787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

redflyer · Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:32 am

From an interview with Dan Rather to be broadcast tomorrow evening at 8:00 PM ET.

Quote:
Speaking only to DAN RATHER REPORTS, Weldon says that Boeing's
new 787 Dreamliner has major safety problems stemming from its
design and use of reinforced plastics -- called composites --
that will make the plane unfit to withstand survivable crash
landings.

Weldon describes how the composite fuselage will "shatter, not
crumple" in a crash landing.

http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nach...ichten-2007-09/artikel-9037119.asp

I think he's whining about some core safety issues, which are the very ones Boeing would have addressed and tackled FIRST, and before any other engineering issues, when considering building a CFRP airplane.

I wonder what kind of ax he has to grind. Unfortunately (for Mr. Wedon), Dan Rather's credibility as a journalist is not much higher than a used-car salesman. I think he's just looking for some publicity.

NYC777 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:49 am

Yeah and I wonder then how this aircraft could pass muster with 48 airlines and I also wonder how the A350 would fair as well? And what about all the military aircraft that have been built using composites. Sounds like he has an axe to grind and is trying to find a way to hurt Boeing.

legoguy · Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:53 am

What actually would happen to a 787 or A350 during a survivable crash landing'? Would the fuselage actually shatter thus sending alot of carbon shrapnel throughout the cabin? Or would the fuselage shatter sending debris away from the fuselage instead of in to the fuselage?

helvknight · Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:55 am

I wonder if this was the guy who was canned from Boeing a little while ago when he was found passing confidential info to the Seattle papers. I think Clickhappy posted the story.

If it is then the guy had a serious grudge against Boeing for outsourcing to southern states (Banjo playing yokels I think he called them) and to Japan.

Boeing have bet the farm on the 787, if it turns out to be another Comet 1 they're probably finished and they know it. Anyway we need Boeing to keep John Leahy honest (same as Boeing need Airbus to keep Randy honest)

N328KF · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:12 am

Keep in mind when you read this that Rather has condoned if not been complicit in the journalistic equivalent of planting evidence. Maybe these purported safety issues are true, but I won't believe it until someone who doesn't have taint all over him reports it.

Stitch · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:20 am

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 2):
What actually would happen to a 787 or A350 during a survivable crash landing'? Would the fuselage actually shatter thus sending alot of carbon shrapnel throughout the cabin? Or would the fuselage shatter sending debris away from the fuselage instead of in to the fuselage?

Boeing have completed three large-scale "crash tests" of the 787 and all three have been deemed "successes" by Boeing and the FAA and have been said to validate Boeing's computer models of how a 787 would likely deform in an accident.

While Boeing has not released the specifics, I would expect that it would be no more dangerous then an Al airliner.

JetJock22 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:24 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
Speaking only to DAN RATHER REPORTS,

That's the first red flag right there.....

Ellehammer · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:25 am

Wasn't Dan Rather the guy who did the 787 presentation?

Ellehammer · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:26 am

...at the roll-out...

Stitch · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:26 am

Quoting Ellehammer (Reply 7):
Wasn't Dan Rather the guy who did the 787 presentation?

That was Brokaw with NBC.

N328KF · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:31 am

Quoting Ellehammer (Reply 7):
Wasn't Dan Rather the guy who did the 787 presentation?

No, Dan Rather was the guy who aired a story about President Bush going AWOL during the Vietnam War. Whether it was true or not (it doesn't matter), the documents used to back the story were in fact forged. When expert analysis proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt, Rather refused to back down. He didn't do the forging but he was guilty of not fact-checking and then (when shown up) not recanting. If he had at least backed down in the beginning, he wouldn't have been fired from CBS.

SEPilot · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:37 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
Dan Rather's credibility as a journalist is not much higher than a used-car salesman. I think he's just looking for some publicity.

That is a huge insult to all used car salesman.

Quoting Ellehammer (Reply 7):
Wasn't Dan Rather the guy who did the 787 presentation?

No, it was Tom Brokaw.

Ellehammer · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:42 am

Ah sorry! You're right, Tom Brokaw.

