Anti 787 Documentary

[-Z-]

Just watching this new documentary with some prominent ex-Boeing employees stating that they would not fly on it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os&li...

Delete if repost but I haven't seen it on here.

Interesting that Qatar has ordered a load of 787's for its national airline, so can't really accuse Al Jazeera of bias.

Edited by -Z- on Thursday 11th September 20:19

[Ray Luxury-Yacht]

This kind of thing has been going on for years though, just ask Ralph Nader...

Scary though. But not entirely surprising.

[vournikas]

Deeply unsettling

[Pentoman]

Very very interesting, thanks for posting.

[HoHoHo]

Interesting but surely if there was any substance to this documentary the FAA would be involved?

[HoHoHo]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

HoHoHo said:

Interesting but surely if there was any substance to this documentary the FAA would be involved?

I think perhaps you are too trusting/naive...

The Federal Aviation Authority investigating Boeing (the all-American powerhouse company) in an unbiased and totally independant manner? Not likely!!

So the FAA ignore these (very) serious claims and then that one day comes......................

What about existing 787 operators, they're aware of these issues (and they will be aware) and are also happy to ignore them because Boeing is a large US Powerhouse Company?

Does powerhouse = untouchable?

[-Z-]

HoHoHo said:

So the FAA ignore these (very) serious claims and then that one day comes......................

What about existing 787 operators, they're aware of these issues (and they will be aware) and are also happy to ignore them because Boeing is a large US Powerhouse Company?

Does powerhouse = untouchable?

I think a pertinent fact from the documentary was the fact that the FAA guy overseeing the 787 left and now lobbies for Boeing.

Also, if NASA is capable of taking a 'it should be alright' attitude towards falling tiles then the FAA/Boeing are well capable of similar failings with increased commercial pressures.

Additionally, the fact that 2/3rds of the factory workforce asked said that they would not fly on it says a lot. Ignoring the guy that said he would fly on it but has a death wish anyway

[Mutley]

-Z- said:

Just watching this new documentary with some prominent ex-Boeing employees stating that they would not fly on it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os&li...

Delete if repost but I haven't seen it on here.

Interesting that Qatar has ordered a load of 787's for its national airline, so can't really accuse Al Jazeera of bias.

Edited by -Z- on Thursday 11th September 20:19

I can't open you tube at work, what are the allegations being made?

[Eric Mc]

-Z- said:

Also, if NASA is capable of taking a 'it should be alright' attitude towards falling tiles then the FAA/Boeing are well capable of similar failings with increased commercial pressures.

Not a similar situation in any respect whatsoever.

There is a massive difference in approach between certifying a civil airliner for world wide passenger use and clearing an experimental, rocket powered craft for use by professional test pilots and astronauts.

[Perik Omo]

Mutley said:

-Z- said:

Just watching this new documentary with some prominent ex-Boeing employees stating that they would not fly on it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os&li...

Delete if repost but I haven't seen it on here.

Interesting that Qatar has ordered a load of 787's for its national airline, so can't really accuse Al Jazeera of bias.

Edited by -Z- on Thursday 11th September 20:19

I can't open you tube at work, what are the allegations being made?

Basically the workers in Carolina reckon it's not safe and the workers are unqualified to be screwing aircraft together, one day flipping burgers and the next working on the Dreamliner. A battery development technician reckons that the battery technology is unsafe for aircraft.

[MitchT]

Is the forthcoming A350 as brave as the B787 or have Airbus been more conservative and traditional in their approach?

[Mutley]

Perik Omo said:

Basically the workers in Carolina reckon it's not safe and the workers are unqualified to be screwing aircraft together, one day flipping burgers and the next working on the Dreamliner. A battery development technician reckons that the battery technology is unsafe for aircraft.

Thanks, so untrained assembly line workers. But how are people supposed to get training? or is it unsupervised??
As for betteries, now a known issue already, so not a big reveal. Will have to have a look over the weekend

[JuniorD]

Perik Omo said:

Basically the workers in Carolina reckon it's not safe and the workers are unqualified to be screwing aircraft together, one day flipping burgers and the next working on the Dreamliner. A battery development technician reckons that the battery technology is unsafe for aircraft.

