New Boeing 787 unsafe?

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

A former senior aerospace engineer at Boeing's Phantom Works research unit, fired last year under disputed circumstances, is going public with concerns that the new 787 Dreamliner is unsafe.

Forty-six-year veteran Vince Weldon contends that in a crash landing that would be survivable in a metal airplane, the new jet's innovative composite plastic materials will shatter too easily and burn with toxic fumes. He backs up his views with e-mails from engineering colleagues at Boeing and claims the company isn't doing enough to test the plane's crashworthiness.

Boeing vigorously denies Weldon's assertions, saying the questions he raised internally were addressed to the satisfaction of its technical experts.

Weldon's allegations will be aired tonight by Dan Rather, the former CBS News anchor, on his weekly investigative show on cable channel HDNet.

Weldon thinks that without years of further research, Boeing shouldn't build the Dreamliner and that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shouldn't certify the jet to fly.

Boeing's current compressed schedule calls for a six-month flight-test program and federal certification in time for delivery in May.

Rather's show presents a letter Weldon wrote to the FAA in July detailing his view, as well as two e-mails to Weldon dated August 2005 and February 2006, expressing similar safety concerns, from unidentified senior Boeing engineers who are still at the company.

Weldon worked at a Boeing facility in Kent. Within Boeing, he led structural design of a complex piece of the space shuttle and supervised several advance design groups. He has worked with composites since 1973.

Weldon recently declined through an intermediary to speak with The Seattle Times.

Boeing confirms he was a senior engineer, but spokeswoman Lori Gunter said he is not specifically a materials expert.

He complains in his July 24 letter to the FAA that when he expressed his criticisms internally they were ignored and "well-covered up."

Weldon was fired in July 2006. He alleged in a whistle-blower complaint with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that the firing was "retaliation for raising concerns throughout the last two years of his employment about the crashworthiness of the 787."



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.

Weldon denied to OSHA investigators that he had referred to a noose and said the "meat hook" reference had not been a threat.

OSHA dismissed Weldon's claim, denying him whistle-blower status largely on the grounds that Boeing's 787 design does not violate any FAA regulations or standards.

FAA spokesman Mike Fergus said Monday the 787 will not be certified unless it meets all the FAA's criteria, including a specific requirement that Boeing prove passengers will have at least as good a chance of surviving a crash landing as they would in current metal airliners.

Rather said Weldon had spoken out publicly only with great reluctance.

"We approached Weldon. In the beginning, it was not at all certain he would cooperate," Rather said in an interview.

Rather said his show doesn't determine whether Boeing or Weldon is right. But referring to the e-mails from Weldon's peers, he said, "There are others who are still within the company who are concerned ... that Boeing could be destroyed by taking the 787 to market too soon and brushing aside these safety concerns too cavalierly."

The Seattle Times reviewed the program transcript and also the letter to the FAA. In the letter, Weldon alleges:

• The brittleness of the plastic material from which the 787 fuselage is built would create a more severe impact shock to passengers than an aluminum plane, which absorbs impact in a crash by crumpling. A crash also could shatter the plastic fuselage, creating a hole that would allow smoke and toxic fumes to fill the passenger cabin.

• After such a crash landing, the composite plastic material burning in a jet-fuel fire would create "highly toxic smoke and tiny inhalable carbon slivers" that "would likely seriously incapacitate or kill passengers."

Weldon also told the FAA this could also pose a major environmental hazard in the area around the crash site.

• The recently conducted crashworthiness tests — in which Boeing dropped partial fuselage sections from a height of about 15 feet at a test site in Mesa, Ariz. — are inadequate and do not match the stringency of comparable tests done on a 737 fuselage section in 2000.

• The conductive metal mesh embedded in the 787's fuselage surface to conduct away lightning is too light and vulnerable to hail damage, and is little better than a "Band-Aid."

Though aluminum airplanes are safe to fly through lightning storms, Weldon wrote, "I do not have even close to the same level of confidence" for the 787.

