This whole "fire and smoke penetrating holes in the composite fuselage" bit is just more drama being seized upon by the media. In the scenario described, in which a fuselage impacts the ground at a high rate of descent and then slides along a runway, an aircraft built of traditional aluminum panels and framework will remain no more intact than the composite barrels. I fail to understand why all these critics seem to think aluminum survives crumpling and massive abrasion without also peeling back, splitting, tearing, and simply burning away due to friction. Let's not even throw in a flame's tendency to follow a path into a confined space rather than towards open air/oxygen. Nor the fact that in the given scenario (which assumes a "soft" enough impact to remain intact) the majority of fuselage ruptures are located against the tarmac. It's amazing how many "me too" personalities have appeared in the media to question and criticize composites as inherently risky and "new" technology. Few, if any, of these individuals seem aware that commercial aircraft have been flying with composite structures for decades and the dreaded delaminations (a term that is overused and usually not applicable to these processes) touted by them have not appeared. -Dan D.

This whole "fire and smoke penetrating holes in the composite fuselage" bit is just more drama being seized upon by the media. In the scenario described, in which a fuselage impacts the ground at a high rate of descent and then slides along a runway, an aircraft built of traditional aluminum panels and framework will remain no more intact than the composite barrels. I fail to understand why all these critics seem to think aluminum survives crumpling and massive abrasion without also peeling back, splitting, tearing, and simply burning away due to friction. Let's not even throw in a flame's tendency to follow a path into a confined space rather than towards open air/oxygen. Nor the fact that in the given scenario (which assumes a "soft" enough impact to remain intact) the majority of fuselage ruptures are located against the tarmac. It's amazing how many "me too" personalities have appeared in the media to question and criticize composites as inherently risky and "new" technology. Few, if any, of these individuals seem aware that commercial aircraft have been flying with composite structures for decades and the dreaded delaminations (a term that is overused and usually not applicable to these processes) touted by them have not appeared. -Dan D.

Did you just skim through the article? Apparently the issue was so much of a concern that a veteran Boeing engineer got fired for raising too many questions. In the 2005 test it showed that instead of crumpling like the aluminium the composite would break and deliver a 25g deceleration force to the passengers compared to 15g in the other test fuselage. The whole point was that composite would do worse than aluminium in a crash-landing. By breaking and fracturing unlike the crumpling aluminium the composite could also leave room for fire to enter the cabin and start burning highly toxic fumes. While the aluminium would eventually succumb to the flames, people on the plane would be long gone by that time. And, remember we're talking about a moderate crash-landing here comparing the survivability of the two materials. The other point is that the 787 is the first aircraft to use composite material on the whole fuselage skin, it has never been done before. This also increases the risk of not finding delaminated areas with the special equipment that is required to find it. I reckon that is part of the reason why the 787 program has been delayed so many times.

I do not even think that rates as news. Did you read the article? It actually quotes Boeing engineers that say it is behaving as designed and is (at least) as good as the 777 and yet they still throw a negative slant on it. As for the whistle blower, something seems odd there. He is quoted as being 72 (which is consistent with the claimed 46 years in the business) and yet was 'fired' only four years earlier. Does Boeing have many 68 year old employees? That the article also says he had his concerns reviewed by a team of experts from outside the 787 team? i.e. people without a vested interest in the answer? what more did he want? The reporter then found a has-been (Yates) who was "spurned" (their words) and gave him another chance to get his name in the papers. He had a valid and important contribution 40 years ago with the use of expoy based composites, but in this case the FAA did not think he had a legitimate argument. Why do you? The only reason I can think for doing this article in this way is to sell more papers. As someone else already said, Seattle depends on Boeing so an article that appears to suggest trouble for Boeing will be of interest to a lot of people.

