Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:01 am

Quoting Caminito (Reply 198):
After it was, the futures immediately began to rise and today the stock (10.35 am) is sharply up, strongly outperforming the DJI.

It's the Rather effect!
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 am

Quote:
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.

I don't think Boeing's legal department would let a seriously flawed product reach the marketplace. Boeing's general counsel is pretty gutsy and tells it like it is. For example, after a scandal involving procurement of launch contracts from the government, Boeing's GC pretty much laid it on the line to Boeing management concerning their business practices and accurately pointed out that if they hadn't played games with the government, they would likely already be selling/leasing KC-767 tankers to the USAF and not be embroiled in a competition with the EADs/Northrup Grumman team for the USAF replacement tanker.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:17 am

Scott Hamilton's commentary here should put an end to the hyperventilating from those desperately hoping that the 787 is unsafe. Bottom line: Airbus and Boeing agree on this one.
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn2_091807.pdf
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:10 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 189):
That one's easy: they have to operate the airplane away from weather. Heavy rain (never mind hail) will ruin the low-observability coatings.

That was true in the early years of operation...much less so now (or so I'm told). The important point is that they avoided weather over concern about the paint job, not fear of lightning.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5577
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:44 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 199):
The past few crashes do suggest something nothing to do with the 787 per se and that is that there does not seem to have been as much progress as might have been hoped in reducing the flammability of planes in crash situations. Presumably there is considerable work on this aspect, but so far it does not seem to be bearing much fruit?? If it is, I would be happy to be informed.

Now if that fellow who succeeded in getting seawater to burn can turn it into airplane fuel, we might make progress on this one. But as long as we need flammable fuel the chances of fire after an airplane accident of more than the fender-bender category are nearly 100%. And since aluminum also burns at the temperatures seen in jet fuel fires, the difference between aluminum and CFRP will likely not be significant. As others have said, the best approach is to prevent crashes, which the major airlines have been doing spectacularly well. Really, the difference in survivability between Al and CFRP rates in importance with the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin; your chance of being in an accident where the difference in survivability is many orders of magnitude smaller than that of being hit by lightning. And we don't really know (and may not find out) which really offers better survivability.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
access-air
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:02 am

Okay, here is a simple way to test to see whether this plane will shatter or not.......Do an unmanned controlled crash to see just what happens in such a situation...Yeas, it would be completely destroying a plane but better to destroy a plane than to have a "Comet 1", 21st Century Style...What do you all think?

Access-Air
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:36 am

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 205):
Do an unmanned controlled crash to see just what happens in such a situation

Beyond the economic and practical unreality of the idea...exactly what "situation" would you test?

Each airliner crash is unique. There is no set of criteria to define a "typical" crash.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:42 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 206):
Each airliner crash is unique. There is no set of criteria to define a "typical" crash.

To further that point, every time there is a crash, the likelyhood statistically of the same scenario is reduced, therefore "typical" is really just a straw man in an flawed aregument.
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

Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:44 am

A340 goes flying off the end of a rain-soaked runway, down a 15 metre embankment and into a muddy gully, catches fire. Is this survivable? In 2004, I would say: maybe some will get out, but not a lot. AF at YYZ proved this is 100% survivable.

Question is, if it were a 787 instead, and everything else being the same, would 100% survive?

A few military applications and a small biz jet do not prove anything about mass market commercial airplanes.

You built a 787, stick it on a track and speed it up and crash it. It's not complicated - tests like that have been done before.
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 6700
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:50 am

I don't think I'll really care if the plane that kills me is built of aluminium or composites.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:27 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 208):
You built a 787, stick it on a track and speed it up and crash it. It's not complicated - tests like that have been done before.

Nonsensical. You build a 787, stick it on a track and speed it up...to what speed?...and crash it...into what? It IS complicated - you cannot omit the details. no 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:41 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 204):
Now if that fellow who succeeded in getting seawater to burn can turn it into airplane fuel, we might make progress on this one. But as long as we need flammable fuel the chances of fire after an airplane accident of more than the fender-bender category are nearly 100%.

It was not so much the fuel I was worrying about SEP although there was considerable research into lowering the flammability of fuel some years ago that did show some promise. My concerns were more on the interiors and rather clumsily I tried to indicate that I was not expressing concern whether the fuse was made of Al, CFRP or indeed green cheese - although green cheese might burn less readily!! Yes, the Al and the CFRP will both burn, but it seems to be that many interiors take fire early and are an early cause of injury and death during a fire after a crash.

We have seem a number of catastrophic burn outs and no fatalities and some with fires and many casualties. What I was asking was how much progress has been made to try to retard fires within the cabin, so that at least the escape time is increased.

Not sure I follow your argument about lightning and in any case I do know a person who was struck by lightning on two different occasions. But that does not deter me from hoping that the flammability of the INTERIORS of planes can be reduced.

