• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:39 pm

"Dan Rather Reports"......enough said. ZERO credibility.
One Nation Under God
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:00 pm

Quoting Himself (Reply 20):
If false reporting was a crime, then every anchor on Fox News would've been jailed long ago.

That is just silly, the news on Fox and CNN is pretty much the same, its the editorial content you dont like on Fox. You do know the difference, right? I do admit that in a newspaper it is clearly marked "Editorial", "Sports", etc, and it would be nice if they would require TV broadcasts to identify editorial content also so as not to confuse people who have a hard time telling the difference.

Quoting Himself (Reply 20):
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.

After making a fantastic point like this, it is a shame you couldn't have just stopped right there. Political, religious, and sexual core values are simply pointless to debate or comment on because peoples core values rarely change. The only result is to incite.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
n318ea
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:56 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm

Looks like this thread should be moved to the "Left Wing Moonbats with Bush Derangement Syndrome Forum."
Red Red Red Red Red Neck!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5515
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:26 pm

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 95):
DC-10
Number built 386

Hull-loss Accidents: 26 with a total of 1261 fatalities

Your statement was about the MD-11, not the DC-10. I agree that the DC-10 has a soiled reputation, some of it even warranted. But my earlier statement that only one of the MD-11 crashes had anything to do with the aircraft (due to flammable insulation, which IIRC was also used on other aircraft) still stands. The fact remains, though, that both Boeing and Airbus are well aware that if they produce an airplane that gets the reputation of being prone to crashing (which the DC-10 did acquire) they will be through as airliner manufacturers. This carries far more weight than any FAA requirements, which are largely window dressing in any case.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
captainx
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:06 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:31 pm

Boeing's new culture of firing whistle-blowers is scary. There is mounting evidence that Boeing has been taking shortcuts when it comes to design and safety on the 787. They outsourced almost the entire design and have done minimal testing. This new report could derail the program, or even cause it to be terminated. It would be smarter for Boeing to cancel the project now and pay the penalties rather than deal with eventual post-crash lawsuits as there is evidence NOW that they know about safety problems and have done little to totally resolve them. Dropping a small section 15 feet is laughable in representing a 250 mph crash. Would dropping a car from 1.5 feet represent a 25 mph car crash? Of course not.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9148
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:33 pm

But according to a summary of OSHA's findings, Boeing told investigators Weldon was fired for threatening a supervisor, specifically for stating he wanted to hang the African-American executive "on a meat hook" and that he "wouldn't mind" seeing a noose around the executive's neck.

Sounds like a real quality individual.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:43 pm

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 104):
Boeing's new culture of firing whistle-blowers is scary

Its like you have never worked for a major corporation.

Your job goes sour, you lash out at your employer, uniformed people believe you...happens all the time.

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 104):
This new report could derail the program, or even cause it to be terminated

 crazy 

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 104):
Dropping a small section 15 feet is laughable in representing a 250 mph crash.

Same standards Airbus uses for certification, neither determines the parameters BTW.

But lets not let facts get in the way of bias shall we?
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:55 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 103):
Your statement was about the MD-11, not the DC-10. I agree that the DC-10 has a soiled reputation, some of it even warranted. But my earlier statement that only one of the MD-11 crashes had anything to do with the aircraft (due to flammable insulation, which IIRC was also used on other aircraft) still stands. The fact remains, though, that both Boeing and Airbus are well aware that if they produce an airplane that gets the reputation of being prone to crashing (which the DC-10 did acquire) they will be through as airliner manufacturers. This carries far more weight than any FAA requirements, which are largely window dressing in any case.

The MD-11 is a re-worked DC-10. If any of the airlinesafty.com FAQ on the MD-11 is true, and given that the A330/340 and B777 have sold many times more than the MD-11, fly more in passenger operations vs. cargo, and yet still have a vastly superior incident and crash record. If the shoe fits...

I'm sure MD thought their computer wizardry would more than compensate for the smaller horizontal stabilizer: but didn't that turn into a bad dream for them?

Point being, you can be confident in your design, test it and get it certified, yet still have major problems at the end of the day. That’s hardly outrageous.

There seems to be a lot of pensée magique v.v the 787 - everything seems ok, so it will be ok. That is a dangerous move IMO.

[Edited 2007-09-18 15:57:10]
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:10 pm

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 107):
Point being, you can be confident in your design, test it and get it certified, yet still have major problems at the end of the day. That’s hardly outrageous.

There seems to be a lot of pensée magique v.v the 787 - everything seems ok, so it will be ok. That is a dangerous move IMO.

