How secure is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, actually? | EUROtoday

Listen to Theo studying this text

The Air India tragedy, by which at the very least 270 individuals died, concerned considered one of Boeing’s most modern and in style planes. Until now, it was thought-about considered one of its most secure too.

We nonetheless have no idea why flight 171 crashed simply 30 seconds after take-off. Investigators have now recovered flight recorder knowledge and are working onerous to seek out out. But the incident has drawn consideration to the plane concerned: the 787 Dreamliner, the primary of a contemporary technology of radical, fuel-efficient planes.

Prior to the accident, the 787 had operated for almost a decade and a half with none main accidents and with no single fatality. During that interval, in accordance with Boeing, it carried greater than a billion passengers. There are presently greater than 1,100 in service worldwide.

However, it has additionally suffered from a collection of high quality management issues.

Whistleblowers who labored on the plane have raised quite a few issues about manufacturing requirements. Some have claimed that doubtlessly dangerously flawed plane have been allowed into service – allegations the corporate has constantly denied.

It was on a cold December morning in 2009 {that a} brand-new plane edged out onto the runway at Paine Field airport close to Seattle and, as a cheering crowd seemed on, accelerated right into a cloudy sky.

The flight was the fruits of years of growth and billions of {dollars} value of funding.

The 787 was conceived within the early 2000s, at a time of rising oil costs, when the growing price of gas had change into a serious preoccupation for airways. Boeing determined to construct a long-haul airplane for them that may set new requirements in effectivity.

“In the late 1990s, Boeing was working on a design called the Sonic Cruiser,” explains aviation historian Shea Oakley.

This was firstly conceived as a airplane that may use superior supplies and the most recent know-how to hold as much as 250 passengers at just below the velocity of sound. The preliminary emphasis was on velocity and chopping journey occasions, moderately than gas economic system.

“But then the effects of 9/11 hit the world airline industry quite hard,” says Mr Oakley.

“The airlines told Boeing what they really needed was the most fuel-efficient, economical long-range jetliner ever produced. They now wanted an aeroplane with a similar capacity to the Sonic Cruiser, minus the high speed.”

Boeing deserted its preliminary idea, and started work on what turned the 787. In doing so, it helped create a brand new enterprise mannequin for airways.

Instead of utilizing large planes to move enormous numbers of individuals between “hub” airports, earlier than inserting them on connecting flights to different locations, they might now fly smaller plane on much less crowded direct routes between smaller cities which might beforehand have been unviable.

At the time Boeing’s nice rival, the European large Airbus, was taking exactly the other method. It was growing the gargantuan A380 superjumbo – a machine tailored for carrying as many passengers as doable on busy routes between the world’s largest and busiest airports.

In hindsight, Boeing’s method was wiser. The fuel-thirsty A380 went out of manufacturing in 2021, after solely 251 had been constructed.

“Airbus thought the future was giant hubs where people would always want to change planes in Frankfurt or Heathrow or Narita,” explains aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia, who’s a managing director at AeroDynamic Advisory.

“Boeing said ‘no, people want to fly point to point’. And Boeing was extremely right.”

The 787 was a really radical plane. It was the primary business airplane to be constructed primarily of composites equivalent to carbon fibre, moderately than aluminium, to be able to scale back weight. It had superior aerodynamics to scale back drag.

It additionally used extremely environment friendly fashionable engines from General Electric and Rolls Royce, and it changed many mechanical and pneumatic techniques with lighter electrical ones.

All of this, Boeing mentioned, would make it 20% extra environment friendly than its predecessor, the Boeing 767. It was additionally considerably quieter, with a noise footprint (the realm on the bottom affected by important noise from the plane) that the producer mentioned was as much as 60% smaller.

Not lengthy after the plane entered service, nevertheless, there have been severe issues. In January 2013, lithium-ion batteries caught hearth aboard a 787 because it waited at a gate at Boston’s Logan International Airport.