BlueSky1976 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:43 am

Probably some union guy pissed off about the amount of work Asia and Europe got to do for Boeing this time around. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ellehammer · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:47 am

Regarding composites vs. aluminium, it is true that composites sometimes exhibit unwanted behaviour. At the recent crash-landing of a Danish Dash-8 Q400 the composite propeller shattered and sent shards into the passenger cabin. A metal prop would most probably just end up with the blades bending backwards.

I guess there must have been a lot of thought going into the construction of the B787, it seems highly unlikely that nobody would work on such an issue, so I'm certain that the composite has been enveloped one way or the other.

remcor · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:48 am

Whoa... whoa whoa... let's just slow down a second.

Does anyone here ever watch Formula 1? Great stuff, most advanced cars in the world with complete carbon-fiber chassis. Now has anyone ever watched one crash? They do send carbon fiber splinters everywhere and they do shatter.

The last time I watched a crash (Kubica in Montreal, fantastic crash) I wondered about the same thing regarding the 787/A350. I don't think it's something that isn't worth discussing.

Granted, the F1 cars are still very safe with their carbon fiber chassis, and granted an airplane with a company as huge as Boeing behind it is going to go to great lengths to ensure its safety, but I think there can be no doubt that the nature of a 787/A350 crash would be a lot different than a crash of a metal plane.

Yes, I would hope that they would have run numerous tests on the frame (however the recent fuselage test that passed doesn't address what this guy is talking about), but I still think it's worth discussing instead of just saying 'bah!'.

redflyer · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:49 am

I just Google'd on his name. For someone that spent 46 years in the industry and is a "pioneer in aerospace design", there is very, very little out there on the guy.

sh0rtybr0wn · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:51 am

Carbon fiber is stronger than Aluminum and Boeing usually overbuilds things at first anyway.

There there have only been 6 or 7 hull loss accidents of a similar sized plane (767) as of 2005 with 568 fatalities. In most of those, the splintering / cracking of the fuselage wouldnt have made a difference. Is this really that big of an issue? When planes hit the ground they pretty much break up quickly, a la the Phuket crash, where the plane "crumpled" and still broke up.

The 787 will have the most advanced avionics ever in a commercial plane, so hopefully fewer crashes will happen anyway.

TeamAmerica · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:52 am

Is "shattering" CFRP less efficient at dissipating energy than "crumpling" aluminum? I don't think we can make a blanket assumption about that. The premise of the accusation is doubtful right at the outset.

Airliners could be safer if the fuselage was armored, exit doors provided for each row, airbags in each seat back...you name it! The resulting Volvo of the sky would be too heavy to carry a useful payload, at least at what we consider reasonable ticket prices.

We knowingly exchange some degree of safety for efficiency...true of cars, buses, trains and planes. yes

redflyer · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:52 am

Quoting Remcor (Reply 16):
I don't think it's something that isn't worth discussing.

Of course it's worth discussing. The issue is, why is this guy the only one that is raising flags about it. Also, it appears at first glance to implicate Boeing in some major cover-up. Is he the only one that is aware of the properties of CFRP when destructive forces are applied to it? Does anyone think Boeing conveniently chose to ignore it? What about the FAA?

himself · Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:57 am

I wonder if his "ax to grind" isn't that several of those guys who used to spend so much time riveting aluminum panels to the aluminum frame in Washington are now out of a job because it won't take as many to bolt the few plastic sections together. If you Build your whole career around aluminum then it'd be hard to love CFRP when it doesn't pay the bills.

Also, Dan Rather's only problem is that he really made Republicans angry. It's not getting the story wrong, but telling the story with forged letters--for which he did apologize. If false reporting was a crime, then every anchor on Fox News would've been jailed long ago.

ken4556 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:03 am

Quoting Himself (Reply 21):
Also, Dan Rather's only problem is that he really made Republicans angry. It's not getting the story wrong, but telling the story with forged letters--for which he did apologize. If false reporting was a crime, then every anchor on Fox News would've been jailed long ago.

I think you mean CBS...

N1120A · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:05 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
Dan Rather's credibility as a journalist is not much higher than a used-car salesman.

Which is, of course, how he spent more than 50 years as one of the most respected journalists in the world. sarcastic

Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
he wouldn't have been fired from CBS.

Rather wasn't fired.

Quoting Himself (Reply 21):

Also, Dan Rather's only problem is that he really made Republicans angry. It's not getting the story wrong, but telling the story with forged letters--for which he did apologize. If false reporting was a crime, then every anchor on Fox News would've been jailed long ago.