Of course, you firmly believe the same about Airbus' new products as well, right? When the next thread topic is about the A350, we can look forward to the same penchant for technical standards and analysis, right?
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:11 pm

Poor Dan. He's losing ratings and respect by the minute. Puppet master becomes the puppet.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:16 pm

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 104):
Boeing's new culture of firing whistle-blowers is scary.

One man's "whistleblower" is another man's "crank". He's been in the local news off and on criticizing Boeing since his termination.

[Edited 2007-09-18 16:24:52]
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5946
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:19 pm

Quoting Himself (Reply 86):
I'm sure they're responsible enough to air both sides of the story.

Guess you've never actually seen a Dan Rather report.   Or how about his bosses? Rather's report on Bush was on 60 Minutes. This case was more complicit -- some of the previous ones were more explicit, such as the Audi 5000 or Wigand/Brown & Williamson incidents, though the latter was really more of a lack of cajones. Anyhow, Rather specifically is notorious for one-sided reports. What makes you think this is any different? And as others have noted before, Rather's "source" was fired with just cause. He sounds disgruntled.

Quoting Himself (Reply 86):
And of course there was no merit to Dan Rather's report

Not as presented. He had convinced himself that the documents were correct because he was sure that the backstory was. It may have well been but he allowed sensationalism and his hatred for Bush to get in the way.

Disclaimer: I am no fan of Bush, but if you're gonna trash the guy, at least do it right.

[Edited 2007-09-18 16:22:36]
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
Baron52ta
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:52 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:23 am

I am sorry but the press don't look for the nice story because people like everyone here don't show more than a passing interest, the story that sells is the plane that crashed or the man that messed up, so it is as much yours and my fault that they create stories to try and sell copy and don't worry about a little thing I was always told in school CHECK YOUR FACTS.
It is all about who gets their story out first
as always JMO
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:29 am

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 82):
Well, they just have to crash test one frame to eliminate any doubts.

That wouldn't work because there are nearly infinite ways you can crash an airliner. That's why full scale crash testing is actually a bad way to get the data you're after...it's almost impossible to apply that data to other crash situations. Material and component level testing, on the other hand, is much more generally applicable and Boeing has *lots* of that.

Quoting LHRBlueSkies (Reply 87):
On the topic thread, it would be interesting to view footage of an aluminium plane going through crash tests, versus the a composite one, much like it's good to see the wing tests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAXdVZ3HnDM&mode=related&search=

There is another one of the same crash from a tail camera...just Google on "707 NASA crash" and you should be able to find it.

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 93):
There is a very good chance that the center fuselage will fail before the 1.5x wing failure based on analysis of how the 777 fuselage reacted during the test.

Come again? The center fuselage doesn't carry any significant load during a wing bending test.

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 104):
Boeing's new culture of firing whistle-blowers is scary.

He didn't become a whistle-blower until after he got fired.

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 104):
There is mounting evidence that Boeing has been taking shortcuts when it comes to design and safety on the 787.

Such as?

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 104):
there is evidence NOW that they know about safety problems and have done little to totally resolve them.

Such as?

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 104):
Dropping a small section 15 feet is laughable in representing a 250 mph crash. Would dropping a car from 1.5 feet represent a 25 mph car crash?

You don't actually understand the purpose of the drop test, do you? That test wasn't to prove crashworthiness, it was to prove that the tools they're using to model crashworthiness are valid.

A 1.5' drop wouldn't be equivalent to a 25 mph crash, but so what? That's no applicable to this case.

Tom.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:35 am

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 27):
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.

There you go again. Be specific: what unique safety test has the FAA requested that is not already completed?

You keep posting things you suppose to be true, and never have a single fact to offer. The FAA is a public agency, so anything they may request is a matter of public record. You should have no trouble backing up your statement....right?

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 42):
I think we know CaptainX's real name now... Weldon.

 bigthumbsup 

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 55):
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 19):
Is "shattering" CFRP less efficient at dissipating energy than "crumpling" aluminum?

In general, yes, since CFRP can't yield in any appreciable way, which means you don't have that energy storage mechanism. On the flip side, it can absorb a lot more energy without permanent deformation.

I don't see that "storage" of energy is an issue. It's takes a great deal of force to shatter that CFRP, so in such a case a great deal of kinetic energy is going into that breaking process. Seems to me that the "problem" with CFRP is that in a "survivable" crash it would NOT shatter, and thus the passengers would be subjected to greater g loads. That being the case, the premise of the whistleblower is flawed.

In a crash where the CFRP was shattered, the g loads on the passengers might well be lower...meaning that the threshold of survivability may actually be higher in an all-composite airliner. So again, the whistleblower's premise is flawed.