And back on the other track, if the seats were rear facing, there should be fewer injured folk to try to get out in the time available.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:45 am

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 177):
However my guesses are on how "repairable" the plane will be following routine incidents such as belly landings, nose gear collapse, bad tire blow outs and even airport collisions....

most aluminum plans can have the damaged part removed and replaced...

having some carbon bonding and a bit of glue is not the same as a replacement part...

Belly landings and nose gear collapse are not routine. Tire blowouts and ramp rash aren't unusual. However, there are virtually zero circumstances where you remove and replace structure for ramp rash. Removing and replacing a skin, stringer, or frame is a *mammoth* multi-week undertaking. By far the most common action is a permanent repair. This isn't expected to change with CFRP.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 178):
I noted that the program repeatedly used video of the B-2 bomber without asking how that aircraft deals with the same issues.

They don't fly in lightning.

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 205):
Okay, here is a simple way to test to see whether this plane will shatter or not.......Do an unmanned controlled crash to see just what happens in such a situation...Yeas, it would be completely destroying a plane but better to destroy a plane than to have a "Comet 1", 21st Century Style...What do you all think?

It would be a tremendous expense and provide little to no useful engineering data that couldn't be obtained other ways. Bad idea.

Tom.
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:48 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 210):

Nonsensical. You build a 787, stick it on a track and speed it up...to what speed?...and crash it...into what? It IS complicated - you cannot omit the details. no

Why not do exactly the AF A340 runway over-run? We know what speed it was going, we know it was dramatic, we know it is survivable and we know that sort of accident happens quite often (as far as serious accidents go).

They have done similar tests before - I've seen the films on television and many are probably on Youtube. The only nonsensical thing here is the presumption that it can't be done because you don't know how!
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:51 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 213):
The only nonsensical thing here is the presumption that it can't be done because you don't know how!

There are a million ways to crash an airliner, the nonsensical thing is to assume that testing one or two of them will give you any relevant amount of information.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
flyorski
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:23 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:06 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.

I think you are misinterpreting my comment.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsly believe they are free" -Goethe
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:09 am

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 214):
There are a million ways to crash an airliner, the nonsensical thing is to assume that testing one or two of them will give you any relevant amount of information.

You would collect a huge amount of data on how the airframe copes under unconventional stress!
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:19 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 216):
You would collect a huge amount of data on how the airframe copes under unconventional stress!

Or it can be modeled in computer simulations under thousands or even millions of scenarios collecting exponentially more data based on the properties of the materials and the design of the structure.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26945
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:32 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 211):
Yes, the Al and the CFRP will both burn, but it seems to be that many interiors take fire early and are an early cause of injury and death during a fire after a crash

Fortunately, manufacturers of airline interior fixtures are moving to more fire-resistant/fire-retardant materials that also do not give off (as) toxic gases and smoke when exposed to open flame and high temperatures.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 213):
Why not do exactly the AF A340 runway over-run? We know what speed it was going, we know it was dramatic, we know it is survivable and we know that sort of accident happens quite often (as far as serious accidents go).

Not all runway overruns are survivable. Even when conditions are somewhat similar. It was raining hard in both Toronto and Little Rock when the AD 340 and AA MD-8x went off the runway, but the AF 340 was "fortunate" to not hit any structures once it left the runway and held (more or less) together, which helped lessen the impact forces inflicted on the passengers. In Little Rock, the AA MD-8x hit structures and broke apart, which inflicted fatal impact forces on 11 passengers.


So while I understand and accept that the theory of crashing a 787 - or any modern airliner, for that matter - into the ground in a controlled test sounds like a good one, the practical data that would be gained generally wouldn't be useful except in such situations which, admittedly and fortunately, are pretty rare.

If the FAA, JAA or EASA is truly worried about how CFRP airframes will respond in a "survivable" crash situation, then they can ante up the $200 million or so it will cost to buy the frame, set-up and run the test, and clean up after it.

The airlines obviously don't need to be convinced since they've ordered hundreds each of the 787 and A350.
 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 217):
Or it can be modeled in computer simulations under thousands or even millions of scenarios collecting exponentially more data based on the properties of the materials and the design of the structure.

How do you collect data from a computer simulation? The simulation is based on data you already have and are then able to manipulate.
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
access-air
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:42 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 212):
It would be a tremendous expense and provide little to no useful engineering data that couldn't be obtained other ways. Bad idea.

Tom.

So do you mind telling me what YOUR Better Idea would be????......Mine may be a costly idea but , its better to "waste" an airplane rather than have one filled with passengers be the test case....Anyway, to suggest that my simple test would only test the characteristics of one type of crash, are you the suggesting that we just wait to see how many different crash scenerios happen before we deceide what should be done?
If my idea is such a bad one, then what would provide Boeing with useful information?
Point out an obvious solution to a problem and we get a debate about it....reminds me of how the FAA implements regulations....We need to have a body count before anything is done....
Once again, remind me not to offer my opinion....I never seem to learn....