Bingo.

himself · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:08 am

Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 22):
I think you mean CBS...

No. I mean Fox News Channel.

Anyway, this isn't the place for political debate, except where it concerns civil aviation, so let's get off this subject.

N328KF · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:10 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Rather wasn't fired.

Technically, yes. However, you can't tell me that he moved up his "resignation" date at his own free will.

Quoting Himself (Reply 21):
Also, Dan Rather's only problem is that he really made Republicans angry. It's not getting the story wrong, but telling the story with forged letters--for which he did apologize. If false reporting was a crime, then every anchor on Fox News would've been jailed long ago.

Not saying that other media outlets are necessarily better, just saying this one is crap. If this story shows up in the WSJ or FlightInternational or AvWeek, fine, I'll believe it. Dan Rather is not in the aviation reporting business, not in the financial reporting industry, and has a stink about him.

By the way, you are wrong about one thing. Rather stands by the documents

EDIT: Removed dead link.

[Edited 2007-09-17 23:15:47]

remcor · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:15 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 19):
Is "shattering" CFRP less efficient at dissipating energy than "crumpling" aluminum? I don't think we can make a blanket assumption about that. The premise of the accusation is doubtful right at the outset.

I think that depends both the nature of the composite and the nature of the crash. Composites are very complicated and unlike Aluminum, which is pretty rate independent (meaning that you have to hit it REALLY fast to make it deviate from its normal properties), the polymer resins used to make composites are a lot more rate dependent. For instance if you bend it slowly it might not shatter but if you hit it fast it could.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 20):
Of course it's worth discussing. The issue is, why is this guy the only one that is raising flags about it. Also, it appears at first glance to implicate Boeing in some major cover-up.

I'm not saying I believe the guy, but stranger things have happened. You have a program worth hundreds of billions of dollars and an extremely tight timetable. It's possible that problems that popped up have been ignored because people felt that to delve deeper would put things off schedule.

Now I guess I'd have to ask: is this guy just putting this out there as a hypothetical, or does this guy say that he has some inside knowledge that shows that this plane isn't safe. If it's just a hypothetical, then I'd feel more comfortable if he is truly a composites expert and works someplace with a good record in composites development like Stanford or Berkeley.

captainx · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:16 am

It is interesting that if Dan Rather was investigating safety issues with the A380 construction, most here would be considering him credible.

As I've mentioned before, the FAA will not be quick to certify the 787 and has specifically asked for unique safety tests, and may ask for many more. Be prepared for the FAA to never certify the 787 for passenger service.

N328KF · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:18 am

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 27):
It is interesting that if Dan Rather was investigating safety issues with the A380 construction, most here would be considering him credible.

Says who? I wouldn't trust any of his reporting, let alone any covering the aviation industry. If he wrote a piece on the A380, I still wouldn't take it seriously because of the conduit.

[Edited 2007-09-17 23:19:04]

redflyer · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:20 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Which is, of course, how he spent more than 50 years as one of the most respected journalists in the world.

50 years "as one of the most respected journalists in the world" was wiped out by one scurrilous and false report. That is why traditionally monuments are rarely dedicated to the living. Human history has shown even the most noble of people can prove to be a jackass and quickly bring down the facade that they carefully spent so many years building for others to see.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 25):
Dan Rather is not in the aviation reporting business, not in the financial reporting industry

He's in the scandal reporting business. So right off the bat, we know the story line for tomorrow: whistleblower comes forward to report a major problem with Boeing's star product and Boeing is apparently covering up the problems.

[Edited 2007-09-17 23:21:03]

deltadc9 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:22 am

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 2):
Would the fuselage actually shatter thus sending alot of carbon shrapnel throughout the cabin?

There is no information to base what would or would not happen AFAIK, but I dont think "shattering" is what would happen.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
That is a huge insult to all used car salesman.

Yes it is.

Quoting Remcor (Reply 16):
They do send carbon fiber splinters everywhere and they do shatter.

CF body pannels and CF structural members are two different things, and the tube is structural. That being said, a new Corvette hood will not shatter like the old fiberglass ones, just crack and tend to remain whole, been there done that. Lots of dust though. The tree still won, but the hood basically held together just fine and fended off the tree pushing it up and over the windshield in my case.