Bottom line is that airliners are built for crash avoidance, not crash survivability. As I said above, unless you're willing to the pay the cost for roll cages, air bags and ejection seats for all passengers...it's just talk. We make a reasonable compromise between cost and safety in virtually everything we do. Airplanes are no exception. airplane 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
Fairchild24
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:35 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:35 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 108):
Of course, you firmly believe the same about Airbus' new products as well, right? When the next thread topic is about the A350, we can look forward to the same penchant for technical standards and analysis, right?

There is a big difference to be first or just do something someone else already did.
Boeing has take a big step in to the future.
I can imagen that the guys in Tolouse will monitor the 787 progress with great interest
and trying not to do the same mistake that Boeing does.


cheers

Göran
Radial engine does not leak oil, they only mark there territory
 
drexotica
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:44 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:36 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
Which is, of course, how he spent more than 50 years as one of the most respected journalists in the world.

Not quite.

Dan Rather was never particularly well respected or liked - nothing on the par of a Walter Cronkite, Ed Murrow, Chet Huntley, or David Brinkley. Once he took over as anchor of CBS Evening News in 1981 (the king of network news before Rather took over), their ratings began a slow decline. By the time he retired in 2005, CBS News was running a distant third to NBC and ABC. Rather was seen as a wanna be. Tom Brokaw was more respected in general.

Rather did his best work as a correspondent.
N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:04 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 108):
Of course, you firmly believe the same about Airbus' new products as well, right? When the next thread topic is about the A350, we can look forward to the same penchant for technical standards and analysis, right?

The composite civil airliners is a B first - but it could be a last as well. Airbus, being second to market, as Fairchild24 notes, means they have plenty of time to drop the whole composite A350 programme if major problems were ever found with the 787.

For the time-being, though, we are talking about the 787. We will no doubt take a close look at the A350 when the time comes, and I am sure you will be there to help out in that analysis.
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5515
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:27 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 107):

Point being, you can be confident in your design, test it and get it certified, yet still have major problems at the end of the day. That’s hardly outrageous.

This I agree with. I also agree that the MD-11 has had a decidedly worse safety record than the 777, A330 or A340, but a lot of it is simply bad luck. And while the MD-11 was basically a warmed-over DC-10, I believe that steps were taken to address the deficiencies in the DC-10 design that had caused problems, although I do not have any specific knowledge of this. But my primary point remains; Boeing knows that putting a plane in service that they have any doubts whatsoever about is corporate suicide, and they will be far more critical of their design than the FAA ever could be.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:03 am

Anybody ever given a thought to the fact that because it is a new plane with new technologies, the regulatory agencies might just want to make sure it's safe? The A300, A310 and 767 were not just allowed to saunter off over the Atlantic from day one no less then the A330 and 777 were allowed to do so across the Pacific. The regulatory agencies who reviewed the A320's FBW control systems didn't just go "Oooh! Aaah! Prreetty!" and then promptly stamped "Approved" on it.

And has anyone given a thought to the fact that the JAA and EASA also have some serious say in the entire certification process, as well, and yet they've been just as "silent" on the whole thing as the FAA has. Sure, you can claim the JAA is in a conspiracy with the FAA to protect Boeing and EASA won't say anything so as to not hurt the A350, but at that point, you likely wear tinfoil hats, as well.  Smile

It was downright sad at all the baseless crap tossed at the A388, especially the crap that said it was so large it was inherently a death-trap. It's no less sad to now see the same baseless crap tossed at the 787. The folks doing the tossing on both sides either have no clue whatsoever of what they're talking about or, worse, do have a clue, but are so wrapped up in their hate of the companies and the people who work on them that they willingly and with malicious forethought make these outrageous and slanderous claims.

I subscribe to Eddie Valiant's "Everybody needs a hobby" mantra, but I think a number of folks here need to find a new, less hateful and destructive one.
 
DiscoverCSG
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:22 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:09 am

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 47):
however the safety of the aircraft should still never be compromised.

If that's true, an aircraft should never be loaded with baggage (might blow up), fuel (might catch fire), or passengers (might hijack the plane and crash it into a building). You'd better skip pilots, because sometimes those screw up and use the wrong runway or fly into a mountain.

You'd better not turn on the engines, because those might throw a blade and pierce the fuselage - or they might suck in a bird or even a live human being.

God forbid you try to take off - after all, what isn't trying to go up can't come down in a spectacular fireball, shatter into a million pieces, clog lungs, or block escape routes.

And forget about landing. That's the screwiest of all - those aforementioned pilots intentionally cause a collision with the ground, even though they sometimes can't see the ground. If that isn't asking for trouble, then I don't know what is.