Boeing's Gunter denied the specifics in Weldon's Dreamliner critique.

"We have to demonstrate [to the FAA] comparable crashworthiness to today's airplanes," she said. "We are doing that."

The recently completed crash tests were successful but are only the beginning of a process that relies on computer modeling to cover every possible crash scenario, she said.

Tests so far have shown that shards of composite material released in a crash are not a shape that is easily inhaled, Gunter said, and the smoke produced by composites in a jet-fuel fire is no more toxic than the smoke from the crash of an aluminum plane.

The 787's lightning protection will meet FAA requirements, she said.

Gunter expressed frustration at Weldon's portrayal of the plane maker as taking shortcuts for profit.

"We wouldn't create a product that isn't safe for the flying public," Gunter said. "We fly on those airplanes. Our children fly on those airplanes."

So one guy who got fired is saying it is unsafe. Thousands of Boeing engineers say different along with the FAA for the certification and testing. It sounds like this guy got canned and is pissed and is trying to bring down the 787 before it takes off. Do you think Boeing along with over 40 airlines would be concerned if his allegations were true? Why would Boeing build something that was unsafe as this guy is claiming. Boeing does not want to build another Comet. This guy is just looking for his 15 minutes I believe.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[1969912 0]

*****JUST A JOKE*****

I can hear it now; "Wheldon is a paid functionary of the Aluminum Industry."


*****END JOKE*****

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

I can hear it now; Wheldon is a paid functionary of the Aluminum Industry.

That or Airbus. Oh thats right, they are going with the composite fuselage on there new A350 also. So that cant be correct.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[1969912 0]

Actually, the guy has some good points, but those should should be addressed (or are being addressed) during FAA certification activities, which nowaday's probably start very early in design. The customers (airlines) an only use the planes if they are certified, and I'm not sure that they have any other obligations, morally or legally. The customers have to rely on the joint efforts of the mfr. and the FAA (with FAA oversight) regarding certification.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Actually, the guy has some good points, but those should should be addressed (or are being addressed) during FAA certification activities,

Like I said before there are thousands or engineers at Boeing who I would bet good money are working on it.

Quote

The customers (airlines) an only use the planes if they are certified, and I'm not sure that they have any other obligations, morally or legally.

Airlines dont want a plane that has a bad reputation. Look at the DC-10 after the crash at Chicago. That was the begging of the end for the thing. People didnt want to fly on the thing because they were told it was unsafe. The thing is still a workhorse to this day. It just got a bad rap. We have to have the confidence of the customer before anything.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[1969912 0]

Any idea if that Dan Blather show is available online (free)?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

I can hear it now; Wheldon is a paid functionary of the Aluminum Industry.

That or Airbus. Oh thats right, they are going with the composite fuselage on there new A350 also. So that cant be correct.

Of course, a composite tail DID come off an Airbus in 2001, resulting in a crash.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Of course, a composite tail DID come off an Airbus in 2001, resulting in a crash.

NTSB said that was pilot error. Amazing what happens when you nail the rudders back and forth a few times.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[tbrown 26]

The thing that really bothers me about Boeing is that they will deny something until they're cornered and then insist they've always recognized a problem and taken it seriously. I worked for Boeing for ten years, not as an engineer or a manager, just an inspector, including time on the final assembly lines for the 747, 757, and 777.

Several years ago, the FAA investigated three crashes and a few dozen near misses with 737s. The likely cause was the 737 rudder causing a "hard over" condition while the plane was on approach for landing. Unlike any other Boeing plane, the 737 alone operated its rudder with a single actuator, while every other model had anywhere fron two to four actuators. So if a 737 actuator went flakey, there was no other actuator to counteract it. Boeing insisted there was no such problem.