Access-Air
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:50 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 219):
How do you collect data from a computer simulation? The simulation is based on data you already have and are then able to manipulate.

That is not valid in any way. How do you think NASA knew that broken tile would not affect the space shuttle? Material tests on a small scale, and computer simulations based on the properties of the materials and how they reacted in the tests combined with the design parameters of the vehicle and the conditions it will encounter changing the varibles over and over.

This is not anything new. Do you seriously believe that Mercedes or anyone else waits until a car is built then tests it to see what happens?

Crash tests are simply independant verifications of what is already known, and even cars are only crash tested in a few ways.

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 220):
I never seem to learn....

You said it...
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:55 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 212):
They don't fly in lightning.

Bull. They're based in the midwest. You think they're not going to launch a 24-36 hour bombing mission because of Lightning? That wasn't even worth the bandwidth you used up.
 
RIXrat
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:20 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:01 am

Speaking about Dan Rather, this from the New York Times. For further info, all I can give you is www.nyt.com.


Rather Files $70 Million Lawsuit Against CBS

By JACQUES STEINBERG

Dan Rather, whose career at CBS News ground to an inglorious end 15 months
ago over his role in an unsubstantiated report questioning President Bush's
Vietnam-era National Guard service, filed a $70 million lawsuit this
afternoon against the network, its corporate parent and three of his former
superiors.

Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him
insufficient airtime on "60 Minutes" after forcing him to step down as
anchor of the "CBS Evening News" in March 2005. He also contends that the
network committed fraud by commissioning a "biased" and incomplete
investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, "seriously
damaged his reputation." As plaintiffs, the suit names CBS and its chief
executive, Leslie Moonves; Viacom and its chief executive, Sumner Redstone;
and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News.

In the suit, filed this afternoon in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Mr.
Rather charges that CBS and its executives made him "a scapegoat" in an
attempt "to pacify the White House," though the formal complaint presents
virtually no direct evidence to that effect. To buttress this claim, Mr.
Rather quotes the executive who oversaw his regular segment on CBS Radio,
telling Mr. Rather in November 2004 that he was losing that slot, effective
immediately, because of "pressure from 'the right wing.' "

He also continues to take vehement issue with the appointment by CBS of
Richard Thornburgh, an attorney general in the administration of the elder
President Bush, as one of the two outside panelists given the job of
reviewing how the disputed broadcast had been prepared.

For both Mr. Rather and CBS, the filing of the suit threatens to once again
focus attention on one of the darker chapters in the history of the network
and its storied news division, at a moment when it is already reeling. Mr.
Rather's successor as evening news anchor, Katie Couric, has languished in
third place in the network news ratings since taking over the broadcast a
year ago, behind not only Charles Gibson of ABC and Brian Williams of NBC,
but also the ratings performance of the "CBS Evening News" in Mr. Rather's
final years.

The portrait of Mr. Rather that emerges from the 32-page filing bears little
resemblance to the hard-charging, seemingly fearless anchor who for two
decades shared the stage with Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings as the most
watched and recognizable journalists in America.

By his own rendering, Mr. Rather was little more than a narrator of the
disputed broadcast, which was shown on Sept. 8, 2004, on the midweek edition
of "60 Minutes" and which purported to offer new evidence of preferential
treatment given to Mr. Bush when he was a lieutenant in the Air National
Guard.

Mr. Rather says in the filing that he allowed himself to be reduced to
little more than a patsy in the furor that followed, after CBS - and later
the outside panel it commissioned - concluded that the report was based on
documents that could not be authenticated. Under pressure, Mr. Rather says,
he delivered a public apology on his newscast on Sept. 20, 2004 - written
not by him but by a CBS corporate publicist - "despite his own personal
feelings that no public apology from him was warranted."


He now leads a weekly news program on HDNet - an obscure cable channel in
which he is seen by only a small fraction of the millions of viewers who
once turned to him in his heyday to receive the news of the day.


Mr. Rather's suit seeks $20 million in compensatory damages and $50 million
in punitive damages.


Among the pivotal points of contention in Mr. Rather's suit are the
definitions of the words "full-time" and "regular." As quoted in the filing,
Mr. Rather's contract - which he signed in 2002, and which called for him to
be paid a base salary of $6 million a year as anchor - entitled him to a job
as a "full-time correspondent" with "first billing" on the midweek edition
of "60 Minutes," should he leave the anchor chair before March 2006, his
25th anniversary in the job.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:06 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 212):
They don't fly in lightning.

Lightning can and does strike out of the clear blue sky. The B-2 bomber is not restricted from flying in any conditions that an airliner would.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 213):
Why not do exactly the AF A340 runway over-run? We know what speed it was going, we know it was dramatic, we know it is survivable and we know that sort of accident happens quite often (as far as serious accidents go).

You could re-enact the AF358 incident with another A340 and have a completely different result. If that's not apparent to you I don't think we have any ground on which to debate.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 213):
They have done similar tests before - I've seen the films on television and many are probably on Youtube. The only nonsensical thing here is the presumption that it can't be done because you don't know how!