When I get in my car or on a bus, plane, train, or boat, I'm aware of the inherent risks. I could choose to sit at home and be safe from all that, but what if somebody breaks in and kills me, or my roof caves in, or there's a CO (that's Carbon Monoxide, not Continental Airlines) leak?

Aviation, like all other aspects of earthly life, involves risk. Designing an airplane involves risks and risk management. So does flying on one.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:13 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 114):
I don't see that "storage" of energy is an issue. It's takes a great deal of force to shatter that CFRP, so in such a case a great deal of kinetic energy is going into that breaking process.

There is something to it, in that CFRP can give back a whole lot more of the stored energy than metal.

Up to the elastic limit, they will both behave about the same. However, as a metal begins to yield it takes on permanent deformation, which absorbs energy. When you release the metal you don't get all that energy back (the part that went to permanent deformation is gone as heat). CFRP has effectively no yield...it's elastic pretty much up to failure and there is very limited ability to store energy in permanent deformation. CFRP can store more energy elastically but, when you finally fail, that all comes back to you, including kinetic energy of flying bits.

Tom.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:15 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 119):
I subscribe to Eddie Valiant's "Everybody needs a hobby" mantra, but I think a number of folks here need to find a new, less hateful and destructive one.

Agreed, but the problem is that this kind of attitude, the pro wrestling fan kinda thing, had seeped into everything now. You have to hate the other guy and tear them down to build yourself up. Kinda pathetic actually.

I am a Chicago Bears fan, and the Packers are by far the Bears biggest rivals, being the only team with more championships than the Bears in the NFL, and the Bears with the most wins in regular season in the NFL. When attending games, it really bnothers me that Bears fans now boo the Packers when they come on the field.

This is a fairly recent change. When I was a kid this was not cool, sure you booed bad calls and cheap shots, but booing one of the top 5 QBs of all time?. How can you in good concious boo Brett Favre? I would love to buy the guy a beer actually. I would rather the Bears beat a team I respect, it makes the victory sweeter.

What happend to respect in this world?
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 119):
Anybody ever given a thought to the fact that because it is a new plane with new technologies, the regulatory agencies might just want to make sure it's safe? The A300, A310 and 767 were not just allowed to saunter off over the Atlantic from day one no less then the A330 and 777 were allowed to do so across the Pacific. The regulatory agencies who reviewed the A320's FBW control systems didn't just go "Oooh! Aaah! Prreetty!" and then promptly stamped "Approved" on it.

The novelty of composites is not really comparable to the examples you note.

If composite construction was ever brought into question, the 787 would cease to exist as we know it - simple as that. Composite is an inseparable element of the 787 - FBW is a great innovation, but the A320 could have got by without it.

As to SEPilot's comments, I do mostly agree with you. However, I don't think B will self-criticise the safety aspect as much as it will the performance aspect. It is when performance and safety conflict when a 3rd party really becomes important.
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:23 am

Quoting DiscoverCSG (Reply 120):
If that's true, an aircraft should never be loaded with baggage (might blow up), fuel (might catch fire), or passengers (might hijack the plane and crash it into a building). You'd better skip pilots, because sometimes those screw up and use the wrong runway or fly into a mountain.

Passengers need baggage, jets need fuel, and planes exist primarily to move passengers.

The point on safety is not to not take ANY risks, it is not to take risks that you don't need to. Obviously, passengers, baggage, kerosene and pilots are integral parts of flying - if you take them away, you need not even design a plane to begin with! An exploding composite fuselage is, however, not a risk you need to take - it is not integral to the activity of flying, as it passengers and pilots, etc...

[Edited 2007-09-18 19:26:09]
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:28 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 74):
Composites don't "shatter" they fracture or compress on themselves in the case of a tubular structure such as a bike frame.

I wish we could get rid of the word "composites". "Composites" is a generic term just like "metal".

It is of course nonsense to say that metal does so and so when it fails. What metal? Aluminum, lead, gold, tin, titanium, steel or mercury? They all have very different properties.

Talking aviation, then four different composites are quite widely used: Glass fibre, boron fibre, aramide fibre and carbon fibre. They all have very different properties.

When talking about the new airliners, then we talk carbon fibre as main structures such as wings and fuselage.

Carbon fibre does shatter in its failure mode.

While for instance a bicycle frame made of aramide fibre will not. When such a frame fails in a bad accident, then it won't create razor blade sharp spearheads.