I look forward to watching the documentary in due course but if you are able to flip burgers, you are able to work in the semi-skilled side of aircraft construction as no actual qualifications are required.

[dr_gn]

Here is some further reading:

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&...

http://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/...

IMO they should have been allowed time to respond to these claims. It's hardly fair - in fact it's ridiculous - to expect a company represenataive to go into an interview like that and explain all these allegations from cold.

[HoHoHo]

JuniorD said:

Perik Omo said:

Basically the workers in Carolina reckon it's not safe and the workers are unqualified to be screwing aircraft together, one day flipping burgers and the next working on the Dreamliner. A battery development technician reckons that the battery technology is unsafe for aircraft.

I look forward to watching the documentary in due course but if you are able to flip burgers, you are able to work in the semi-skilled side of aircraft construction as no actual qualifications are required.

Also it is alleged Boeing sacrificed quality of build/products in favour of meeting deadlines, that's a real

[Bradgate]

The 787 needs to prove its safety in service for a few more years before I will be prepared to fly on one.

In particular, there are still question marks over the safety of the Lithium ion battery systems, which were responsible for the grounding of the entire fleet last year. Boeing's solution to the problem of battery fires was to install a containment system, not to remove the root cause of the problem.

The 787 being assembled in South Carolina, has caused major disputes between Boeing and its workforce's unions. The people in Seattle have been building safe aircraft for decades, and are experts at it. In order to cut costs, Boeing decided to produce the 787 using non-union labour in South Carolina. The resulting confrontation produced much bitterness toward the company, so there could be plenty of people with a vested interest in questioning the safety of SC built aircraft.

Edited by Bradgate on Friday 12th September 19:40

[Chuck328]

I want to know how this carbon composite what ever it's made of, stands up to lightening strikes, severe turbulence and numerous 'thumpers' (hard landings).

[Ari]

So much for 'if it ain't a Boeing, I'm not going'!

Sobering.

[Rich Boy Spanner]

I work in aviation, for a large US avionics company. The idea that the FAA won't touch Boeing because it is US based is fantasy. The US is a lot more harsh on its domestic companies than any other nation - who remembers them barring Boeing for competing for US government contracts back in the '90's just as an example:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-b...

Remember it was the FAA who grounded the 787 for the battery issue in the first place, right at the critical entry into service period.

I've heard conspiracy theories for everything from the first Boeing 747-100's to the A380. Strangely none of them ever came true. I can find you people who said the A320 was dangerous back when that was launched, people who were adamant that fly-by-wire was dangerous and would never fly anything with it, people who were convinced that composite and carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP - same as 787) could not take a lightning strike - yet they do as the primary structure is electrically bonded.

That 787 structure is so strong the cabin is pressurised to the equivalant of 5000 FT - not 8000 like a conventional aluminium airliner which saves you a lot of the effects of jet lag, not to mention the air is hydrated to stop you drying out - try doing that with a conventional aircraft. They have enough corrosion inspections as they age as it is.

Anyhow, any other regulatory agency, EASA for Europe, CASA for Australia etc could ground them for their own operators if they felt they weren't safe - and they would. The airlines that operate them have legal oversight and responsibility. Nobody flies something they think isn't safe. If there was an incident for a known issue people go to jail. Crashes generally equals bankruptcy or at least huge losses as passengers avoid the airline.

[Rich Boy Spanner]

Chuck328 said:

I want to know how this carbon composite what ever it's made of, stands up to lightening strikes, severe turbulence and numerous 'thumpers' (hard landings).

The CFRP basically has a web of metal bonding attached to it internally which carries lightining strike energy and static charge. It's like a huge faraday cage.

It's also a lot stronger than a traditional aluminium airframe.

Edited by Rich Boy Spanner on Friday 19th September 16:59