N328KF · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:23 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 29):
50 years "as one of the most respected journalists in the world" was wiped out by one scurrilous and false report. That is why traditionally monuments are rarely dedicated to the living. Human history has shown even the most noble of people can prove to be a jackass and quickly bring down the facade that they carefully spent so many years building for others to see.

William Shockley, anyone?

So on the main subject -- is there anything to validate the experience of this purported whistleblower?

keesje · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:23 am

Well I for one have enough confidence in the FAA, Boeing and NTSB to know they will prevent anything unsafe being taking into service. FAA are real inflexible, frightened bureaucrats, as they should be.

N328KF · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:25 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 32):
Well I for one have enough confidence in the FAA, Boeing and NTSB to know they will prevent anything unsafe being taking into service. FAA are real inflexible, frightened bureaucrats, as they should be.

For once, you and I are on the same page.

Question -- is this whistleblower the same aluminum design engineer who raised his "concerns" about a year ago? The same one that everyone concluded had job security as a motivation?

captainx · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:39 am

Let's not forget about the Lightning issue that might also be a show stopper:

March06
"Engineers in Everett are debating the best way to achieve that outcome for a largely plastic airframe. In November, one top safety-engineering team expressed serious concern.

That team's internal review, obtained by The Seattle Times, concluded: "It cannot be shown that the current wing-lightning-protection approach will preclude ignition sources in the fuel tank."

YIKES!!!!

Stitch · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:50 am

Quoting Remcor (Reply 16):
Does anyone here ever watch Formula 1? Great stuff, most advanced cars in the world with complete carbon-fiber chassis. Now has anyone ever watched one crash? They do send carbon fiber splinters everywhere and they do shatter.

But an F1 chassis is designed to do this to dissipate crash energy, and even then, it only does it outside the "survival cell" around the driver, which is designed not to shatter. Notice how the chassis around Kubica remained intact. Same with the GP2 car the wrecked spectacularly in Magny-Cours.

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 34):
That team's internal review, obtained by The Seattle Times, concluded: "It cannot be shown that the current wing-lightning-protection approach will preclude ignition sources in the fuel tank."

The 787 will use nitrogen inerting in the wing and center tanks which prevents fuel tank detonation.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/307086_dreamliner12.html

Stickers · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:50 am

Quoting Remcor (Reply 16):
The last time I watched a crash (Kubica in Montreal, fantastic crash) I wondered about the same thing regarding the 787/A350. I don't think it's something that isn't worth discussing.

Granted, the F1 cars are still very safe with their carbon fiber chassis, and granted an airplane with a company as huge as Boeing behind it is going to go to great lengths to ensure its safety, but I think there can be no doubt that the nature of a 787/A350 crash would be a lot different than a crash of a metal plane.

I'm curious...
Some time ago there was a video clip that showed an airliner that was piloted by remote control and filled with dummies being deliberately crashed to test exactly how the metals, structure, design and nature of materials would behave in those circumstances. While one obviously couldn't do this for each new type of aircraft because of cost, wouldn't it be in the best interests of everyone to conduct such a test when a plane is built out of completely new materials. I know we can do wonders with computer software, but its not always 100% correct. And besides, (in reference to previous posts) formula 1 cars are required to have undergone an actual crash test before being allowed to race, as are ordinary motor vehicles, and in some countries, busses too.
Don't box

me for this, but i do think there might be real value to such a test.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 29):
Human history has shown even the most noble of people can prove to be a jackass and quickly bring down the facade that they carefully spent so many years building for others to see.

Seems a bit of a harsh judgement...

denverdanny · Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:54 am

Is this a bit of a moot point anyways? The 777 and A340 have had almost no accidents. With each successive generation, planes are having less accidents where the materials would matter. What is the percentage of accidents where it actually might matter? My guess is that it would be a very, very small percent. Those types of accidents, like the Eastern Everglades crash and UA232 are highly publicized but don't happen that often. Planes are getting incredibly safer with the new technology that comes from what we've learned from past accidents.

cygnuschicago · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:02 am

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 34):
Let's not forget about the Lightning issue that might also be a show stopper

Oh please. If you believe that you or some uninolved person can miraculously discover an engineering mistake or oversight on the 787, that the thousands of highly specialized group of engineers, a group comprised of the finest aviation specialists in the world missed, then you are living in the same bubble of ignorance that the flat earth society exists in.