Don't know how? Please. And you're an expert by virtue of watching television. sarcastic 
Smashing an airliner would be plenty easy - learning anything useful from the exercise is the hard part.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 216):
You would collect a huge amount of data on how the airframe copes under unconventional stress!

You could collect a huge amount of data about how the airframe responds in one particular scenario. What about every other crash that has occurred - why not recreate every incident? I don't see what is so special about the AF358 incident that makes it the one and only case you would test.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 219):
How do you collect data from a computer simulation? The simulation is based on data you already have and are then able to manipulate.

And what do you do with your crash data other than to plug it into a computer model? Please do explain.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:12 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 222):
Bull. They're based in the midwest.

Near tornado alley no less. Its not that rain hurts the coating, rain defeats the properties of the coating and drastically reduces the overall stealth benefit thus increasing the radar signature. Even so...

According to the USAF, because the hangars at Andersen AFB suffered severe damage in super typhoon Paca, at least one of the bombers sat in the open at all times, alternately being baked under the hot sun and being drenched by the driving rain storms of the South Pacific. Most all maintenance, including that of low-observable coatings, was performed outdoors. The tropical weather had little, if any, effect on the maintenance and operations of the aircraft. The bombers achieved 100 percent sortie success rate, accumulating nearly 90 flying hours prior to returning to the States.

So they also operate in the tropics, in addition to the mid-west. If they could not handle lightning, how would this be possible?
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:20 am

I've unfortunately had to work with a number of individuals like Mr. Weldon seems to be. Once brilliant engineers that have found their expertise sidelined by advancing technology. I remember one old guy named Hank, back in 1990, describing the doom and gloom scenarios that would result from our switch from Pascal to C++. And another guy, in 2000, explaining to me why broadband could not be made to work - ever. Funny thing was, I already had it and it seemed to work fine.

My CEO used to explain that the problem with many engineers getting older was that the more experience they had, the more likely they were to eventually convince themselves that nothing was possible. I think the problem is that the mental models that engineers build in their heads become so complex that they cannot adapt them fast enough to new information, so the engineer clings more firmly to their beliefs rather than tossing years of know how in order to adapt to change. That pretty much ends their careers - and the result is often nasty hostility - to their employer and the young punks that took their job.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:38 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 226):
And another guy, in 2000, explaining to me why broadband could not be made to work - ever.

Interesting - I had a similar experience with an EE who detailed exactly why DSL could not work due to the limitation of common copper phone wire. According to him, even 56K dial-up was a fraud...physically impossible.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 226):
That pretty much ends their careers - and the result is often nasty hostility

Can be hostility, but also often results in a sort of Grandpa complex - an unreasonable certainty in their wisdom plus a desperate desire to be listened to.  old 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:46 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 226):
I think the problem is that the mental models that engineers build in their heads become so complex that they cannot adapt them fast enough to new information, so the engineer clings more firmly to their beliefs rather than tossing years of know how in order to adapt to change. That pretty much ends their careers - and the result is often nasty hostility - to their employer and the young punks that took their job.

Sounds like TV news anchors suffer from the same problem as they get older.  Smile
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.
 
caminito
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:04 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:55 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 227):
Quoting Grantcv (Reply 226):
And another guy, in 2000, explaining to me why broadband could not be made to work - ever.

Interesting - I had a similar experience with an EE who detailed exactly why DSL could not work due to the limitation of common copper phone wire. According to him, even 56K dial-up was a fraud...physically impossible.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 226):
That pretty much ends their careers - and the result is often nasty hostility

Can be hostility, but also often results in a sort of Grandpa complex - an unreasonable certainty in their wisdom plus a desperate desire to be listened

All very true. But no to forget the temptation presented by Publications, TV+Radio Chains and unscrupulous Independents in search of whistle -blowers, not researching too much the validity of their claims.
 
BizFlyer
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:40 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:11 am

I think, that all those, who question Mr. Weldon at all, should forget about Dan Rather and remember that one should collect information before blasting off one´s mouth.

Please read and understand Mr. weldon´s letter to the FAA dated 24th July 2007, in which he explains WHY he is so concerend. Link. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/17/2003889769.pdf

Once you have read this, you can see that the issue at hand is not mainly that the CF splinters on impact etc., but rather due to it´s brittle condition incfreases the negative G-load for passengers when a plane comes crashingt down on it´s belly with 10 feet per second (equals approximately to 30 km/h). This gives such a high G-load, that the human body will almost certainly not be able to stand up against it. THAT is the issue.

The other issue being raised is that due to the way that the electric current of a flash of lightining goes through the 787 there are only very few points between sections (i.e. wings, fuselage sections etc), where they are bolted together with metal-bolts. Weldon argues that where these bolts do not fit very, very tightly there will be a danger of electrical arcing, which may easily reduce the structural integrity of a bolt or the bush into which it is fitted.
And those are the components, that are supposed to hold together the plane...

