : ...and even if there was it would probably be incredibly expensive. And that may be the point of this whole thing: money and effort spent on safety i
114 bikerthai : Specially when we are told every since we were young not to put a plastic bag over our heads. Still, any protection from smoke is better than none. S
115 JoeCanuck : Whether or not smoke hoods are ever mandated, they seem like a compelling idea...and they are available. Sportys pilot shop sells theirs for about 13
116 USAirways787 : Last I checked I had an opinion as well. Now I apologize if I didn't have the time to see and read all 100+ posts, I just didn't see reply number 9.
117 MarkHKG : Absolutely. Consumers should just make sure they are really familiar in its use an operation - the time to figure out how to put it on is not when sm
118 Post contains images rheinwaldner : Every 30 posts or so this pops up. IMO it is hard to reach post #109 without understanding the significance of aircraft crash worthiness. I don't hav
119 amicus : Hi rheinwaldner, 80% survivability passenger and crew rate is often cited as the level for survivable take-off and landing crashes by accident authori
120 tdscanuck : Build mandrel. Partially cure stringers and frames. Install in mandrel. Wrap skin. Cure. Disassemble mandrel. How so? We're got many crashes of civil
121 SEPilot : There is no way to say this until a few CFRP airliners have actually crashed. Hopefully this will not be for many, many years. And even if the surviv
122 bikerthai : I think the closest you can get would be the V-22 crashes (both in testing and in operation). Although the speed involved may not be comparable, and
123 dldtw1962 : Well, First. All the reports or information that was mentioned was from studies in 2005, 2007. Also, the main person this report was getting his infor
124 BoeEngr : Exactly!!! Most are indeed surviveable, so we must do everything we can to ensure the safety of the passengers in these situations. There are bound t
125 sprout5199 : Isn't that what they make the black boxes out of? and does the manufacturing process turn them orange, as any picture I see of the "black Boxes" they
126 BoeingVista : I would in the same way as I avoided booking myself or family on the MD-11 or A300, my attitude may change after a couple of years of uneventful serv
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
787 Featured In Seattle NBC News posted Mon Feb 12 2007 02:22:09 by LY4XELD
Interesting 787 Link- Seattle Times posted Sun Jan 22 2006 10:17:16 by HikesWithEyes
DL Fleet Stabilisation Puts 787 Order In Doubt posted Mon Dec 7 2009 14:32:03 by Virgin747lgw
PIC: 1st 787 Outside In The Sunshine! posted Sun May 3 2009 13:38:30 by IAD787
787.... Resturant In The Sky posted Tue Mar 31 2009 18:05:27 by ANCsupercub
Frontier Pilot Killed In Crash Of Private Plane posted Tue Jun 17 2008 19:07:06 by RonmacIAH
Goldman Sachs Believes 787 EIS In July 2009 posted Fri Mar 7 2008 06:59:49 by Stitch
Seattle Times - WA Aerospace Jobs Up, Pay Down posted Sun Dec 16 2007 08:05:53 by Stitch
Airport Delays (The Seattle Times) posted Thu Sep 6 2007 16:52:44 by USADreamliner
"Civilian Flights Dangerously Unsafe In Israel" posted Wed Aug 15 2007 19:51:04 by TodaReisinger