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
Dan Rather's credibility as a journalist is not much higher than a used-car salesman. I think he's just looking for some publicity

Unfortunately, a sizeable portion of the US population still considers him credible. That said, it's frustrating that these disgruntled jackass "whistleblowers" get their five minutes of fame on major news programs. Let's leave them and their spurious claims to YouTube.

justloveplanes · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:05 am

Quoting Remcor (Reply 16):
Whoa... whoa whoa... let's just slow down a second.

Does anyone here ever watch Formula 1? Great stuff, most advanced cars in the world with complete carbon-fiber chassis. Now has anyone ever watched one crash? They do send carbon fiber splinters everywhere and they do shatter.

The last time I watched a crash (Kubica in Montreal, fantastic crash) I wondered about the same thing regarding the 787/A350. I don't think it's something that isn't worth discussing.

Granted, the F1 cars are still very safe with their carbon fiber chassis, and granted an airplane with a company as huge as Boeing behind it is going to go to great lengths to ensure its safety, but I think there can be no doubt that the nature of a 787/A350 crash would be a lot different than a crash of a metal plane.

I think your answer is in your own account of Kubica's crash:

1) Kubica was racing within two weeks after that crash. If that car had been aluminum, he would not have survived.

2) The pieces that splinter and fall off in an F1 and Indy car are DESIGNED to disintegrate. These pieces disperse kinetic energy from the main survival cell to lessen impact loads, but the survival cell stays intact at speeds in approaching 150 miles per hour.

Obviously, the fear/allegation is unfounded. One of the failure modes is splintering, like you see on lighweight NON-STRUCTURAL elements of the race car such as wings. For ultimate impact resistance, however Carbon Fiber has proven to be far and away the safest material. Formula one and Indy drivers used to have a fatalities of at least once if not several times a year. Since the advent of carbon fiber tubs, fatalities for cars going faster are now like once in 10 years at most.

cygnuschicago · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:06 am

Quoting DenverDanny (Reply 37):
The 777 and A340 have had almost no accidents

Well, I guess it matters in the type of accident. Let's take the A340 overrun hull loss, with 100% surivability. Would that have been the case if it had been, say, a CFRP 787? I'm sure it would, but that is the question at hand.

N328KF · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:06 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 38):
Unfortunately, a sizeable portion of the US population still considers him credible. That said, it's frustrating that these disgruntled jackass "whistleblowers" get their five minutes of fame on major news programs. Let's leave them and their spurious claims to YouTube.

Let's not dismiss whistleblowers per se. When they have a legitimate gripe, they serve a purpose. Many of them are just revenge-seekers or are trying to get someone to notice them. The difficulty is in determining which is which.

pygmalion · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:12 am

Quoting Stickers (Reply 36):
Don't me for this, but i do think there might be real value to such a test.

which is why Boeing ran 3 tests of full scale sections of the airplane with FAA oversight. They all passed.

I think we know CaptainX's real name now... Weldon.

And just to be clear... a design review two years ago where engineers were hammering out a design issue means they were working it prior to build... just as they should. It does not mean that they left it alone and ignored it. It means they reviewed it and discussed their concerns in a design forum as they should. Working concerns is exactly how you fix that stuff. Just because they didn't tell you how they fixed it doesn't mean it wasn't fixed a long time ago.

I not sure how a two year old issue is a suddenly a Show Stopper...

texfly101 · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:17 am

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 34):
March06
"Engineers in Everett are debating the best way to achieve that outcome for a largely plastic airframe. In November, one top safety-engineering team expressed serious concern.

That team's internal review, obtained by The Seattle Times, concluded: "It cannot be shown that the current wing-lightning-protection approach will preclude ignition sources in the fuel tank."

So I take the composites course in late 06 and get to see both a detailed analysis of lightning strikes and the solution. Case closed. It must be a slow news day for crap like this to get news space.
As far as the subject, anyone who can do the math can figure out what the decelaration forces involved would take to shatter the composite hull...and then take those same forces and see what the human body will have to absorb to survive a crash of that magnitude. Not a pretty picture, shards of composites are not the main problem...Again, case closed.

airfrnt · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:24 am

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 27):

No, sorry, after RatherGate and all of the other made up news scandals, some of us will never take Rather serious no matter what he is reporting on.