I am an enthusiastic Boeing fan. When I was a boy and was fascinated by planes, Boeing was the only success-stroy around. And that had me influenced. I do wish Airbus well too, but I am not biased as I also know about this and that question where one had at least to raise an eyebrow at Arubus.
But what Mr. Weldon has written, has impressed me and I will wait now for some reply from Boeing that convinces me that all is well.

Finally: After having read Mr. Weldon´s letter I would not say, that he tries to straighten out an open account from the past. I believe, that man is fully aware of the consequences this could have legally in the form of libel-suits etc.

Regards,

BizFlyer
Stay belted as long as you can!
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:38 am

Quoting BizFlyer (Reply 230):
it´s brittle condition incfreases the negative G-load for passengers when a plane comes crashingt down on it´s belly with 10 feet per second (equals approximately to 30 km/h). This gives such a high G-load, that the human body will almost certainly not be able to stand up against it. THAT is the issue.

If THAT was the issue, then the recent drop test should have put it to rest. I watched the actual Dan Rather Reports program, and Mr. Weldon did not state that g force was his primary concern...nor did he address the Boeing drop test although it was mentioned in the narration.

Quoting BizFlyer (Reply 230):
Weldon argues that where these bolts do not fit very, very tightly there will be a danger of electrical arcing, which may easily reduce the structural integrity of a bolt or the bush into which it is fitted.

Boeing is well aware of the issue and has done extensive testing. Again, it is not the case that Mr. Weldon has been ignored - it's just that he is not convinced of the solution. When his concerns are not confirmed in testing he assumes that the tests are faulty, which raises a red flag IMHO.

Quoting BizFlyer (Reply 230):
But what Mr. Weldon has written, has impressed me and I will wait now for some reply from Boeing that convinces me that all is well.

It's not reasonable to expect Boeing to reply to complaints from any particular individual. The aircraft will be tested and certified to the satisfaction of the FAA, and that process should more than suffice to address Mr. Weldon's concerns.

Mr. Weldon is a knowledgeable and sincere person. That doesn't make him right.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:54 am

Quoting BizFlyer (Reply 230):
Once you have read this, you can see that the issue at hand is not mainly that the CF splinters on impact etc., but rather due to it?s brittle condition incfreases the negative G-load for passengers when a plane comes crashingt down on it?s belly with 10 feet per second (equals approximately to 30 km/h). This gives such a high G-load, that the human body will almost certainly not be able to stand up against it. THAT is the issue.

I did not read the thread from the beginning so I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned, but how can a high G impact be an issue when, since the introduction of the CFRP bathtub in Formula 1 cars there have been no fatalities or serious injuries?
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:08 am

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 208):
A340 goes flying off the end of a rain-soaked runway, down a 15 metre embankment and into a muddy gully, catches fire. Is this survivable? In 2004, I would say: maybe some will get out, but not a lot. AF at YYZ proved this is 100% survivable.

Question is, if it were a 787 instead, and everything else being the same, would 100% survive?

If it were a 787 instead, you couldn't make everything else the same. You couldn't recreate that crash with a 787 (or even another A340).

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 213):
Why not do exactly the AF A340 runway over-run? We know what speed it was going, we know it was dramatic, we know it is survivable and we know that sort of accident happens quite often (as far as serious accidents go).

It does not happen quite often. Runway overruns happen fairly often. Runway overruns that result in a survivable fire are extremely rare.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 216):
You would collect a huge amount of data on how the airframe copes under unconventional stress!

Yes, but you wouldn't know what the stresses were so the data would be of limited value. A crash is a hugely dynamic situation with a whole bunch of very local effects going on...unless you strap strain gauges to every component on the whole airplane and somehow design a recording system that will survive a crash that's designed to destroy the airplane, you're going to learn *far* more from a validated computer model of the same crash than you would from the real thing.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 219):

How do you collect data from a computer simulation? The simulation is based on data you already have and are then able to manipulate.

The simulation *algorithm* is validated by data from known condition tests. You use that validated algorithm to simulate crashes you don't have data for and yes, you do get new data from that.

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 220):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 212):
It would be a tremendous expense and provide little to no useful engineering data that couldn't be obtained other ways. Bad idea.

Tom.

So do you mind telling me what YOUR Better Idea would be????

Test all of your materials at the coupon level. Test component details on an individual level. Test a few build-up major components. Design a computer program to simulate those same tests and refine it until it matches your coupon, component, and major component results. Simulate a new test with a big piece of structure, then actually do that test and see if it matches up. After that, simulate all the situations you can think of (and have time to simulate) that you can't do in real life.

This is, not coincidentally, exactly what Airbus and Boeing do all the time.

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 220):
If my idea is such a bad one, then what would provide Boeing with useful information?



Quoting Access-Air (Reply 220):
Point out an obvious solution to a problem and we get a debate about it....

