The Dan Strikes Again

There are legends in the world of broadcast journalism, great communicators who use rare insight to communicate complex issues to the public. 

Then there's Dan Rather. The Dan struck again, with one of his trademark "fake but accurate" stories (and his trademark gloom-and-doom spin). This time, he charged that the Boeing 787 was unsafe because it was... drumroll please... made of composites. 

His source? A Boeing engineer, whom The Dan put forward as a whistleblower. As usual with The Dan, some fact-checking is required. Turns out the guy was sacked because he can't keep his cool. He wanted to hang his boss from a meat hook, and said so. Kind of a hard guy for a modern corporation to bear with.  

The rest of the story is equally bogus. In fact, as I explain overleaf, the "details" he gives about the hazards of composites are even more bogus than The Dan's mere misrepresentation of the reason for the guy's sacking. Fortunately, The Dan's exposé took place out of sight of the news-seeking public, on the vanity network HDNet. 

Perhaps because of HDNet's irrelevance, Dan's bogus report didn't get a lot of press, what with him filing a $70 million suit against his former CBS pals, and praising fellow busted fabricator Peter Arnett. 

Update 9/23: Boeing's arch-competitor Airbus defends Boeing (note: .pdf file). "I really think this is a total red herring,” the Airbus spokesman said. “The difference of composites vs. aluminum is well known and taken into account. The [Boeing] drop test completely validated the design codes. " IOW, Dan's been pwn3d. Again. h/t my old peeps at Aero-News

Some of The Dan's charges: 

1. Composites in aviation are new and untried.

2. Composites can't stand the pressure differentials and cycles of airline operations.

3. Composites can't stand up to environmental factors (particularly water). 

4. Boeing fired an engineer for criticizing the materials. 

5. Composites are not crashworthy because they break without bending first. 

6. The 787 has inadequate lightning protection. 

7. A burning 787 would give off toxic fumes. 

8. Boeing's crashworthiness testing is inadequate.

What's actually true: 

1. Composites are a standard technology which have been flying in certified aircraft for decades. The first all-composite certified airplane, the Windecker Eagle, took to the air forty years ago. Only a few were produced, but some are still flying. The most popular single-engine plane in the world, the Cirrus SR-22, is all-composite, and is one of the safest small airplanes ever made.  Airliners have incorporated major composite parts for almost as long. Gliders made of composite materials have been the standard since the 1950s. All but one of Burt Rutan's hundreds of ground-breaking designs, including SpaceShip One and its White Knight carrier craft, have had all-composite airframes. Carbon composite is a major structural component of the Space Shuttle. 

   Finally, military aircraft of all kinds have used composite construction, again, for decades, and many of these craft are exposed to much more trying circumstances than the low-G, relatively benign airliner mission profile. The F-16 is largely composite, the V-22 is all-composite, the B-2 and F-22 and F-35 are all-composite. 

   Composites are not only used in aviation, of course. They have marine and automotive applications also. The fiberglass composite body of my Corvette outlasted three engines, despite being exposed to New England weather for most of its life. 

2. Composites work well for high pressure differentials. Boeing used the same machine that builds 787 fuselages to build an experimental unmanned sub which has dived to 8,900 feet. That's a far greater differential than ever seen in aviation, or even space, applications. (But remember that Space Shuttle?). 

3. Composites stand up to weather just fine (as all those Cirruses, sailplanes, military jets (which are normally kept outdoors) and that freaking submarine cited above indicate. There have been extensive accelerated environmental tests to make sure that new developments meet or exceed old technologies' safety and durability. 

4. Boeing fired the guy, apparently, because he was a jerk. The Seattle Times said that Boeing told OSHA that "Weldon was fired for threatening a supervisor, specifically for stating he wanted to hang the African-American executive 'on a meat hook' and that he 'wouldn't mind' seeing a noose around the executive's neck." OSHA found for Boeing, not Weldon, in a complaint the sacked... can I say it, jerk, filed. A fired loudmouth! No wonder The Dan has an affinity for him. 

5. Crashworthiness is a matter of design, not materials. Composites' properties require a different approach to aluminum's -- every materials choice in an aircraft design is always a trade-off. 

6. The 787's lightning protection is very much like that of Cirrus, Columbia, F-16, and B-2 aircraft, all of which have survived lightning strikes. Further, its ability to shrug off a lightning strike must be tested during certification.  

7. Any burning aircraft gives off some kind of toxic fumes, but when you burn carbon you get CO2. Any toxicity of the airframe is immaterial, because the interior materials produce the primary smoke hazard in a fire while airborne or post-crash.  

8. Boeing's crashworthiness testing isn't done yet, and the one test that The Dan presented as the only crash test, isn't.

   
   

In short, every one of The Dan's claims is trivially proven false. 

You don't need to take my assertion for that. Here's a takedown on: 

• Slashdot (techie site, some very good technical comments here, amid some dross; best takedown). 

• NewsBusters (right-leaning media criticism site)

• Wired (techie magazine). 

• Wizbang (blog).

• The Register (techie online news).

Dan Rather. You can tell he's lying. His lips move.