Carbon fibre happens to be the stiffest and strongest composite we know, and pretty lightweight. With a question mark at boron fibre. Boron fibre is widely used for helicopter rotor blades and some minor components on modern fighter aircrafts. We could say that it somehow combines the favorable properties of aramide fibre and carbon fibre, but that's maybe an over-simplification.

But then boron fibre has a few very nasty properties. First of all it environmentally a really nasty thing, especially during the manufacturing process. But probably even more important: We can't afford it. Nobody would be able to buy a ticket for an airliner with most main structures produced from that material.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5515
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:36 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 123):
However, I don't think B will self-criticise the safety aspect as much as it will the performance aspect.

This is the main issue on which I disagree with you. As I have said on other threads, a lot of the DC-10's problems came about because McDonnell, not Douglas, people were in charge of the final design and production. Their only experience was with military planes, where you build to specification. Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed and Convair had all built enough airliners that they built them as safe as they possibly could, regardless of what the specifications were. This was why the DC-10 had hydraulic lines along the wing leading edge (no other airliners did, as far as I know) and did not have check valves or retraction stops on the slats. Boeing has not lost that mindset; they are well aware that one crash where the finger of blame is pointed at the design can put them out of business. I'm sure the 737 rudder accidents gave them nightmares for years; the only reason that the 737 did not get a similar reputation as the DC-10 was that so many of them had been flying for so long with a very good overall safety record that it was able to survive 2 crashes where the plane was clearly at fault. They have fixed it, though, and it has not happened again. But Boeing does not want to have anything close to a repeat.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8348
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:42 am

Boeing will not release an unsafe aircraft.

End of arguement.
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:55 am

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 127):
Boeing will not release an unsafe aircraft.

End of arguement.

Maybe not one that they KNOW to be unsafe. Knowing and being are two completely separate things.


They bet the farm on the 787, they will do everything humanly possible to get it out. As I've said already, we will only know how successful they have been - on all accounts - once it is flying.
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:55 am

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 33):
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!!!!

Still the case AKAIK. However, I assume Boeing managed to get the special conditions through on the EMI protection.

Before I get whipped on like a red-headed stepchild by the Boeing fanboys, the key word here is "preclude".

Recall that electromagnetic interference models which include major lightning strike are never able to 'prove' such an event could never happen (as in absolutely zero probability). They are used to forecast a statistical probability that all of the EMI preventative technologies (N2 inerting, isolation of fasteners, fastener design, metal mesh sheathing on specific areas etc etc), combine to give a likelihood of an in-tank ignition below a specified acceptable threshold.

IMO, it's probably accurate to say that the 787 isn't actually strictly as safe as an Al aircraft in relation to lightning strike - but acceptable within the probabilistic limits imposed by engineering practices and FAA requirements.

The special conditions probably reflect that more noodling of numbers in relation to combinations of specific technologies were necessary to get to the 1 in 10^9 ( or whatever it is).

As for the crashworthiness of a CFRP hull, I assume Boeing must have got this right. Otherwise, as a company they are doomed the instant the first 787 ever goes down (and fingers crossed this never, ever happens).
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:07 am

Quoting HB88 (Reply 129):
IMO, it's probably accurate to say that the 787 isn't actually strictly as safe as an Al aircraft in relation to lightning strike

Bit ironic, no? I mean, given it's made of plastic and whatnot.
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1815
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:11 am

Shouldn't we wait and see if there's any credibility to the story.

I remember when there was talking of going into Iraq, because Sadam had WMDs. There was one guy who said that this was not so. That this was a fabrication. He was an American who was on the team that the UN sent to look for the WMDs. He was literally chased out of town.Never to be heard from again.

Now as it turns out - who is right?
 
gothamspotter
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:54 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:16 am

Amazing...127 posts and no one has linked to the original article that goes into fine detail of this guy's credibility.  Yeah sure

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...erospace/2003889663_boeing180.html

• He sought "whistle-blower" status with OSHA, but was denied because the design meets FAA standards.
• Boeing says he was fired for threatening an African-American executive, saying he wanted to hang him "on a meat hook" and that he "wouldn't mind" seeing a noose around his neck. Weldon admitted the noose comment.
• Rather approached Weldon regarding the story, and Rather says Weldon was not immediately cooperative.
• Rather obtained emails from others still employed by Boeing who worry that they may be rushing the 787 to market too soon.

Read the story for more details, it's well balanced of pros and cons.

One con they don't mention, however, is Rather. While working at the country's most well respected TV news organization, which has scores of checks and balances, fact checkers and attorneys, he still managed to get a factually false story on the air. HDNet is a channel without any journalistic credentials, without any measures in place to prevent bad news from reaching the air, nor any motivation to put such measures in place. The channel was conceived in the beginning of the HiDef TV craze to broadcast high def images of events like the space shuttle launch and miscellaneous sporting events when few broadcasters were transmitting anything in high def. It is owned by a blowhard billionaire, Mark Cuban, who would sell his own children if he thought it would get him some publicity.