See above.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 222):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 212):
They don't fly in lightning.

Bull. They're based in the midwest. You think they're not going to launch a 24-36 hour bombing mission because of Lightning? That wasn't even worth the bandwidth you used up.

You think *any* aircraft takes off when there's lightning at the airport?

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 226):
My CEO used to explain that the problem with many engineers getting older was that the more experience they had, the more likely they were to eventually convince themselves that nothing was possible.

I once heard it put thusly:
A specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less until, eventually, they know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing.

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

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:20 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 233):
You think *any* aircraft takes off when there's lightning at the airport?

Depends on what you mean by "at the airport". DFW operates with lightning all about...nothing unusual about it. They'd need to close the airport most summer afternoons if it was otherwise.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
StarGoldLHR
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:29 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:24 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 233):
I once heard it put thusly:
A specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less until, eventually, they know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing.

Thats an arguement I should put to the government so we can all retire at 40.
So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
 
avek00
Posts: 3241
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:33 am

Quoting TheCol (Reply 149):
think you're forgetting that the FAA and EASA will make the final decision on whether the plane is airworthy or not.

This fact is not forgotten -- it's just of limited relevance because the FAA has certified commercial aircraft containing fatal deisgn flaws (whether FAA knew of the flaws at cert. time is open to debate, but even once put on notice, the agency has allowed manufacturers and airlines to continue opping the planes on gentlemen's agreements until one finally crashed and killed hundreds of people).
Live life to the fullest.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26945
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:33 am

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 236):
This fact is not forgotten -- it's just of limited relevance because the FAA has certified commercial aircraft containing fatal deisgn flaws (whether FAA knew of the flaws at cert. time is open to debate, but even once put on notice, the agency has allowed manufacturers and airlines to continue opping the planes on gentlemen's agreements until one finally crashed and killed hundreds of people).

And EASA did the same with the A320 and her FBW control system even after losing a few frames with all hands.

That is one of the problems of having these "dual hat" regulatory agencies that are charged with both "policing" the industry and "cheerleading" it.
 
caminito
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:04 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:37 am

Quoting BizFlyer (Reply 230):
Please read and understand Mr. weldon´s letter to the FAA dated 24th July 2007, in which he explains WHY he is so concerend. Link. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...9.pdf

That's the problem: to "understand Mr. Weldon's letter"!

Obviously, I (and probably you, reading respectfully your profile) am able to read and infer to what he is referring, but given the extreme high specialization of the issues I have no idea if:
- what he writes is factual
- if it is, and he told Boeing his concern, which were the counterarguments of Boeing discarding them
- of if Boeing took basing on his arguments, additional protective or eventually corrective measures

But of course, submitting to the general public such in my opinion convoluted document as the one sent to FAA, a psychological scare effect could be expected.

The questions which come to my mind are:

1) Reading and re-reading the document, I do not see attached any formal correspondence where he warned the management of the risks he now warns. It seems that his only related action consisted to make a proposal of tests to a middle level manager as the Director of B787 Structure Integration, whom he accuses to reject it "COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT IT MAY SHOW" (an extreme grave statement!)
2) Additionally, he left Boeing mid (?) 2006. Why he waited until End July 2007 to send this report to the FAA, just when the issue of the First
Flight delay became notorious?
3) I am not familiar with the FAA bureaucracy, but it is usual that such a report is addressed to "to whom it may concern" within the Transport Aviation Directorate, instead to its Head, more so containing "life or death" billion $ issues, risking that it could disappear in the drawer of an subordinate?

He also seems not to trust the FAA, by making public such a delicate report, which by the way is full of emotional accusations and complaints regarding the activities of Boeing, very out of place within a supposedly technical argumentation.

[Edited 2007-09-20 02:40:12]
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15080
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:44 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 228):
Sounds like TV news anchors suffer from the same problem as they get older.

Well rather considers himself a victim and a whistleblower and is now suing CBS for $70 million because he was a "scapegoat" during the whole forged document thing.

Quoting BizFlyer (Reply 230):
And those are the components, that are supposed to hold together the plane...



Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 231):
Boeing is well aware of the issue and has done extensive testing. Again, it is not the case that Mr. Weldon has been ignored - it's just that he is not convinced of the solution

It's not just "extensive testing" but multiple $billion in design and research to address just these problems.

Weldon was fired for being disruptive, all the while Boeing was working on all the issues that Weldon believes are "impossible" to fix.

Who knows who is right, but I personally doubt it's the ludite...

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 233):
If it were a 787 instead, you couldn't make everything else the same. You couldn't recreate that crash with a 787 (or even another A340).

This is the problem. You put a 787 in place of all the DC10s, 763s, L1011, A330s, A340s, etc that have had various accidents, and you will come out with some accidents and incidents being worse, and others resulting in less tragic results. This is the nature of "newness" and difference in construction methods. It doesn't make one thing "unsafe" it's just differently safe.