Boeing 787 program has gone through a rough patch..:( Through trial and error.....hopefully less error; The 787 Dreamliner can be a successful Plane for years to come.:(

I do not even think that rates as news. Did you read the article? It actually quotes Boeing engineers that say it is behaving as designed and is (at least) as good as the 777 and yet they still throw a negative slant on it. As for the whistle blower, something seems odd there. He is quoted as being 72 (which is consistent with the claimed 46 years in the business) and yet was 'fired' only four years earlier. Does Boeing have many 68 year old employees? That the article also says he had his concerns reviewed by a team of experts from outside the 787 team? i.e. people without a vested interest in the answer? what more did he want? The reporter then found a has-been (Yates) who was "spurned" (their words) and gave him another chance to get his name in the papers. He had a valid and important contribution 40 years ago with the use of expoy based composites, but in this case the FAA did not think he had a legitimate argument. Why do you? The only reason I can think for doing this article in this way is to sell more papers. As someone else already said, Seattle depends on Boeing so an article that appears to suggest trouble for Boeing will be of interest to a lot of people.

Did you read the article? Yes Seattle depends on Boeing, and yet the article was written by the Seattle Times. And, Boeing engineers aren't even allowed by Boeing to publicly discuss any internal problems they might have, so of course they're gonna say everything is fine and dandy. In case you didn't see it, Boeing's own test from 2005 backs up Weldon's concerns. I think you're just out to debunk no matter what, and that's generally not a good attitude to have in any case where human lives are at stake. I'm glad you're not in the FAA. Aside from that, just because the old man was not taken seriously doesn't mean he's wrong. We all know that Boeing and the FAA have developed a cozy relationship over the years. They might not be as willing to challenge Boeing like they used to. Either way, they did in fact act on some of the complaints made by Weldon. But like Robin said, at the end of the day it is unproven technology. FAA themselves admitted a few years back that there's a lot about composites they don't understand, and if they don't understand, neither does Boeing. It's also much harder to detect problems or damage with composite than with aluminium which is a cause for concern. A few years back FedEx found a large area on the inside of an A300 composite rudder that had debonded thus allowing hydrallic fluid to leak into the area causing even more problems. The NTSB have also stated that there may have been dangerously close similarities between the Air Transit incident where the rudder just broke off in mid-air and the AA crash in 2001. Anyway, let's hope Boeing can overcome these obstacles and get the 787 out into service.

This whole "fire and smoke penetrating holes in the composite fuselage" bit is just more drama being seized upon by the media. In the scenario described, in which a fuselage impacts the ground at a high rate of descent and then slides along a runway, an aircraft built of traditional aluminum panels and framework will remain no more intact than the composite barrels.

What you fail to appreciate is the deceleration experienced by all on board. Aluminium crumpling vs. composite shattering, means that aluminum absorbs more of the impact energy over a longer period than the composite will. The composite will break, the aircraft will continue at speed and suddenly decelerate when it eventually hits something solid that won't crumple. This will transfer massive loads ultimately onto the people, and likely kill them, whereas had the structure crumpled like aluminum, they could probably walk away.As for the shards of composite vs. aluminum, composite will create a fine dust that would become airborne, whilst aluminum would bend and break off in (relatively) large chunks that would not.There is also a concern that the shards of composite would be about the same size as asbestos fibers, and create similar health problems. The problem with asbestos is the size of the fibers, not the material itself. It is just the wrong size for the body to deal with. Smaller, and it would be absorbed. Larger, and it would be coughed out/not be an irritant to the lung tissue (it is actually the irritation that ultimately causes ill-health).Best regards,Robin.

