Fired engineer calls 787's plastic fuselage unsafe

Seattle Times Company ^ | Dominic Gates

[jpsb]

A former senior aerospace engineer at Boeing's Phantom Works research unit, fired last year under disputed circumstances, is going public with concerns that the new 787 Dreamliner is unsafe.

[jpsb]

Here is the link http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html Dan Rather figures, so this is not true. Comment?

[Mr. K]

paid by Aerobus?

[jpsb]

ping, hope this is Bull.

[jpsb]

I don’t know, maybe, with Dan Rather anything is possible. Let’s see what the smart people think.

[Greg F]

But according to a summary of OSHA's findings, Boeing told investigators 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. Weldon denied to OSHA investigators that he had referred to a noose and said the "meat hook" reference had not been a threat. OSHA dismissed Weldon's claim, denying him whistle-blower status largely on the grounds that Boeing's 787 design does not violate any FAA regulations or standards.

Dan Rather is the reporter. Boeing/OSHA obviously isn't playing patty-cake with this engineer since it is releasing these records. Bah. The former engineer sounds a little like a fruitcake with the "meathook" comment, Boeing is financially self-interested, and Dan Rather is a sensationalist that doesn't care about the truth. I say trust no one.

[snarks_when_bored]

A few crash tests of the Dreamliner would seem to be in order...

[Little Ray]

Boeing is financially self-interested and their self interests are served by an unsafe aircraft. That should be enough for anybody...

[Little Ray]

I meant “...are not served..”

Not a Freudian slip - just an incompetent typist.

[Greg F]

Boeing is financially self-interested and their self interests are served by an unsafe aircraft. That should be enough for anybody... Yah, but Mattels self-interest wouldn't be helped by toys with lead paint either . . . but they still didn't do enough quality control . . .

[Little Ray]

There is a difference between an engineering issue on an aeroplane and failling to check the chemical composition of a paint on a toy.

[Froufrou]

Boeing has a long presence in WA, very long. While I’m sure they’ve had their share of ‘nutjob’ employees, I think this guy may be just a hothead. I’ve know engineers who’ve worked for Boeing and they’re not easy jobs to get.

He may have a real beef with the supervisor about whom he made the meathook remark, but I seriously doubt the alleged fuselage insufficiency is anything more than a ploy to get his job back or somehow justify his position [lack thereof.]

[the OlLine Rebel]

Please. If they have real accidents, or even things that begin to crack, their customers will suffer set-backs in flight schedules and passengers, and their sales to those customers will go down. Never mind if they get sued.

It’s not good business sense to do truly unsafe things and expect to get big rewards out of it.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I have to say, accusing your ex-employer of faulty designs (accurate or not), is not a good way to get your job back.

[r9etb]

It’s not a “plastic fuselage.”

[Yo-Yo]

Disgruntled ex-Boeing employees are not hard to find.

www.thelastinspector.com

[Froufrou]

Think about it. If there’s even a nth of probablity, and he may think that that there is, what would Boeing do to shut him up?

I’d say, offer a retirement package.

[Moonman62]

The whole tail section of the 777 is “plastic” so Boeing already has many safe years of experience with it.

[smonk]

composites have been in use in military aircraft for over a decade. and boeing was a key contractor in the f-117; if anyone knows what they are doing with composites, it’s boeing.

[DonnDe]

Nice, misleading headline. Basically he's saying the plane is less safe after it crashes.

[Kirkwood]

“Yah, but Mattels self-interest wouldn’t be helped by toys with lead paint either . . . but they still didn’t do enough quality control . . .”

Just because Mattel ignored QC issues, I don’t see how you can infer that Boeing does as well. With Boeing, the survival of their company depends primarily on one product -expensive aircraft, not hundreds of different low-cost products. Consequently QC has a much higher level of importance to Boeing than it does for a toy manufacturer. I don’t see any evidence that Boeing has shirked their QC responsibilities, nor would I expect them to given the nature of their business. I can however see a toy company like Mattel ignoring QC issues.