You build a condo complex out of concrete, it is more hurricane proof. You build it out of wood with cross bracing, it is more earthquake proof. Neither is unsafe, but one is differently safe than the other, and the wood framed structure is more likely to burn in a fire, so there are things you must do to compensate. The first method is common in Florida, the second is common here in California. But both are habitable...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:53 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 41):
I think we know CaptainX's real name now... Weldon.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who suspected that he has a very definite bias... Judging from the sentiment of most respondents, I'd say that he'll be the only one watching this piece of journalistic trash.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
captainx
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:06 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:34 am

REPLAY ONLINE: http://www.hd.net/drr231.html

I don't find Rather to be a crank, and I find the people interviewed to be intelligent and professional. Boeing should terminate the development immediately.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:10 am

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 241):
Boeing should terminate the development immediately.

By all means, call Boeing and tell them what you saw on TV. I'm sure they have no idea how flawed the Dreamliner is, and will be thankful for your advice. Let us know how that goes, will you?  rotfl 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15080
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:02 pm

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 240):
. Judging from the sentiment of most respondents

He still hasn't replied to one thread that wasn't about the 787 since joining days before the rollout, nor has he ever provided one shred of evidence to back up his claims/assertions.

Not exactly an aviation enthusiast since no other topic interests him at all, but sure sounds like a "disgruntled" something, using a public forum to try to damage Boeing and the 787 program.

CaptainX should know, however, that if he has worked for Boeing or a contractor and is using the forum in such a way, he may be civilly culpable.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1383
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:15 pm

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 194):
The body of a sports car and all unibody cars is an integral part of its structure, this has been true for a long time. The Corvette body is now partially made of CFRP now BTW whole reason for the switch was increased rigidity. In fact, if you remove the fenders from a 1970 Camaro and the body flex doubles, just like it does when you remove the T-Tops from a 77 Trans Am. Corvettes are even more integral in their design, as anyone who is very familiar with them can attest.

You realise unibody construction means the BODY is the frame, right? There is nothing but body between the front clip and the rear subframe unless you install subframe connectors..

I have more than a cursory familiarity with autmobile construction. I know that unibody construction means the body is the frame, though that is an oversimplification in most FWD cars. Apparently I also know something of which you are completely ignorant: Corvettes aren't unibody cars.

Stick to what you know, because apparently you're NOT familiar with Corvettes. C5's and C6's are not unibodies as you've described them. They have a space frame "rolling chassis" onto while all body components are mounted. The backbone of this unitized frame are a couple of marvelous hydroformed rails. In short, Corvette's body is not part of the unitized construction. Since you've apparently never seen the structure of a C6, here it is:

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-20...-C6-structure-chassis-1280x960.jpg

If you think the fiberglass body panels attached to this space frame provide any chassis stiffness or any crash protection, you're thoroughly wrong. If you look at that picture and don't conclude that the space frame is responsible for that car's structure and impact resistance, then you don't know what you're talking about from an engineering standpoint -- and you definitely don't know Corvettes. (Exception: the doors will have quite a bit of impact resistance built into them.) I invite all of my aerospace engineering friends to look at that picture and nod in agreement. (Point of interest: I own few copies of GM's only other unitized space frame car. That mid-80's offering was mid-engined and had zero metal in the body panels -- just like the Corvette.)

If you're fortunate enough to get a plant tour in Bowling Green, you'll witness with your own eyes several things that destroy any assertion that the fiberglass body cladding on Corvette is part of a unibody:

(1) The body of the car is built on the frame. The drivetrain is assembled separately. At one point on the line, they mate the body (now mounted to its frame) and lower it onto the drivetrain. When I toured the plant, they were building C5's (the C6 has no significant changes in its architecture). I personally saw them mate a frame/body assembly to the drivetrain, attach a collection of electrical harnesses, and start the car -- all within about 100 feet of assembly line. They even picked one of our group, had them step into the line, get into the car and start it, and handed them a "Birth of a Corvette" certifiate. Very cool.

(2) The body panels on the Vette are fabricated and even *painted* long before they get to the car. You an seem staged and moving on the plant monorails from station to station. This is considerably different from the way unibody cars are typically built.

I know this is somewhat far afield of this thread's specific topic, but if you're going to use a car as an example of how good composites can be in a crash, you should be right about the car and you aren't even close. My guess is there are some thread readers who read the "Corvette is an example of how good composites can be in a crash" and thought that made sense. As I said before, it's a bad illusration.

In the 787, CFRP provides most of the unit's structure. On the Corvette, a steel unitized frame provides the unit's structure. Apples and oranges. Now, if you want to see what composites can do in a crash, find the video of the McLaren supercar's frontal offset crash test.

Oh, and I'll take your bet on C7. My position: it will still be made of metal. I *highly* doubt that GM is ready to mass-produce a CFRP space frame or monocoque. And I'm pretty sure they aren't willing to incur the cost on a low-volume mass production car that has been the long-time price leader at its performance point. But I digress even further...