Bottom line...this whole story should be taken with a massive mountain of salt.

[Edited 2007-09-18 20:17:05]
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:19 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 117):
Airbus, being second to market, as Fairchild24 notes, means they have plenty of time to drop the whole composite A350 programme if major problems were ever found with the 787.

Something tells it won't be as simple as "dropping the whole composite A350 program", especially with the financial difficulties they are currently experiencing.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 117):
For the time-being, though, we are talking about the 787. We will no doubt take a close look at the A350 when the time comes, and I am sure you will be there to help out in that analysis.

Discussions about the A350 abound on A.Net. Your objective analysis that flows so easily in your posts on Boeing and its products is sorely missed in those discussions. You should hop over to some of those threads and imbue all members of your learned wisdom (which so far seems to always find Airbus without fault throughout its illustrious history).  wave 
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:29 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 123):
The novelty of composites is not really comparable to the examples you note.

Same arguments were no doubt expressed nearly a century ago when Al was first started to be used on airplanes.

Quoting HB88 (Reply 129):
IMO, it's probably accurate to say that the 787 isn't actually strictly as safe as an Al aircraft in relation to lightning strike - but acceptable within the probabilistic limits imposed by engineering practices and FAA requirements.

Which should be more then safe enough.  thumbsup 
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:30 am

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 127):
Boeing will not release an unsafe aircraft.

End of arguement.

Right.

But this thread is discussing a very specific corner of safety, we might call it "crash-survivability". It only comes to question if a ever 787 crashes, God forbid that.

We are standing at the beginning of a revolution in airliner design much like 75 years ago when production of transport planes changed from wood and fabric to aluminum.

Today none of us could imagine a wooden plane cross oceans going at Mach 0.85. Same way carbon fibre opens up new frontiers when used cleverly, only to a smaller scale than the wood to aluminum revolution.

All materials have advantages and disadvantages for certain applications.

Imagine that all the aluminum tubes in which we have flown ever since the Boeing 247 and DC-3, all way up to the B777 and A346, if they had been made to the same dimensions of steel instead, wouldn't that have improved crash survivability? Of course it would. But planes would be three times heavier and rust away. Advantages and disadvantages.

And it is absolutely legal to discuss advantages and disadvantages when new and very different manufacturing techniques are introduced.

Probably the most significant safety related property of carbon fibre compared to aluminum is that carbon fibre is totally corrosion resistant. That alone has the potential that one day in the future a 787 makes a totally uneventful landing plus thousands of similar landings in the years to come. While if it had been made of aluminum, and some corrosion inspectors had a very bad day, then it might have suffered an emergency and be broken.

I think that's one very significant advantage.

But even if carbon fibre for many applications have some very significant advantages, then it doesn't mean that we should not be allowed to discuss disadvantages as well.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:30 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 133):
Discussions about the A350 abound on A.Net. Your objective analysis that flows so easily in your posts on Boeing and its products is sorely missed in those discussions. You should hop over to some of those threads and imbue all members of your learned wisdom (which so far seems to always find Airbus without fault throughout its illustrious history)

If Airbus was first to the gate, and questions were raised, I would no doubt be there. (The A380 sure received a lot of "analysis" even without me. Imagine that!) But, as it stands, Boeing is in the dock at the moment.

The essence of my argument is simply that nothing has yet to be proven. A 787 has yet to take to the sky, let alone crash. I am simply militating against a tendency of some to resort to pensée magique with regard to Boeing and their activities. Just "knowing" that everything will work out fine because Boeing says it will and one wants to believe them falls under pensée magique.
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:41 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 121):
Up to the elastic limit, they will both behave about the same. However, as a metal begins to yield it takes on permanent deformation, which absorbs energy. When you release the metal you don't get all that energy back (the part that went to permanent deformation is gone as heat). CFRP has effectively no yield...it's elastic pretty much up to failure and there is very limited ability to store energy in permanent deformation. CFRP can store more energy elastically but, when you finally fail, that all comes back to you, including kinetic energy of flying bits.

Thinking in terms of crash survivability, I'm looking at this in terms of g loads on the passengers. If the CFRP breaks and the bits go flying...there goes the energy with it.

A clumsy analogy would be highway crash barriers. There's the metal type that crumples at impact, and the type with barrels full of water. A CFRP fuselage would behave somewhat like the water barrels - dissipating the impact energy into flying bits.

