Sunday, September 16, 2007

The Sky Is Falling



So some ex-Boeing engineer is now making the talk show rounds claiming that Boeing's new airplane will kill people. Vince Wheldon claims he was fired from Boeing because of his persistent criticism of the new airplane. I find myself immediately skeptical of his claims, though maybe I'm just blinded by my... saliva. Or whatever.

From my limited knowledge of carbon fiber race cars and other composite pieces, I think there is an element of truth in the claim that carbon fiber will respond to a crash differently than a metal one. Carbon fiber is indeed not flexible or malleable. Compared to metal, which bends in a known and predictable fashion, with carbon fiber there is a certain, very limited amount of flex before the part breaks. When two Formula One cars collide, the wings and aerodymanic flips and various carbon fiber bits shatter into shards.

But the tub which surrounds the driver is also made of carbon fiber, and these are almost impenetrable. The fact that carbon fiber shatters when it breaks does not mean that it cannot be designed to resist breakage in the first place. Carbon fiber has been used in increasing proportion in aircraft construction for 20 years or more. My previous airplane--the Dornier 328--had a lot of carbon fiber in it, and I never had, nor heard of, any issues. I was even struck by lightning a few times, and the results were no different than the lightning strikes I had in any other airplanes I've flown. In an F1 car, virtually the whole car is now made of carbon fiber, to include suspension components and even the transmission housing. It's not an mystery substance, even though the general public may not understand it much.

As for what happens to carbon fiber in a fire, this is surely something that Boeing has looked into. Wheldon criticizes the firm for "explaining away" the concern; but that's exactly what one hopes they will do: address it, take steps to rectify or minimize the issue, and move on. Once again, F1 cars are tightly packaged around very, very hot engine and exhaust and brake components, and there are occasional fires with brakes and refueling. I cannot speak of the effectiveness of the carbon fiber in these instances acting like a barrier, but there is clearly no evidence that it causes or enhances a fire caused by other things.



And what of our baseline? I've never heard anyone claim that aluminum as used in most airplane construction is beneficial because of its non-inflammable properties. I can see the fuselage acting as a barrier to flames, but I've never seen any evidence that this works for very long or contributes to survival in crashes. Everything else in an airplane--interior bits and plastic-coated wiring and carpet and seat cushions and on and on--doubtless produces nasty fumes when burned.

I think it's difficult for people to have a sense of perspective and scale on these issues, something which I think Wheldon is happy to capitalize on (indeed, a lot of people are scared to death about flying generally). I think any crash where an airplane's fuselage is in peril--these are very, very rare--is one where occupant survival is an open question quite regardless of what the plane is made out of. Far more aircraft accidents and incidents (however still small in number) are not of this type, and then I think the construction material is of no moment. Any large tube which is properly designed to withstand 9 psi of pressurization and a hundred thousand landings will protect its occupants in a mishap.

I'm excited about this new airplane. As I wrote in a previous post, I think it has the capability to revolutionize the industry, and to completely modernize how airplanes are designed and built. I don't doubt there will be teething issues, which one sees anytime big steps are made. It's probably too much to hope at the moment that I'll get to fly one, but if Boeing comes good on their hope of increasing efficiency by a whopping 20%, there may be hope yet.

It's much easier for me to see a chronically-troublesome employee trying to play the easiest Dick Cheney trump card--personal safety--to get his 15 minutes and some income to compensate him for the loss of a retirement. We'll see if he turns out to be a nutter or not.

2 comments:

Jeff said...

I think you are right on with all of your major points:

- Carbon fiber is a pretty good material for constructing high performance vehicles

- Planes rarely crash in a way that the construction material has much to do with passenger safety

- Current materials are nothing special when it comes to preventing harm - and they don't fatigue in particularly predictable ways

And there is one more you missed - The chance of real harm to people from a carbon fiber plane is quite small (maybe less than from an old-fashioned aluminum one), whereas the new construction techniques will allow the planes to be much lighter and more efficient, preventing the certain harm caused by the greater fuel consumption of the old-fashioned planes. In the end Boeing is making a net positive public health change.

wstachour said...

Yeah, I don't mean to set myself up as Chief Apologist for some big corporation (though--for once--I'm especially on board about what the corporation does), but this "controversy" has all the hallmarks of personal and political opportunism.

From what I know about the substance of the arguments (and admittedly I have plenty to learn), I feel a grain of salt is warranted.