Well guess what. Boeing's own original patent application, filed in 1965, mentioned that very possibility right in the paperwork they filed. Eventually the FAA made a ruling that the problem had to be fixed with a retrofit and Boeing insisted they'd always been on top of the very problem they'd been denying, even though they'd known about it before the first airplane was even built.

Does that make the 737 an unsafe airplane ? Hardly. It is the most built and sold airplane in history and has been flying in over nine or ten different models ever since 1967, with a remarkable safety record. Except for those 3 planes that crashed due to a known design flaw. So, like most big corporations, Boeing is betting on the odds. It's cheaper to pay off a few hundred settlements than to fix a problem, unless and until they're forced to.

From my experience working at Boeing, on their airplanes as they were being built, I can say two things: 1.) Boeing actually does build an extremely safe & reliable airplane, though not as safe as they could, and 2.) their corporate culture is ROTTEN to the core. Corruption is a way of life there, from the boardroom down. The bullshit that goes on is unbelievable and the only reason I can think of that keeps the FAA at bay is political pressure, because Boeing is in fact America's single largest exporter.

They've got so much invested in the 787 they can't afford delays over a crash that may not happen for twenty years. But the Feds should be forcing them to fess up now.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Of course, a composite tail DID come off an Airbus in 2001, resulting in a crash.

NTSB said that was pilot error. Amazing what happens when you nail the rudders back and forth a few times.

Right, who'd ever think the pilot might actually use the rudder pedals and expect the tail to stay attached to the plane, like it does on aluminum airliners?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Of course, a composite tail DID come off an Airbus in 2001, resulting in a crash.

NTSB said that was pilot error. Amazing what happens when you nail the rudders back and forth a few times.

And why should the pilot have THAT much rudder authority in that scenario?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 3,114]

>And why should the pilot have THAT much rudder authority in that
>scenario?

Rudder authority is a large part of Vmc; reducing rudder authority increases the speed a pilot must maintain in order to survive the loss of an engine. In high power, low speed regimes (i.e. takeoff) lots of rudder authority is critical to ensure that a loss of an engine does not result in loss of control.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Right, who'd ever think the pilot might actually use the rudder pedals and expect the tail to stay attached to the plane, like it does on aluminum airliners?

The same type of pilot who would expect that the roof of his 737 won't be blown off over hawaii.

Metal rudders have failed, too, professor. 737's have had problems with metal rudders turning the WRONG WAY!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Right, who'd ever think the pilot might actually use the rudder pedals and expect the tail to stay attached to the plane, like it does on aluminum airliners?

The same type of pilot who would expect that the roof of his 737 won't be blown off over hawaii.

Metal rudders have failed, too, professor. 737's have had problems with metal rudders turning the WRONG WAY!

Turning the wrong way is not a materials issue - red herring to confuse the jury, Counselor.

The roof of the 737 blew off because of an epoxy adhesive failure due to a manufacturing defect, and the airliner was 14,000 pressurization cycles PAST its design lifetime - nothing to do with aluminum. Not only that, but the structural integrity of the rest of the aluminum airframe allowed it to be landed. Another red herring to confuse the jury, Counselor.

In the Airbus the tail fin is connected to the fuselage with six attaching points, each set has two sets of nuts, one made out of composite material, another from aluminum which is connected by a titanium bolt, however damage analysis showed the bolts and aluminum lugs were intact but not the composite lugs.

There is a LOT of concern in the materials engineering community about use of composites in critical areas because their failure modes have not been characterized anything like as well as metals, nor have NDE methods been developed to detect impending failures in composites with the same reliability as they have in metals.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

There is a LOT of concern in the materials engineering community about use of composites in critical areas because their failure modes have not been characterized anything like as well as metals, nor have NDE methods been developed to detect impending failures in composites with the same reliability as they have in metals.

Agreed.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Zipp0 1]

So.... did you quit, or were you fired from Boeing?

Cause if you were fired, you must be lieing!

