Dan Rather Makes Questionable Case Against Boeing Dreamliner

Well formula 1 thought they had made composite chsssis 100% safe by doing massive side impact testing until the day Michael Schumacher went head on into an immovable object and broke one or both of his legs because the chassis disintegrated on impact. Ferrari were so concerned they covered the remains of the car so the TV couldn't get a good look at it. If you've ever seen a formula 1 car hit anything head on it explodes into multiple dagger like shards that are extremely sharp and dangerous themselves. Where F! composites have proved to be immensely strong is in barrel roll and side impact situations which is what seems to happen in most of their accidents, they rarely hit anything head on. But at the start of the Belgian GP some years ago at the first corner there was a massive incident in the wet where cars were running blind into stationary cars and the litter created by the composites splintering in that mess made it look like a war zone. I guess they are counting on balance that when aircraft crash they tend to slide in rather than nose dive and they may be pretty safe in that assumption because aluminum probably wouldn't survive a nose dive either.

Hello Guest,

"because the chassis disintegrated on impact."

You have to realize that when the car disintegrates it's is actually dissipating energy before the energy gets to the driver. Michael Schumacher is fortunate that the chassis was a composite.

Anyway, how can the news media create such crap while the plane is being develop. Yes developed, Boeing like any manufacture that takes on a project like this. As it's being built, problems arise because it is breaking new ground.

Too many cooks (newsman) in the kitchen, and the newsmen don't know how to cook.

Heck, Look at Airbus, Their planes are flying with passengers and they have questionable issues about safety and financial. Or wait that's not a breaking story for Old Dan'o.

So don't panic just yet, it's just a newsman who is trying to salvage a mediocre career.

Phoenix911

What is amazing is McDonnell Douglas (Who is now part of Boeing) who basicly wrote the process for handling composites in aircraft design have been building key components in military aircraft - for years- out of some of the very same material. This is an example of news programs distorting the truth to suit desired position. Having seen many military birds return all shot up with pieces of composite structure shot to hell and back yet the material and bird remained in flight makes me wonder how much Airbus is paying Rather and crew. In addition upon static wing flexibility tests and structural testing to date the wings and airframe has far outperformed even the engineers exectations. Nuff said

"Our experts say . . . " 1 disgruntled engineer with an axe to grind - lol - old school.

I would consider the source.

I think Dan Rather has not got a clue and is just trying to get his name on the front pages again!

These composite materials have been shown to be better in Space, Formula 1 and many other industries for many years.......

Aircraft companies have too much to lose by using the wrong materials......

Was Dan a science major before? What are his credentials for such statements?

He is "fabricating" news on a "slow news day"!!

Dan Rather not checking his facts? F1 cars unsafe in "head on" collisions?

If I start, I may not be able to stop.

-A-

He is already suing for $70million. He's got plenty of money. Dan, just fade away gracefully and go fishing. We've had enough of you.

Not so much as money, he's got that, but he's looking for respect.

Because he walked off his job once for that. Hard to fill Walter Cronkite's shoes.

Well Mikey was lucky he was in a carbon composite chassis when he hit the wall. Does any one remember Alex Zanardi? He lost both his legs in a racing accident. F1 requires each builder to submit a tub (the basic monocock) for destructive testing. It must withstand an impact of 200 G's. If any one watched the Canadian GP you saw a BMW hit a concrete wall head on at 150 mph. The driver walked away, raced the following week in the USGP. As for Dan, he is coming off more as a moron every day. Being from the Seattle area and having done consulting work for Boeing, their engineers and testing procedures are second to none. During the development of the 777, a fuselage was set up outside the plant and was connected to both an air compressor and a vacuum pump to simulate up and down cycles, they let it run for years. Every 6 months or so they would go look for micro cracking at the rivets, find none and move on. When ever I book an airline ticket I ask what kind of plane I'll be on, if it is an airbus, I change my time or airline to fly Boeing.

Dan Rather may have a point when you consider the electrical properties of composites. The old way of building aircraft was to fabricate the whole thing out of low resistance metal, composite's have the property of significant electrical resistance.

If a lightening bolt strikes an aluminium aircraft with 1000 Amps through its bodies resistance of (guess) 0.001 ohms, I*I*R = Watts, resulting in a power dissipation of a mere 1kW.

The composite aircraft may have a resistance of (guess) 1 Ohm and for the same bolt will dissipate 1MW.

Trouble is Lightning bolts carry a lot more current than a 1K Amperes, (how many???)so I hope they have thought this composite thing through properly. We dont want lightning bolts passing through the cabin when we're supping gin on our annual holiday flight.

There is also the problem of what common mode effects could be induced into the triplicate avionic systems??? Airbus seem to have an awful lot of accidents in the sort of weather where lightning is a close companion.

Good post.

A good "investigating" reporter would research the topic and ask questions like that before reporting it.

Lighting has always been a concern in aircraft design, and one can not assume all is taken into account, I have seen and heard that the most simpleist and most obvious concerned and or requirement have been overlooked just due to that it was so prevalent that it was assume that it was done.

Did Dan bring that point out?

Lean back in chair, Hit coffee -> it has been said. . .

"Lighting has always been a concern in aircraft design, and one can not assume all is taken into account, I have seen and heard that the most simplest and most obvious concerned and or requirement have been overlooked just due to that it was so prevalent that it was assume that it was done."

Well part of that makes a great point - one can not assume - engineers try not to assume too much. We at our core aren't statistical animals we are more of a beat it to death, test it until it breaks and then make it better bunch.

