Boeing removed a feature that protects its 787 planes during lightning strikes

As if the MAX debacle was not enough to paint the picture that the culture of safety at Boeing is broken almost beyond repair, not this issue crops up.

Special measures were taken when the 787 was certified due to its composite skin to make sure the air frame was adequately protected from lighting strikes. Apparently according to the article, Boeing began removing the copper foil and caps int he wings as a cut cutting measure despite the FAA saying they were needed to help prevent the fuel tanks from the strikes.

Boeing appealed the FAA ruling and the FAA back down over the objections of its engineers etc. Its getting disgusting at this point and I will add the FAA leadership and the entire E Suite and Boeing needs to be flush and start fresh

www.yahoo.com...

a reply to: FredT

If Boeing was able to prove that the reduced protection is sufficient in their appeal, then its not a big deal. Regulators initially wanted them to over protect the aircraft due to the amount of composite materials, and the fact that it was the first aircraft to use that much composite structure. With them having several years, and more testing under their belt they may have been able to show it doesn't react the way it was originally thought to.

I vote the composite is arresting enough...added copper in irregular shape embedded....no thank you please!

a reply to: Zaphod58
I don't know much about composite behaviors with lightning strikes except I recall the Bristow Helicopters Flight 56C in 1995 had a composite tail rotor with some conductive metal, which had to autorotate onto rough seas after the tail rotor failed from a lighting strike.

Hopefully what was learned from that has been integrated in to modern lightning tests, but I also remember the 747 met all required tests when the center fuel tank exploded on TWA 800, though not due to a lightning strike, but it made me wonder if all the test requirements were really sufficient if it passed all the tests and something like that can happen.

So I have no idea how much of a safety issue this cost reduction change is, but there doesn't seem to be much question of a safety culture problem at Boeing when digging into the factors leading up to the 737MAX groundings.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It seems that is in dispute and I'm not in a trusting mood for either

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The culture has definitely gone to hell since their whole reverse mortgage game with McDonnell- Douglas. That was a big role in their downfall, and the management that oversaw that fall was put in charge of Boeing.

There have been a number of fuel tank issues, beyond just the 747, so that you can't really pin on them. With an aircraft that old there were bound to be repairs made to the tank that could have caused problems. As for the composites, we'll just have to wait and see. Everything I've read on them is that they're not really conductive, in terms of lightning. They'll delaminate, but not conduct electricity through them.

a reply to: FredT

Without more data there's no way to know. Both sides are pushing an agenda and are not likely to be totally honest. But, when the 787 was in testing there were a number of articles about the FAA and their engineers wanting increased lightning protection because no one knew how the composite would react to a hit. There have been a number of strikes since then, so there's more data now.