I was amazed to see that video and think it's another gimmick, now why should'nt I believe it's another ploy by aircraft aluminum manufacturers to potray that composite is a fail when it comes to aircraft structure. that video towards the end gives an example of an A340 bumping and overshooting the runway and into a ravine 30 feet deep and apparently "Aluminum" helped passengers escape the infero which subsequently engulfed the fuselage. Recently however, a crash that happened in India paints another picture, similar event causes a B738 to plunge into a valley a few hundred feet deep after being unable to stop on the runway on a hilltop, this time had the composite (if it was the case) would have cracked open and allowed the passengers to run away but instead it was the Aluminum structure which dented and bended but kept everybody inside till the fire engulfed them, this is proved in the subsequent post mortem investigation of the bodies. So most people die because of being trapped inside even though the actual crash did not kill as many as due to fire.One of the biggest killers in aircraft crashes is the resulting fire and not the crash itself, and statistics prove that, sadly people who make such reports hardly ever pursue those things.Overall I think these stories are just gossip and nothing else. B787 is a brand new beginning in a lot of things, like no bleed etc. Imagine subsequently airplanes doing sub orbital flights using scram jets, where aluminum would be too weak to handle the forces. Theory that composite would break up into super small peices, Now as I understand, composite is infact layer after layer of fibers woven together and glued together, infact they should have better resistance to impact forces than aluminum. Depending on how they are constructed would cause them to fracture differently. With Regards,B h a s k a r - K r i s h n a

I was amazed to see that video and think it's another gimmick, now why should'nt I believe it's another ploy by aircraft aluminum manufacturers to potray that composite is a fail when it comes to aircraft structure. that video towards the end gives an example of an A340 bumping and overshooting the runway and into a ravine 30 feet deep and apparently "Aluminum" helped passengers escape the infero which subsequently engulfed the fuselage. Recently however, a crash that happened in India paints another picture, similar event causes a B738 to plunge into a valley a few hundred feet deep after being unable to stop on the runway on a hilltop, this time had the composite (if it was the case) would have cracked open and allowed the passengers to run away but instead it was the Aluminum structure which dented and bended but kept everybody inside till the fire engulfed them, this is proved in the subsequent post mortem investigation of the bodies. So most people die because of being trapped inside even though the actual crash did not kill as many as due to fire.One of the biggest killers in aircraft crashes is the resulting fire and not the crash itself, and statistics prove that, sadly people who make such reports hardly ever pursue those things.Overall I think these stories are just gossip and nothing else. B787 is a brand new beginning in a lot of things, like no bleed etc. Imagine subsequently airplanes doing sub orbital flights using scram jets, where aluminum would be too weak to handle the forces. Theory that composite would break up into super small peices, Now as I understand, composite is infact layer after layer of fibers woven together and glued together, infact they should have better resistance to impact forces than aluminum. Depending on how they are constructed would cause them to fracture differently. With Regards,B h a s k a r - K r i s h n a

Do some proper research before you post again. It's a nonsensical mess.

Do some proper research before you post again. It's a nonsensical mess.

may be I'm emphasizing fire hazard a bit more than I should (even though it is a very important factor), but I think I've read enough on composites to form an opinion which I believe I have a right to :) even though I'm not a engineer, please google yourself and have a read. I'll support composites anytime ...Regards,B h a s k a r

B787 is a brand new beginning in a lot of things, like no bleed

Actually the B707 and DC-8 didn't use bleed air either. They used engine driven turbo-compressors. Use of bleed air for air conditioning/pressurization came later as a cost-cutting exercise.The B787 is a return to this concept.The health problems of organophosphates used in engine/APU oil that makes its way into the air conditioning, and ultimately the cabin/flight deck air as a vapor, has been buried, denied, and ignored by the industry. There are several aircraft types that are particularly susceptible to this under certain normal and abnormal conditions. If you Google, you will find many reports, but it has never been officially acknowledged despite there being plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis.http://www.laleva.org/eng/2010/03/aerotoxicity_toxic_air_for_passengers_and_airplane_crews.htmlShould you ever be subjected to it, the effect is usually pretty immediate, beginning with a headache, followed shortly (a few days) by problems with breathing and cognitive issues. It is very serious, and permanent. There is also the long-term effects of being subjected to low quantities of it (applies to air crew who are subject to bleed air day in, day out on the types affected).Long-term crews of certain aircraft types have health problems later on, and they all match the list of effects attributable to organophosphate poisoning. There is also an emerging trend of said aircrews all dying relatively young, and as a result of illness that could be attributed to organophosphate poisoning. It is not a coincidence.Again, if you Google, you can find papers, research, etc.. on the topic. It makes for eye-opening reading.Best regards,Robin.

