“In a catastrophic crash there are no survivors”

The genie is out of the bottle. Dominic Gates and the Seattle Times released the genie in a recent business article that posed the question:
Is the 787, or for that matter the AirBus A350, as survivable as an aluminum airplane in hard landings or crashes?

The new planes are built primarily of carbon composites; previous planes were built primarily of aluminum. Translate “carbon composite” as reinforced plastic.

Boeing says that fears are unrealistic and overstated, but some former Boeing employees and others who have an understanding of the project believe a carbon composite aircraft is less safe than one built of aluminum.

Plastic is made mostly of oil, and we all know that oil burns. Eighty years ago the aircraft industry changed from wood to aluminum as the principal structural material. Now Boeing and AirBus want to move from aluminum to plastic.

It is an engineering step forward, but is it a step forward in safety for airline passengers? One of the positive features of aluminum was that it didn’t burn. Like wood, plastic burns.

In a catastrophic crash it will make no difference what material the plane is constructed of; in a catastrophic crash there are no survivors.

It is the “minor” crashes (if any crash may be considered minor) and crashes that are less than catastrophic where the basic structure of the aircraft becomes important for survivability.

The other concern about a plastic airplane is lightning.

Aluminum airplanes are regularly struck by lightning, and continue flying. The conductivity of aluminum dissipates the energy of the lightning bolt.

Lightning has been a special concern for the new airplane and it has been the subject of thousands of engineering design hours because plastic does not dissipate electricity. Safeguards have been designed, but do they work?

 Only one 787 has thus far been struck by lightning. ZA001 was hit late in May while on approach to Boeing Field. Boeing says the plane “appeared to be undamaged.”

ZA001 may have been undamaged – I am not in a position to judge that. But I do know numbers and statistics. An interesting thing happened to ZA001 after it was hit by lightning – it virtually stopped flying.

According to the Boeing flight-test home page, ZA001 had accumulated 135 flights and flown 374 hours and 45 minutes in the five months of testing before the lightning strike.

ZA001 was the workhorse of the test program, accumulating more hours than any of the other test aircraft, and an aircraft that pilots apparently enjoyed flying.

Since the lightning strike, ZA001 has flown four times for a total of 9 hours and 35 minutes. Boeing management says ZA001 “appeared to be undamaged” but Boeing test records say that ZA001 has virtually stopped flying since being struck by lightning. Judge for yourself; which do you believe?

As for me I will wait several years before I will voluntarily fly in a plastic airplane, Boeing or AirBus. Those of you who are more adventurous may fly in my place.

Any flying I do will be limited to airlines that don’t own plastic airplanes, and my position in Boeing stock is again short.