Not that it actually matters anyway - the best case for a passenger is not a crumpling or shattering airframe, but rather a fuselage that acts as a roll cage does in a race car. To the extent that a CFRP fuselage is harder to break, it will protect the passengers better in most crash scenarios.  airplane 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:42 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 136):
The essence of my argument is simply that nothing has yet to be proven. A 787 has yet to take to the sky, let alone crash. I am simply militating against a tendency of some to resort to pensée magique with regard to Boeing and their activities. Just "knowing" that everything will work out fine because Boeing says it will and one wants to believe them falls under pensée magique.

And yet that same defense was used to deflect and counter the "analysis" that was done to the A380 and is now starting to be done to the A350. It's a straw-man argument, in the end, because it has no real foundation.

The plain - heck, the plane - fact is that both of these companies are not amateurs. And they are also not protected State industries who can be slapdash about the quality of their products because they never need fear to "facing the music" for such decisions.

Boeing cannot afford the 787 to totally fail and never sell any more then they could afford the 777, 767. 757. 747. 737. 727 or 717 to completely fail and never sell. Same with Airbus and the A300, A310, A320, A330, A340, A380 and soon the A350. Far too much investment is sunk into each of these programs to ever play "fast and loose" with any part of it.

Neither Boeing nor Airbus need to "prove" anything in relation to the safety and design in practice. They "proved" it in the wind tunnel. They "proved" it on the computer. They "proved" it with sub-scale physical tests. If they did not have absolute and unshakable faith that the final product that rolls out of PAE or TLS was not "proved", they wouldn't roll it out.

And if the airlines didn't believe those planes were "proved", they wouldn't have agreed to buy them prior to final certification.

The flight-test and certification programs are just pro forma - throwbacks to an earlier age when you didn't have computers and wind tunnels and FEM and all the stuff they do know so you didn't really know if it would work until it took to the skies.

And the fact that the vast majority of them did indeed successfully take to the skies shows that, even then, they knew what they were doing.


To say that Boeing and Airbus are "whistling past the graveyard" every time the first frame of any of their planes takes to the skies is doing a great disservice to the men and women who worked on each of those programs.  Sad
 
hamster
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:08 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:43 am

Crashes are chaos. How can you predict the outcome of a crash? Who can predict and explosion on impact or not? My friend commented that a plan is a flying Pepsi can. What kind of protection can a Pepsi can provide? Plane are supposed to be light. What is next? Bumpers? The best protection is avoidance and that is with qualified personnel and common sense. He is way off in his argument.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5515
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:50 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 136):
Just "knowing" that everything will work out fine because Boeing says it will and one wants to believe them falls under pensée magique.

It's not as simple as that. Boeing has produced more jet transports than just about everyone else combined; and they have also achieved a very impressive safety record with those transports. Barring convincing evidence that they have followed a pied piper down the path of shortcuts I will give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when their accusers have the very substantial credibility problems that exists in this case. The accusers may end up being right; but they certainly have a long, long way to go to prove their case.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:59 am

I'm sure the 787 will pass all FAA/EASA tests and will serve the Airlines well and safe.

However car engeneers try not to choose rigid,hard materials for the front of the car.

Today's cars can absorb much more kinetic energy then older cars. Specially here in Europe you won't get NCAP stars without a frame with big shock absorbing capability.

Forgive me my ignorance, but when a CFRP plane would crash against a object like a wall or building, wouldn't Al absorb the shock better then CFRP(which is stronger) by deforming and reducing impact ?
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:07 am

Unlike what some people think, you can not predict the future by looking at the past. However, you can take lessons from it.

When they built the Titanic back in the day (1912 I think), the designers infamously considered it “unsinkable”. Certainly, they had just cause, as the Titanic had every advantage in terms of design, technology and workmanship. The system which promised this unsinkable ship was the series of bulkheads and mechanical doors and pumps that divided up the lower sections. (Moreover, it was thought to be a very agile vessel, able to avoid obstacles with ease.) Without doubt we can assume that the designers put a lot of thought into this, and built models and ran tests. As they used the idea, we can assume the doors closed and the pumps worked.

In theory and in tests, each section was closed off so if there was a breach, the whole ship wouldn’t flood. So, if they rammed into an iceberg, the section could be sealed and pumped out. Perfect.

Only, on that faithful night, they scraped along side the iceberg, rupturing the haul corresponding to several bulkhead sections. The pumps couldn’t keep up and the bulkhead did not extend all the way up. The rest is history.

The concrete element to be taken away is the system was brilliant, and it worked properly in theory as well as in tests. But it took a real accident to show its limitations. An accident which nobody though would happen – but happened the first time the ship sailed.