Stickers · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:27 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 42):
Quoting Stickers (Reply 36):
Don't me for this, but i do think there might be real value to such a test.

which is why Boeing ran 3 tests of full scale sections of the airplane with FAA oversight. They all passed.

Thank you Pygmalion, i was not aware of these tests. Curiosity satisfied.

Stickers

KrisYUL · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:32 am

I don't think it is a matter of B knowing of an issue or not, but rather them knowing AND thinking they can overcome it. The question which is still as of yet to be officially determined, is have the overcome it or not?

We will tentatively have the answer when the 787 is certified and flying - but will only really know when and if a real crash happens.

Tests are an important tool, but they do not account for all the variables. Moreover, tests can be manipulated - either deliberately or though human error.

The game isn’t won yet!

legoguy · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:38 am

Quoting Antonovman (Reply 9):
Well in only the second message Airbus was dragged in to it and there was nothing mentioned about Airbus in the original message. This will ne doubt turn in to a --If Boeing has made a mistake, Airbus will make an even bigger one -- or something like that

Errr, how do you make my question out to be an A v B?? Confused

It was a genuine question as to how an aircraft with a composite fuselage would react upon a crash landing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Boeing have completed three large-scale "crash tests" of the 787 and all three have been deemed "successes" by Boeing and the FAA and have been said to validate Boeing's computer models of how a 787 would likely deform in an accident.

While Boeing has not released the specifics, I would expect that it would be no more dangerous then an Al airliner.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 30):
There is no information to base what would or would not happen AFAIK, but I dont think "shattering" is what would happen.

Is it possible the composite fuselage would break into one or two sections with minimal 'shattering' effect? Or what would happen?

flyorski · Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:49 am

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 18):
Carbon fiber is stronger than Aluminum and Boeing usually overbuilds things at first anyway.

There there have only been 6 or 7 hull loss accidents of a similar sized plane (767) as of 2005 with 568 fatalities. In most of those, the splintering / cracking of the fuselage wouldnt have made a difference. Is this really that big of an issue? When planes hit the ground they pretty much break up quickly, a la the Phuket crash, where the plane "crumpled" and still broke up.

The 787 will have the most advanced avionics ever in a commercial plane, so hopefully fewer crashes will happen anyway.

Yeah, that is true, however the safety of the aircraft should still never be compromised. Not that I think it has been.

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 34):
That team's internal review, obtained by The Seattle Times, concluded: "It cannot be shown that the current wing-lightning-protection approach will preclude ignition sources in the fuel tank."

I heard that Qantas was worried about this, and then after holding numerous meetings with Boeing reps they learned how Boeing had solved that potential problem. I will try and find the article it was written in.

Lumberton · Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:02 am

Here are Randy's comments WRT the recent 787 "crash" tests. How does this square with all the hyperventilating?
http://boeingblogs.com/randy/

Quote:
In the first test we crushed a composite fuselage section slowly between steel plates. In the second test, a suspended steel plate was rammed into a fuselage section.

And in the last of the three tests, engineers dropped a 10,000-pound, 20-foot wide, half-barrel fuselage from a drop tower onto a steel-plated platform. The fuselage section included 18 seats and two loaded cargo containers. We also added extra weight to account for passengers and the top upper skin and overhead luggage bins that were removed from the test fuselage.

The results from all three of the tests matched the computational analysis.

So what’s the significance? The testing and analysis show the accuracy of our computational tools. These tools will be used to demonstrate that the 787 has comparable characteristics to today’s similarly-sized airplanes made out of aluminum. The results will be used as part of the overall certification process for the 787 for entry into service next year.

BAalltheway · Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:03 am

Dan Rather is an overdramatic joke! Sounds like this particular guest is as well!

These people have been making these things for nearly a century. Something tells me they might have thought about the composite safety implications before they spun the first fibre. I just love these aviation 'experts' who have no scientific grounds for discrediting ANYTHING.

Why don't then just hop back on this forum and leave the airplane building to the real experts at Boeing! If this guy is a 'whistleblower' - maybe it's time to INHALE and get some oxygen into that brain!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net