Do some proper research before you post again. It's a nonsensical mess.

Learn some manners. His post was every bit as valid and coherent as yours. Why don't you read the article again and think about what is actually being said and by whom.

Learn some manners. His post was every bit as valid and coherent as yours. Why don't you read the article again and think about what is actually being said and by whom.

No, I don't think his post was very coherent and valid, especially the part about composite. He also dismissed it all as "gossip" which is ridiculous. But let's not fight, we all have our opinions.

As far as I'm concerned, I really have to pat myself on the back for staying out of the actual content of the post, because we all know how I like to jump into a nice debate.Pats on the back aside:The OP seems to have a distinct interest in either a distaste with Boeing, a distrust of the man/manufacturer/regulatory agency/etc, or an interest in dragging news out of less-than-objective sources (ref, the Al-Jazeera article from another thread about 737 breakups in crashes: Boeing aircraft, included distrust of the FAA/Boeing, and Al-Jazeera/whistleblowers as sources). That's not meant to be an attack on the OP. There's a certain amount of credit due to those who will lift veils off of eyes to see the "real" story, but to be honest, and as I said in the other thread, you have to understand your sources and how credibility counts in finding the supposed truth.Whistleblowers can have an axe to grind, and as such, I would argue that the group is, on the whole, less than reasonably reliable. You have to consider their motives. Are they trying to take the limelight? Are they trying to bring the company for forcing them out after they openly accused the company, or ventured into restricted documents/areas, or anything else potentially threatening to the company? What are their motives? Even if their motives are questionable, if they show up to the table with hard, indisputable facts, then there isn't much you can do. Motives are one thing, but facts are facts, and I haven't seen any facts from the whistleblowers for me to credit them with much.The article fails to provide me with anything other than an initial issue that has been proven, not in a mathematical model, but in a physical drop test, that the issue was either fixed or non-existent from the start. Math is one thing, but math, incorrectly used (or incorrectly hypothesized), can lead to incorrect results - just ask NASA. Keep in mind that while the aircraft concept is not unproven (composites have been used extensively by other manufacturers with success, see below), the scale of the concept is. Nobody has seen a 787 crash, in a practical test of the airframe (in that, I mean in an actual crash, full of passengers, in service), so all of the "expert opinions" are just that - opinions. They are based on all the experience to date, but that experience is not experience with this type of airframe. Math can only make up for so much. The rest is practical testing, which is why, in the end, the practical test of the airframe (what simulated, physical, crash tests) has more weight than that of mathematical models.The argument that composites are untested and unreliable is utter rubbish. Raytheon has several composite aircraft that have survived the test of time, and at the altitudes and stress that a commercial airliner would endure. Rutan's Scaled Composites sent a composite aircraft into space. I challenge you to find a more strenuous practical test in which to test composites.As far as the debate over fume toxicity goes, the noxious fumes given off by the fuel are likely just as deadly or harmful as those by the composites.Sit back and evaluate what you see before you accept it. Blind acceptance is what leads to a mis-informed mass. Conspiracy theories would not be as rampant if people actually took the time to evaluate the claims being made.