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There is a LOT of concern in the materials engineering community about use of composites in critical areas because their failure modes have not been characterized anything like as well as metals, nor have NDE methods been developed to detect impending failures in composites with the same reliability as they have in metals.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, proof that Professor Kallend isn't ALWAYS wrong...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,114]

>There is a LOT of concern in the materials engineering community
>about use of composites in critical areas because their failure modes have
>not been characterized anything like as well as metals, nor have NDE
>methods been developed to detect impending failures in composites with
>the same reliability as they have in metals.

They've gotten fairly good at NDT over the past 20 years. Keep in mind that military aircraft have used composites for quite some time now - we have a composite tailplane rework facility here to deal with F-18 stabilizers, and they have gotten very good at inspection.

I agree that as time goes on we will get more experience with carbon fiber, sometimes by seeing it fail and learning why. But that doesn't mean that carbon fiber is bad, it just means that we're learning to work with it.

Take an example. The Comet, one of the first pressurized jet aircraft, worked OK for a while, then started disintegrating in midair for no apparent reason. Investigators eventually learned that metal fatigue - a fairly new phenomenon - was to blame, caused by the repeated stresses of pressurization and depressurization.

Should that have been the death knell for aluminum? Should we have returned to fabric and wood, so that the dangerous, failure-prone, not-well-understood material called aluminum did not cause any more deaths? No (although some did call for that.) We fixed the problem and moved on. Removing square windows was one solution, and breaking up crack propagation was another. Then we discovered galvanic corrosion problems, and work hardening that turned metal skins brittle - but we worked through all of them. And the very material that people once attacked as being worse than wood is now the material you hold up as the standard of strength.

We have a lot of advantages with carbon fiber this time around. It's been used for a long time on aircraft, and we've seen how it can fail and how it needs to be inspected. We understand materials fatigue better and can better simulate flight and pressurization stresses. So overall we're in a better position with carbon fiber now than we were with aluminum in 1950. Will we see problems, incidents and disasters that are at least related to the new construction material? Probably. But overall I'll bet we see fewer problems than we saw with aluminum.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Right, who'd ever think the pilot might actually use the rudder pedals and expect the tail to stay attached to the plane, like it does on aluminum airliners?

Regardless of the construction material FAA certification only requires non-aerobatic aircraft operated below Va (maximum maneuvering speed) to survive a rudder deflection from maximum slip back to center.

Rapid rudder reversals void the warranty at any airspeed.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Right, who'd ever think the pilot might actually use the rudder pedals and expect the tail to stay attached to the plane, like it does on aluminum airliners?

Regardless of the construction material FAA certification only requires non-aerobatic aircraft operated below Va (maximum maneuvering speed) to survive a rudder deflection from maximum slip back to center.

Rapid rudder reversals void the warranty at any airspeed.

According to the NTSB, the Airbus WAS climbing at Vy, which is below Va.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Any idea if that Dan Blather show is available online (free)?

Here's the complete (Ithink) Dan Blather report:


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

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Guest]

Well spoken, Bill.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, who'd ever think the pilot might actually use the rudder pedals and expect the tail to stay attached to the plane, like it does on aluminum airliners?

Regardless of the construction material FAA certification only requires non-aerobatic aircraft operated below Va (maximum maneuvering speed) to survive a rudder deflection from maximum slip back to center.

Rapid rudder reversals void the warranty at any airspeed.

According to the NTSB, the Airbus WAS climbing at Vy, which is below Va.

And according to the NTSB, there were multiple deflections nearing the mechanical limits in both directions when only one between maximum slip and dead center is allowed .

The failure was in pilot training and ignorance on the meaning of Va, not the design or materials.

[yjumpinoz 0]

We have a few models that are composite fuselage that are certified. From the infamous Starship to a midsize corporate jet Hawker 4000. There have been a few Premiers and at least one Starship belly in, and very little damage and a few lay ups and its back in the air. Composite is the future. More cabin space due to lack of bulkheads and less pressurization fatigue.