Ben Sandilands, Australian aerospace reporter and author of Plane Talking, got an official statement from Boeing on the 787 wing delamination claim which was featured (and debunked) over the weekend. Apparently, when Ben asked Boeing about the claim, he was "repeatedly asked to use Ostrower's subsequent determination of the rumor as having no substance in lieu of a Boeing statement."
Here's what Boeing had to say:
Here's what Boeing had to say:
Our tests continue to confirm that the composite construction of the 787, including the wing, is sound. The 787, like every commercial jetliner, is going through a rigorous series of tests to verify the safety and certificability of its structure, systems and operations. The FAA will review the results of this compliance activity prior to certifying the airplane for commercial use.
on December 17, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply
The other day, I used the wrong tense and said 'is' rather than 'was' about a particular 787 airframe and its status at a specific time. I'll be more careful in the future.
That the rumor was inside was rightly reported. So, people ought not think that this was just some ploy from anyone other than someone involved. Unless, as said before, it was an experiment to watch flow of leaks.
Oh, by the way, is Jon now a Boeing spokesman? Well, Boeing, like all of us, is trying to figure out the new spaces that are coming about via the web. So, they bowed to the 'crowd' approach until forced into the usual cant (is that too cynical?). You see, even Jon's 'crowd' appeal, with its unfounded, but becoming more likely to be grounded, theoretical basis, raises questions. One wage on Wallace's blog said that he's holding out for 25%.
By the way, delamination may be too specific and easily argued against. It may be that the problem is of similar ilk, yet something that we have not thought to express.
Tell me, y'all, in hindsight, who foresaw all of this stuff at the time of the 'potemkin' event? That event,itself, opened the door for all the scrutiny that these blogs might raise.
On a general note, though, we have seen a decline in oversight (regulation) for some time. Obama's reign will change that somewhat. How will this impact FAA?
Boeing saying that FAA is the last evaluator sort of cuts off those in the public whose attention it courted for years. Why this seemingly inconsistent tactic? Did not Boeing think that some in the public may very well have the wherewithal to wonder about their practices and processes, and the ensuing products (as in systems, subsystems, etc.).
That is, we were told on many fronts that the 787 is the latest and greatest. Then, the underpinnings sort of quaked. So, those who are wont to that sort of thing began to speculate. What else can we do?
Too, though, some closer leaked out information. We don't have that now, so much, except it would be interesting to hear who tipped Jon that the rumor was bogus. Did they suggest that the rumor's specificity was what was wrong?
So, continue on, folks. The world needs this type of web-based activity, hopefully done in a mature fashion.
on December 17, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply
Rightly so. As much as Boeing should be accountable for the 787 program, you can't expect them to respond to what was an anonymous post with nothing to back it up on the Seattle PI website. If you've decided that the rumour has no basis then isn't that enough?
on December 17, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply
Except, Tim, Boeing did respond to the anonymous posting by issuing this non denial denial. Boeing aren't denying lamination problems as described in the posting. Instead they're claiming the plane will be safe to fly if the FAA say it is. ie they're changing the subject from problems that delay development to the safety of the end product.
I don't know what to make of it. It's entirely possible that Jon has information that unambiguously rules out lamination problems on the wing.
on December 17, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply
Well, Mr Sandilands sounds less than convinced?
uwe
on December 17, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply
Was anyone out there able to parse either Jon's report or Boeing's statement? I am forced to admit that after four readings I don't understand either.
sPh
on December 18, 2008 3:23 AM | Reply
I think Boeing spokespersons should look up the word unequivocal
on December 18, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply
it seems that a composite sheet is far more complex that a sheet of metal.
When you test a sheet of metal industriously produced, if it holds under stress then all the others sheets made by the same process will have a high probability to hold on the same stress.
Perhaps it is not the same for composite and then the problem is on the hands of the certification agency.
on December 18, 2008 4:40 AM | Reply
So... what other 'grenades' have been causing trouble for the 787 program recently?
on December 20, 2008 6:34 AM | Reply
Strange that the person from Boeing doesn`t want to make the statement, the credibility of Boeing is getting rather poor, you would have thought that a roumor which could have such great implications in regard to structure would be severly put down by Boeing rather than passing the buck through an aviation reporter (not taking any credit away from Jon) but it does seem rather a strange response.