As far as I'm concerned, I really have to pat myself on the back for staying out of the actual content of the post, because we all know how I like to jump into a nice debate.Pats on the back aside:The OP seems to have a distinct interest in either a distaste with Boeing, a distrust of the man/manufacturer/regulatory agency/etc, or an interest in dragging news out of less-than-objective sources (ref, the Al-Jazeera article from another thread about 737 breakups in crashes: Boeing aircraft, included distrust of the FAA/Boeing, and Al-Jazeera/whistleblowers as sources). That's not meant to be an attack on the OP. There's a certain amount of credit due to those who will lift veils off of eyes to see the "real" story, but to be honest, and as I said in the other thread, you have to understand your sources and how credibility counts in finding the supposed truth.Whistleblowers can have an axe to grind, and as such, I would argue that the group is, on the whole, less than reasonably reliable. You have to consider their motives. Are they trying to take the limelight? Are they trying to bring the company for forcing them out after they openly accused the company, or ventured into restricted documents/areas, or anything else potentially threatening to the company? What are their motives? Even if their motives are questionable, if they show up to the table with hard, indisputable facts, then there isn't much you can do. Motives are one thing, but facts are facts, and I haven't seen any facts from the whistleblowers for me to credit them with much.The article fails to provide me with anything other than an initial issue that has been proven, not in a mathematical model, but in a physical drop test, that the issue was either fixed or non-existent from the start. Math is one thing, but math, incorrectly used (or incorrectly hypothesized), can lead to incorrect results - just ask NASA. Keep in mind that while the aircraft concept is not unproven (composites have been used extensively by other manufacturers with success, see below), the scale of the concept is. Nobody has seen a 787 crash, in a practical test of the airframe (in that, I mean in an actual crash, full of passengers, in service), so all of the "expert opinions" are just that - opinions. They are based on all the experience to date, but that experience is not experience with this type of airframe. Math can only make up for so much. The rest is practical testing, which is why, in the end, the practical test of the airframe (what simulated, physical, crash tests) has more weight than that of mathematical models.The argument that composites are untested and unreliable is utter rubbish. Raytheon has several composite aircraft that have survived the test of time, and at the altitudes and stress that a commercial airliner would endure. Rutan's Scaled Composites sent a composite aircraft into space. I challenge you to find a more strenuous practical test in which to test composites.As far as the debate over fume toxicity goes, the noxious fumes given off by the fuel are likely just as deadly or harmful as those by the composites.Sit back and evaluate what you see before you accept it. Blind acceptance is what leads to a mis-informed mass. Conspiracy theories would not be as rampant if people actually took the time to evaluate the claims being made.

Could not disagree with you more, but that's what makes a fun debate I guess. ;-) Of course you have to be sceptical to claims like this and try to look into it with an open rational mind. That's what I'm doing, I think the article was interesting and worth looking into further, and that's all. You on the other hand are a hardcore debunker, you are convinced the whole thing is just rubbish, or you want it to be. The old man with 46 years behind him is just an angry moron "with an axe to grind", (can't tell you have many times I've heard that argument.), and everyone else is just dead wrong, lying or is misinformed. That's not a healthy attitude to have, it's the kind of attitude that gets people killed. Scepticism is good, mindless denial is not. Anyway that's your opinion, thanks for commenting. And please don't try to insinuate I got something against Boeing, because I don't, I'd fly Boeing over Airbus any day. Companies must however be held responsible for what they do, and if Boeing has been taking shortcuts in order to save money and time then that has to be taken seriously. It's also not a good thing how their relationship with the FAA has changed over the years. The FAA is supposed to regulate and challenge Boeing, not share jobs and friends.

http://www.b737.org.uk/rudder.htm

The NTSB ViewDennis Crider, chairman of the NTSB’s Aircraft Performance Group, told the board members “A rudder reversal scenario will match all three events,”The Boeing Co., hotly contests such a finding, saying there is no physical evidence that supports rudder reversal scenarios in the three incidents.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s2_2010___airbus_a321_231__g_medj.cfm

The more significant symptoms included the intermittent failure of the captain and co-pilot’s electronic displays and the uncommanded application of left rudder trim; the flight crew also reported that the aircraft did not seem to respond as expected to control inputs. - Excerpt from AAIB Special Report S2/2010. © Crown Copyright 2010

Best regards,Robin.