They concluded it was not only "safe", but "unsinkable" based on a series of assumptions, namely the bulkheads and agility of the ship. Both of these proved completely false the first time it sailed.

So run your computer simulations all you want, and consider certification a quaint but costly throw back – but not everything relevant is comprehended in tests!

[Edited 2007-09-18 21:13:01]
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:18 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 142):
But it took a real accident to show its limitations.



Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 142):
So run your computer simulations all you want, and consider certification a quaint but costly throw back – but not everything relevant is comprehended in tests!

So what are you saying, no one should fly on a plane until after a crash of that particular model occurs?  Yeah sure

Contrary to what you're trying to point out in your analogy using the Titanic, what made the sinking unique and renowned was that: 1) it occurred on the maiden voyage, and 2) it was the ONE breach of the hull that WAS predicted to be able to cause the ship to sink, but which was considered statistically insignificant.

The major lesson learned from the Titanic disaster was that all ships should carry enough lifeboats for all passengers. There was actually very little criticism of the hull design and in fact most ships today incorporate "compartmentalisation" in their hull designs.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:25 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 143):
So what are you saying, no one should fly on a plane until after a crash of that particular model occurs? Yeah sure

Contrary to what you're trying to point out in your analogy using the Titanic, what made the sinking unique and renowned was that: 1) it occurred on the maiden voyage, and 2) it was the ONE breach of the hull that WAS predicted to be able to cause the ship to sink, but which was considered statistically insignificant.

The major lesson learned from the Titanic disaster was that all ships should carry enough lifeboats for all passengers. There was actually very little criticism of the hull design and in fact most ships today incorporate "compartmentalisation" in their hull designs.

I agree with you. The Titanic example is simply an easy one to do since everyone is familiar with it.

If questions are raised with regard to the composite construction the 787, I would hope they go above and beyond the call of duty to prove it it safe and not rest on their laurels. For example, dropping a section from a height of 15 feet (is it) does not seem to me to be a test that even has failure as an option - and I wonder why?
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
Fairchild24
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:35 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:27 am

What i´m most afraid of when it commes to Carbon fibres hull is all dents an bruses that commes from baggagetrucks, birdstrikes and all the kind of stuff that happens around an airplane on ground.
what inpact will this have on the structure?

or does Boeing have a computerprogram for that also ?

cheers

Göran
Radial engine does not leak oil, they only mark there territory
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 am

Just to be clear, I have no opinion one way or another to how the 787 will perform in real life - this is sure as hell something I am not qualified to deliberate upon.

But, in light of the great lengths people have gone through to show us all here on Anet how revolutionary the 787 is in terms of material and construction, I feel it is prudent to keep open the option of failure. Commensurate with revolution is risk and with risk is failure. And the 787 is a bit more revolutionary than most planes of the last half century.

I personally find it unsatisfying to simply blindly believe that Boeing will do what's best because that is the type of people they are.

Now, I have a pile of cases half an inch think I need to put a dent in before tomorrow, so I must excuse myself from this lovely conversation for just a bit.

[Edited 2007-09-18 21:39:00]
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:44 am

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 141):
Forgive me my ignorance, but when a CFRP plane would crash against a object like a wall or building, wouldn't Al absorb the shock better then CFRP(which is stronger) by deforming and reducing impact ?

Yes, up to the point where the CFRP breaks. In a really minor impact where the CFRP fuselage simply came to a sudden stop (no shattering) the passengers would absorb the maximum deceleration force. In a slightly greater impact where the CFRP started to break, the deceleration force would be less.

BUT - this scenario is not at all typical of a plane crash. An aircraft striking a building or terrain is almost always catastrophic and the relative merits of crushing aluminum are meaningless.

Much more likely for a "survivable" crash is a runway overshoot or similar. In such a case, the more rigid CFRP would be a benefit - as such an unlucky passenger your best chance of survival is in avoiding sudden deceleration altogether, and that is most likely in a stronger fuselage that holds its integrity...sliding to a stop. pray 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
lorgem1
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:20 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:58 am

Remember that crash of a Corvette on "Worlds most something videos" when he crashed into the rear of a trailer while being chased by state troopers - the car completely chattered and the guy ended up sliding into the ditch and took off on foot. Not to say that Carbon fibre technology is the same, maybe the odds of passengers surviving a crash have improved??  Sad  bouncy 
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:09 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 146):
I personally find it unsatisfying to simply blindly believe that Boeing will do what's best because that is the type of people they are.

I think you're forgetting that the FAA and EASA will make the final decision on whether the plane is airworthy or not.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos