BOEING 787 DREAMLINER…UNSAFE???
THE BOEING 787 DREAMLINER… UNSAFE?
From Airline World
Note: This article was published in 2007. The Dreamliner is now in service.
A former employee of Boeing who has been laid off last year claims that the new carbon-composite airframe of the upcoming Boeing 787 Dreamliner may be unsafe.
According to ATW News, Vince Weldon who had worked for Boeing for 46 years claims in an interview with journalist Dan Rather that he was fired in 2006 because he pointed out safety glitches in relation to this new breakthrough technology to be used widely in the construction of the Dreamliner (composite is to replace aluminium in the bodyframe of the airliner).
The new Dreamliner – which was revealed a little more than two months ago – is to have a body fully built from composite materials, which guarantee weight reduction (thus increased fuel efficiency and less environmental harm), as well as the possibility of more humidity in the passenger cabin, which would reduce the effects of flying on the human body.
At the time when he was laid off, he was working for the Phantom Works technology centre of Boeing, developing the new composite plastic materials for the new aircraft. Boeing officially claims they had to fire him as he had assaulted his bosses several times.
The former employee claims that the new structure carries several risks, which are known to Boeing as well, who try to hide it as they wish to begin manufacturing and delivering the aircraft as soon as possible. Boeing has more than 700 firm orders for the aircraft already, the first one due for delivery to ANA in MAY2008. The former engineer says he can support his arguments with archived internal e-mails between Boeing colleagues, while Boeing announced that they were earlier faced with such problems, which have been solved by now.
These risks according to Mr. Weldon would be:
• the brittle carbon-composite compounds based airframe would break much easier than the traditional, more flexible aluminium aircraft body in an emergency landing for example (more likely to shatter on any impact actually),
• the fuselage is less resistant to lightnings while flying,
• if ignited and catching fire, it would omit poisonous and toxic gases and chemicals while burning,
• any damages are harder to see and visually locate.
According to him these risks would reduce the chance of survival in case of an accident involving any of the above described situations. Just to remember: last week a McDonnel Douglas airplane has broken in two and caught fire during an (emergency) landing in Thailand, claiming 88 deaths and leaving 42 survivors who could escape the burning airplane – so such a situation can happen with a traditionally built aluminium aircraft as well unfortunately, but he says the risk of such a situation largely increases by the usage of composite materials.
Dr. Pinna says:
Hopefully, Boeing is right and the employee is wrong.
However, carbon is the molecule in coal and oil and its primary characteristic is to attract oxygen or burn easily.
The tendency of big business in the 21st Century is to overpower any and all objectors to their goals, regardless of safety. We see that in food, medicine and finance. Money or profit is the primary goal. Health and safety is a secondary consideration.
As time passes, big business has fallen dramatically in all areas. Will this happen in the Aircraft industry?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Filed Under: Economy • News Briefs
Thanks for neutralizing overly bias field