Nothing is absolute, including the technology that keep us safe airborne. So after giving you that I'm afraid the rest is "What if . . ."

and anyway what if frogs had wings . . . .?

and that is my issue with Mr Rather and his brand of reporting

I though all of it had a point,

Point I was getting at with the commment

"I have seen and heard that the most simplest and most obvious concerned and or requirement have been overlooked just due to that it was so prevalent that it was assume that it was done."

Example of what I was thinking of, at the shipyard where I worked They where assembly a ship. one of the members of the yard crew, I do not believe he even had a high school education and was intellectually challenged, looked at the screw and look at the gear box, and the arrows on each item were going in the opposite direction.

Other wise it would have been a real problem after splash. As foolish and stupid as that, it was all over looked.

Nothing is wrong with questioning, "what if", as long as it's relevent.

Here is a link of interest

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/

An engineering student makes an observation about models and actuals lining up being great feat.

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2007/09/testing_testing.html#comments

Which Airbus accidents are you referring to with regard to lightening?

Please also post a web site(s) where that can be checked out. Thanks for your time and trouble.

Hi Andy,

I was not speaking of any one particular recorded inccident involving Airbus and Electrical lightning, I was more or less thinking out load with my concerns of the accidents Airbus seems to have when on approach to an airport in heavy rain. There have been quite a few and Im including the one in St Pablo recently where the landing was scuppered by aquaplaning tyres or so it is thought. Could it be that the triplicate control systems failed due to a 'Lightning incident' and possibly causd the engines to fail to full throttle? fueling the thought that the pilot was deliberately about to make a Go-Around proceedure, is my thought. Alas we may never know because all were killed in the event.

Personaly I dont have anything to do with aviation design, I just ride on them, Helicopters included, and frequently, so I am particularly concerned when they inexplicably crash. My area is in control systems and within the oil industry if anyone wishes to know.

What I did want to promote was a 'question' in the minds of those designers, because I do know that lightning and composites have been involved in aircraft accidents before. Particulrly with Helicopters, with composite tail rotors disappearing, main rotor blades damaged later to fail completely and that's just in North Sea operations, what about the Hindenberg airship?

I also know that where there's an interface between disciplines there are grey areas of knowledge. Maybe something useful will come from airing the thoughts I've had, I can assure you I mean no harm, but hoped to be reassured by someone with better knowledge than myself replying to this forum.

I understood your point, as far as problems with Airbus without going into detail I know there is a problem with it's landing gear.

Mcdonnel Douglas I believe their DC-10 initially were plagued with problems also, but they went on to correct them with the DC-10 becoming a very stable and reliable aircraft.

(please don't challenge me on this and I would have to dig it up, It was a report recently on cable pst 1 1/2 to 2 months ago,)

It was'nt an investigated reporting, but a documentary news bite.

I still do not ride on DC10s for anyone.....

I believe I am correct in saying that Lufthansa only use them for cargo nowadays, at least I have not had to change a flight with Lufthansa for at least 7 or 8 years for that reason, maybe it was just luck!!

I have not looked up their fleet details either.....so I could be off base on this one completely...sorry if true!

The last DC-10 rolled off the line in Dec. of 1988.

I do not know what the life expanancy of the aircraft. I'm sure as they are being talking out of service, they pass through as a cargo carrier.

But I do not think its life is as long as the B-52 from Boeing, wait, we're talking commercial aircraft.

Did you read Zap's comments, thats my take on it too.....

You should try and put real verifiable facts on this blog or just leave well alone.....

Grumble Grumble - stir stir - burp ----> Tuck slide-rule into pocket, clear throat, hit the coffee cup . . . It has been stated ------>"The composite aircraft may have a resistance of (guess) 1 Ohm and for the same bolt will dissipate 1MW."

Just like Rather's report "(guess)".

Once again Just for the cheap seats, live big bang , kaboom type ordinance hanging off of wing pylons and belly racks are a great reason to consider electrical anomalies such as that rascal lightening and other common mode buggers. A concern viewed, investigated and accounted for in aircraft in the technology driving the Boeing manufacture of composites used in its military and now commercial birds. I can guess Airbus (the dark side of the force) as well but thats beyond my purview. I also have not seen any of the reports you cite in your post.

Most failures in avionic systems can be traced to incorrect maintenance not design, albiet I suppose we engineers should consider poor technician capabilities in some of our customer base. In addition grounding of avionics, electrical filtering, surge consideration and the basic design approach to that little issue of high voltage failure mode induced by our airborne friend lightening is just that, a basic airborne design consideration. So rest assured that

"There is also the problem of what common mode effects could be induced into the triplicate avionic systems??"

Has been asked and answered as a part of natural design maturity of any avionic system currently or in future will fly in commercial or military birds. Particularly since all this "composites" noise is really old news in some of our new advanced fighters/bombers here in the U.S.

<<<Deep Breath>>>

Throwing a flag of error in design is a awesome thing. Generating innuendo and making assumptions based on the cult of personality like Rather and his lack of investigation is well T.V. . His reporting would be akin to designing an airplane without thinking of the lack of wings. Taking a sour grapes employee and forming a report without proper investigation is just the style of this hack and has always been so. The real shame is if there is any truth in the engineers assertions (that remains to be seen) they have been obscured by all the hype surrounding it and have been rendered moot.

<<<deep breath>>>

Burp - Scratch belly- Grab coffee cup ---> eww its cold.

Lets Just keep it real

I'm with "Burp" you.....