787 unsafe?

[Wii]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/19/dreamliner_allegations/
I was wondering, when I first heard of what the 787 was made of, if it was actually safe, turns out, it's probably not. Yes it is quite a glamorous airplane, but is it actually safe in the case of a crash or crash landing? Read the article in the link above.

[DONTREADMYUSERNAME]

Sounds to me like this guy has a serious beef with Boeing and just wants his 15 mins of fame. Boeing wouldn't do this because when a 787 crashes (its bound to happen atleast once, sadly) it would be suicide for the company.....

[spitfire boy]

He makes some seemingly feasibly valid points, however it's all theory. No proof either way as yet... as is the way with all new airliners.

Does anyone remember the doubts that the A380 wouldn't be able to be evacuated in 90 seconds? Those turned out to be completely unfounded.

These companies know what they're doing. They go through rigorous testing followed by independent examination. If there is a major fault or problem, it will be officially announced when it is discovered, and then Boeing'll have reason to worry about the future of the 787.

[expat]

Quote"The smoke produced by composites in a jet-fuel fire is no more toxic than the smoke from the crash of an aluminum plane".Unquote

So the smoke is no more absolutely deadly than a normal burning aircraft then::)

Matt

[Ivan]

Quote"The smoke produced by composites in a jet-fuel fire is no more toxic than the smoke from the crash of an aluminum plane".Unquote

So the smoke is no more absolutely deadly than a normal burning aircraft then::)

Matt

... same plastics inside anyway.

[Craig.]

couple of things.
Firstly this guy was fire for leaking secrets of boeing.
Secondly, the 787 has passed all its safety tests, be they simulated or full on tests. It wouldn't be allowed to fly if it hasn't.

[Nexus]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/19/dreamliner_allegations/
I was wondering, when I first heard of what the 787 was made of, if it was actually safe, turns out, it's probably not. Yes it is quite a glamorous airplane, but is it actually safe in the case of a crash or crash landing? Read the article in the link above.

You have to be joking.  :-?

[Hagar]

couple of things.
Firstly this guy was fire for leaking secrets of boeing.

According to the article he was "dismissed for threatening a supervisor".

Secondly, the 787 has passed all its safety tests, be they simulated or full on tests. It wouldn't be allowed to fly if it hasn't.

I'm pretty certain the most toxic fumes in a fire are caused by the interior furnishings. This applies to all aircraft & despite investigation report recommendations following fatal fires over the years I'm not convinced that anything has been done about it. :-/

[Craig.]

Not sure what else could be done really. All metal interior, although easyjet arn't that far off.

[spitfire boy]

Not sure what else could be done really. All metal interior, although easyjet arn't that far off.

I've always thought that if the source of fire (fuel) can be 'distanced' from crashes then there is a lot less need to worry about flammable and toxic interior fittings. I think, and there's probably some very good reason why this is not possible, that fuel tanks should be jettisonable from the aircraft. In the event of an emergency, the pilots, if able, would get the plane down low-ish, jettison the fuel tanks, and glide the rest of the way.

P.S...I wonder how much damage one of those back-of-the-seat screens could do to a person if it burnt in a crash...

[Craig.]

Simple mate, these systems require space and create a lot of extra weight. Two big no-nos.

[C]

Secondly, the 787 has passed all its safety tests, be they simulated or full on tests. It wouldn't be allowed to fly if it hasn't.

Well strictly speaking, and being a complete pedant, it hasn't flown yet...

[Hagar]

I've always thought that if the source of fire (fuel) can be 'distanced' from crashes then there is a lot less need to worry about flammable and toxic interior fittings. I think, and there's probably some very good reason why this is not possible, that fuel tanks should be jettisonable from the aircraft. In the event of an emergency, the pilots, if able, would get the plane down low-ish, jettison the fuel tanks, and glide the rest of the way.

P.S...I wonder how much damage one of those back-of-the-seat screens could do to a person if it burnt in a crash...

Not a bad idea but I wonder how much damage an aircraft fuel tank could do if it fell on my house.

[spitfire boy]

Simple mate, these systems require space and create a lot of extra weight. Two big no-nos.

I'd have thought it was an even bigger no-no to let someone who survived the initial crash die in a fuel fire.

Ah well, efficiency over safety as per usual... *sigh*...

I've always thought that if the source of fire (fuel) can be 'distanced' from crashes then there is a lot less need to worry about flammable and toxic interior fittings. I think, and there's probably some very good reason why this is not possible, that fuel tanks should be jettisonable from the aircraft. In the event of an emergency, the pilots, if able, would get the plane down low-ish, jettison the fuel tanks, and glide the rest of the way.

P.S...I wonder how much damage one of those back-of-the-seat screens could do to a person if it burnt in a crash...

Not a bad idea but I wonder how much damage an aircraft fuel tank could do if it fell on my house.

Put all the tanks near the base of the plane, put a hatch under each one, and hold each tank in place with several mechanically-operated clasps, and give each tank a parachute and a shock-absorbing shell... sounds quite inexpensive to me.

[Craig.]

Secondly, the 787 has passed all its safety tests, be they simulated or full on tests. It wouldn't be allowed to fly if it hasn't.

Well strictly speaking, and being a complete pedant, it hasn't flown yet...

You are right, you are
My point is future referanced, when it comes time to fly it'll only do so once safety tests are completed.