I’m not in the business of attacking Boeing, but the optics of a decision to remove lightning safety protections on the 787 are not helpful to the troubled aircraft manufacturer.
Boeing Removed Lightning Protection On 787 Dreamliner
Dominic Gates of the Seatttle Times does a great job in explaining the science behind the issue.
“Lightning protection on an airplane like the 787 that’s fabricated largely from carbon composites is more elaborate than on a metal aircraft. When Boeing developed the Dreamliner, it included special measures to protect the wing fuel tank. It sealed each metal fastener in the wing with an insulating cap and embedded copper foil in strips across the carbon wing skin to disperse the current from any lightning strike.”
Five years ago, to cut costs, Boeing stopped adding insulating fastener caps. In March, Boeing stopped adding copper foil.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initially ruled that Boeing had not shown that the removal of the copper foil would still leave “extremely improbable” the chance of an ignition of the fuel vapor by a lightening strike. The standard for “extremely improbable” is “likely to occur no more than three times in a billion flight hours.”
But Boeing had already churned out 40 sets of wings without the copper foil and appealed the decisions. FAA managers reversed the earlier decision and the Dreamliner products sans cooper foil was allowed to proceed.
Days later the second 737 MAX, ET3o2, crashed.
FAA Engineers Objected To Removal Of 787 Safety Protections
FAA engineers objected to their safety determinations being overruled by managers. One filed a formal complaint, stating:
“I do not agree that delivery schedules should influence our safety decisions and areas of safety critical findings, nor is this consistent with our safety principles.”
Even in the initial aftermath of the ET302 crash, FAA was still delegating certain safety approval processes to Boeing itself.
Boeing: Extra Protections Were Unnecessary
Boeing argues the “extra” precautions were unnecessary to maintain the integrity of the aircraft and keep passengers onboard safe. It stressed “several other layers of protection from lightning strikes” and added that the removal of copper foil “was properly considered and addressed by Boeing, thoroughly reviewed with and approved by the FAA.”
That does not appear to be the case.
Boeing specifically noted that other 787 lightning protection measures remain.
“In addition to the various measures taken to reduce the chance of a spark, the 787 wing fuel tank has a nitrogen-generating system (NGS) that reduces flammable vapor by filling the space above the fuel with inert gas.”
CONCLUSION
Perhaps these extra layers of safety are indeed unnecessary – that is beyond my expertise. But the optics of this situation do not cast Boeing in a good light, especially the FAA engineer objection. I think there are all sorts of politics at play that are delaying the 737 MAX re-entering service. Perhaps politics are involved here too. But looking at the evidence raises more questions than answers.
image: John D. Parker / Boeing
FAA, Boeing’s bitch.
Trump, Putin’s bitch.
Lindsey Graham, Trump’s bitch.
Matt Gaetz, looking to be someone’s bitch.
You’re truly insane. Chronic TDS. 100% leftist troll posting history for every travel blog you post on.
Matthew, will you ever ban this idiot? He adds nothing of substance, ever. His nonsensical ravings reflect poorly on you.
Shut up idiot. My comment starts with whats related to the post and nicely segues into talking about the corrupt Republicans. This corruption of FAA is all related to the corruption in Washington.
I find a lot of debit’s posts to be cringe-inducing, but he’s not necessarily wrong and a lot of evidence is piling up to support all of those assertions.
To your laughable TDS comment, Trump Derangement Syndrome is just the Right repackaging Obama Derangement Syndrome – except the Left never needed a “clever” name for it – y’all just spewed forth the crazy to let it speak for itself. To wit, the whole Tea Party and Birthers fiasco. Pot, meet kettle. At least there’s fairly clear reasons to be appalled by the current administration’s actions. For a group that loves to call left and left-leaning folks “Snowflakes”, the Conservatives sure get offended by a LOT of things. Again, pot…meet kettle.
Debit, READ the story: this started FIVE years ago. Who was president then? Your little red buddy, Obama.
All sides have been complicit in giving Boeing breaks – and the same will happen if that idiot Bernie became president (God forbid). Cronyism is even worse under Marxist regimes than under our system.
Gee, you would think “lightening devices” would be extremely useful on a plane.. I wonder how much lighter they make it?
Don’t worry, I remember making the same mistake on a 7th grade spelling test,
At this point it is painfully obvious that we have no viable FAA oversight of Boeing. And Boeing is completely ruled by the profit over safety mentality. I no longer trust any new aircraft from Boeing.
Curious. You often defended Boeing like your life depends on it. You even brought some writer on the blog, which claimed as an experienced Pilot, to defend Boeing in Max fiasco. Now this. Curious indeed…..
Is it curious? It’s correct to examine all aspects of any new problem, regardless of the company involved. It would be illogical if someone were to arrive at conclusions based on being “anti- or pro-Boeing”, before even hearing the issue at hand. During the Max crashes, I thought 121Pilot presented an interesting opinion, I had no idea about that pilot thought process.
Interesting because you, just like jon snow, knows nothing apparently…
My name’s not Matthew, but I wish you a good morning too, Larry B.
Boeing executives should be charged and jailed for man slaughter.
only then the company executives will learn a lesson.
Good morning, Matthew
I despise the repeated circular logic being spun out by Boeing PR over the past year…to wit, “Everything Boeing has done is FAA approved, so it’s OK.” UGH!!! You just said you approved yourselves to reduce safety margins to improve profitability. So it goes. Lather, rinse, repeat.
(Similarly, I was quite appalled to read the FAA had estimated crashes of the 737 MAX every 2-3 years possible, and not demand improved performance/capabilities. *sigh* )
It has been FIVE (5) years since decision was made. What does the data suggest then??
We can always find one or two to disagree with the consensus to change a product… i would be more convinced this were a serious article if we had more data shown.