[Edited 2007-09-20 05:37:19]
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:10 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 218):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 211):
Yes, the Al and the CFRP will both burn, but it seems to be that many interiors take fire early and are an early cause of injury and death during a fire after a crash

Fortunately, manufacturers of airline interior fixtures are moving to more fire-resistant/fire-retardant materials that also do not give off (as) toxic gases and smoke when exposed to open flame and high temperatures.

Indeed, but the progress seems to be glacial. Another problem is knowing how flammable the interior of the plane you board might be.

Also I wonder how much care airlines take to reduce flammability and emission of toxic gases (HCN is definitely not good for you!) when they refit interiors - which seems to be every few years for some airlines like QF. Just as you get ratings for various appliances, it might be sensible if the safety authorities rated the interiors in the event of a disaster. Clearly at present some are more survivable than others. Some of the differences are no doubt due to blind luck, a heck of a lot due to the skills of the cabin staff, but I will bet there are some basic differences in the cabin fit out contributing.

In addition to looking at fuel flammability, containment of the fuel tanks could benefit from attention.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:26 pm

Quoting CaptainX (Reply 241):
I don't find Rather to be a crank, and I find the people interviewed to be intelligent and professional. Boeing should terminate the development immediately.

Boy, if that comment doesn't say everything we need to know about you, I don't know what does.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
captainx
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:06 pm

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:15 pm

Take a look at what happened to the 777 center fuse section during the 1.5x load test, and consider how the 787 center fuse would react being that it isn't ductile. If the wing does not break but the fuse does, it's still a failure. I also hope the FAA requires that all the critical systems be installed and operational during the test because the bent wing can rip cables and LRU mounts causing system failures rendering the electrically flown A/C incapable of being controlled even if the wing and fuse are intact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
 
BizFlyer
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:40 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:34 pm

Did I get this right?
Captain X is supposed to be Mr. Weldon? Well that would be a real nonsense, as according to Captain X´ profile he is maximum 55 years old. That would make him a 9 Year old when he joined Boeing.

When reading through this thread, I have found a misture of a lot of unsubstantiated statements, which are just lowering the quality of this thread tenfold and only a few cool and factual contributions.

I do not know Mr. Rather as I cannot watch his shows in Europe. I do not know Mr. Weldon, I heard about him in this forum for the first time.

But I have read this letter to the FAA and I have taken the trouble to watch the (rather lengthly) interview/documentation that was pointed to by Captain X in message # 241 of this thread.
Neither the letter, nor the TV-piece look to me like having been the idea of a crank.

Coming to Team America´s message # 231: The fuselage test is NOT setteld! The 737 fuselage-test from year 2000 was done with a FULL section of the fuselage, meaning lower and upper part of the fuselage with baggage and wired dummies inserted, including overhead-bins and the whole works that makes up an active airliner.

The so-called fuselage-test made for the 787 was ONLY the LOWER HALF of the fuselage. This means that
- it was only a fraction of the weight that would have to borne by the lower half of the fuselage
- the statics would be different and thus the resultant behaviour of the lower fuselage compared to real life
- with only the lower half of the fuselage it could not be demonstrated, that the overhead-bins would remain where they are supposed to remain and not fall on top of the passengers.

This point alone proves to me, that many of you have neither read the letter to which I had pointed in my prior message, nor have they watched the movie but just continue to talk about something that they practically know less about than just the headline of the newspaper. Sad resumé for this thread!

What I will not contest, is that of course Boeing might already have done something about the issues at hand. But if that was so, I am sure, we would have heard about it long since.

Boeing has it´s future riding on the "Dreamliner". IF they had at one point taken the wrong way to go, then this might be the killer for them.
If they took the right decisions in the past as well as now, then they are going to be winners.
But in any case we are talking billions of dollars of money sunk into one single project. Of course they will try everything to keep the dice rolling and not get stopped by the concerns of one single man or one small group of concerned employees.

Regards,

BizFlyer
Stay belted as long as you can!
 
bennett123
Posts: 9438
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: 787: Unsafe Per Whistleblower In Interview

Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:07 pm

There are IMO four issues here.

1. Use of a test airframe. The amount of useful data will be far less if the test airframe is not representative. Unless Boeing are going to fly a convertible B787, then an airframe with no top section seems pointless.

2. What G load can passengers absorb with no G Suit. Also bear in mind that we are talking of OAP's and babies, not astronaut candidates. Also if there is a fire, then they must be concious.

3. There was a B747 lost near Taiwan a few years ago due to the result of an earlier repair. How is the strength of CF affected by repairs. Also what affect will the internal Copper mesh have on airframe strength.

4. Finally, there has been discussion about what type of crash to simulate. Clearly some crashes are unlikely to be fatal in any aircraft, provided that you are strapped in. Equally, some scenarios will be unsurvivable regardless. Surely, if the accidents reports for the last 20 years are checked, then certain scenarios are more likely.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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