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),
- if ignited and catching fire, it would omit poisonous and toxic gases and chemicals while burning,
- the fuselage is less resistant to lightnings while flying,
- 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.
The B787 is currently undergoing the tests of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which will allow the production later on if all tests are passed, and therefore justify the worries expressed above, or reject them. The first crash-tests (drop-tests) brought good results for the new aircraft, but most of the testing (and all flight tests) are still to take place in a reduced, speeded up schedule of about 6 months – much shorter than previous airliner programs (see our earlier post about the delay of the first flight).
At first one could even think that these arguments may be fueled by Airbus but separately last week Airbus confirmed to ATWOnline that it has ditched the aluminum frame for a composite frame on the A350 XWB. The move came after key customers ILFC and Emirates expressed concerns about maintenance on an aluminum structure. The original plan involved composite panels on an aluminium frame, but now Airbus has voted to go for an all-composite structure, similar to Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, which suggests that the technology must be safe enough to be rolled out to production.
An Airbus spokesperson said last week that the decision was taken for “simplification of maintenance.” (Mr. Weldon argues that maintenance of composite structures becomes more complicated due to some damages remaining invisible…) The company expects to complete design refinement by year end with first delivery in late 2013 (some 5 years behind the planned first delivery of the 787).
So what can we do? I think the best is to wait for the test results of the 787, which will be the first aircraft with a composite airframe, but the doubt will now be there in some people’s minds for sure. I’m still excited to fly the Dreamliner and am looking forward to a better, more humanly onboard environment with the different pressure and humidity, that would never be possible in an aluminium framed aircraft and of course hope that such risks mentioned above will never be tested in real life…
by balint01
Good Post there balint01. I must admit such thoughts about the composite frame have been sitting in the back of my mind as well, but to get it from someone who has actually worked in the aircraft industry just adds weight to the problem. I do think more testing should be conducted on the composite material until such time all the questions that have been asked can be answered.
Having worked in a airline such matters are of interest to me and will be interesting to see once time rolls along. If you have time check out my New Zealand Accommodation website at: http://www.justbookme.com
Cheers.
http://fleetbuzz.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/blowing-wind/
Thanks for the comments, it’s really good to see that the first two comments are expressing two different views already, it shows that it’s a complicated and controversial topic.
We have to remember that we are talking about a fired employee (not one who decided to leave the company on his own will after ringing the bell which nobody listened to for example – it would be a totally different situation), we must be precautious in accepting his views. But he made it to the media, and we have learned about his point of view. There are other opinions like in the post linked by boeing777.
Keep up your comments and the conversation, it is a topic worth talking about!
We must also remember that this critic has NEVER worked on the 787 program either.
Use of composites in air structures may be new but its already find its roots on high speed boats and racing cars. But 100% usage is the first time in history of a aircraft manufacturing. one can think of a all composite structure of an aircraft with a composite made speed boat. All the +ve claims of speed are OK, but not at the cost of safety factors. Damage in composites can’t be known until there is a total shear. The creep and fatigue factors are there. One cann’t identify by a naked eye just like aluminium. This involves use of complex strutural testing and inspection. Airlines which had tough flying schedules may not carryout all these.
The second thing is its hazordous to health when it emits toxics. Also in the event of fire it will be tragic and resue operation can be complicated. where as a metal can be cutted not the composite. lets see. Maiden fliers will form as an example. May be one can use it primarily for cargo and test its worthiness.
According to ATW News, the 46 year old Vince Weldon who had worked for Boeing since 1973
Now this is investigative journalism at it’s finest! Mr. Weldon is 46 years old and has worked at Boeing since 1973.
bm, thanks for your comment, you’re right, the quote was misleading (and mathematically impossible). The article has been corrected.
I concur with Vince Weldon. This airplane has deficient lightning protection of the occupants. It has no means of adequately bleeding off the charge it will pick up as it’s huge carbon composite fuselage
strips free electrons from the air it moves thru.
without adequate protection of the occupants by virtue of a ‘farraday cage’ there will likely be planes hit in storms or in rhe process of flying IFR, where occupants end up being the ‘conductor’ of the energy as it passes thru the aircraft from one side to the other.
the embedded protection, once hit and burnt, cannot be removed and replaced.
Weldon is right.
Having been in the industry for over 30 years, and currently working on the 7(late)7 project–787—I think the “partners” global concept was far-reaching, but short of the goal. GA in Charleston, SC is providing the main fuselage section of the aircraft, and are allowing inspection processes(as far as the wiring installaions) to be complied with by non-certificated employees who have at least 6 months on the team.
No good feel between the engineering and the production floor on this one. The ME’s and DE’s are overwhelmed by the amount of errors in the paperwork(mostly the result of people doing the ‘cut and paste’ method of turning out pertinent documents and drawings)and are mostly surly when approached for help…
Kinda sounds like the Spruce Goose to me. My lead on this project has no prior A/C experience, was previously in the construction business, and is sure he know everything there is to know about ’safety of flight’, ‘airworthyness’, et