Every week later, overheating batteries compelled one other 787 to make an emergency touchdown throughout an inner flight in Japan.

The design was grounded worldwide for a number of months, whereas Boeing got here up with an answer.

Since then, each day operations have been smoother, however manufacturing has been deeply problematic. Analysts say this will, partially, have been resulting from Boeing’s resolution to arrange a brand new meeting line for the 787 in North Charleston, South Carolina – greater than 2000 miles from its Seattle heartlands.

This was completed to reap the benefits of the area’s low charges of union membership, in addition to beneficiant help from the state.

“There were serious development issues,” says Mr Aboulafia. “Some notable production issues, related especially to the decision to create Boeing’s first ever production line outside of the Puget Sound area.”

In 2019, Boeing found the primary of a collection of producing defects that affected the way in which by which totally different components of the plane fitted collectively. As extra issues have been discovered, the corporate widened its investigations – and uncovered additional points.

Deliveries have been closely disrupted, and halted altogether between May 2021 and July 2022, earlier than being paused once more the next 12 months.

However, doubtlessly probably the most damaging allegations concerning the 787 programme have come from the corporate’s personal present and former workers.

Among probably the most outstanding was the late John Barnett, a former high quality management supervisor on the 787 manufacturing facility in South Carolina. He claimed that stress to supply planes as shortly as doable had significantly undermined security.

In 2019, he informed the BBC that staff on the plant had didn’t observe strict procedures meant to trace parts by the manufacturing facility, doubtlessly permitting faulty components to go lacking. In some instances, he mentioned, staff had even intentionally fitted substandard components from scrap bins to plane to be able to keep away from delays on the manufacturing line.

He additionally maintained that faulty fixings have been used to safe plane decks. Screwing them into place produced razor-sharp slivers of metallic, which in some instances collected beneath the deck in areas containing massive quantities of plane wiring.

His claims had beforehand been handed to the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration, which partially upheld them. After investigating, it concluded that at the very least 53 “non-conforming” components had gone lacking within the manufacturing facility.

An audit by the FAA additionally confirmed that metallic shavings have been current beneath the flooring of various plane.

Boeing mentioned its board analysed the issue and determined it didn’t “present a safety of flight issue”, although the fixings have been subsequently redesigned. The firm later mentioned it had “fully resolved the FAA’s findings regarding part traceability and implemented corrective actions to prevent recurrence”.

Mr Barnett remained involved that plane that had already gone into service may very well be carrying hidden defects severe sufficient to trigger a serious accident. “I believe it’s just a matter of time before something big happens with a 787,” he informed me in 2019. “I pray that I am wrong.”

In early 2024, Mr Barnett took his personal life. At the time he had been giving proof in a long-running whistleblower lawsuit in opposition to the corporate – which he maintained had victimised him on account of his allegations. Boeing denied this.

Much of what he had alleged echoed earlier claims by one other former high quality supervisor on the plant, Cynthia Kitchens.

In 2011, she had complained to regulators about substandard components being intentionally faraway from quarantine bins and fitted to plane, in an try to hold the manufacturing line transferring.

Ms Kitchens, who left Boeing in 2016, additionally claimed workers had been informed to miss substandard work, and mentioned faulty wiring bundles, containing metallic shavings inside their coatings, had been intentionally put in on planes – making a threat of harmful short-circuits.

Boeing has not responded to those particular allegations however says Ms Kitchens resigned in 2016 “after being informed that she was being placed on a performance improvement plan”. It says that she subsequently filed a lawsuit in opposition to Boeing, “alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation unrelated to any quality issues”, which was dismissed.

More just lately, a 3rd whistleblower made headlines when testifying earlier than a senate committee final 12 months.

Sam Salehpour, a present Boeing worker, informed US lawmakers he had come ahead as a result of “the safety problems I have observed at Boeing, if not addressed could result in a catastrophic failure of a commercial aeroplane that would lead to the loss of hundreds of lives”.

The high quality engineer mentioned that whereas engaged on the 787 in late 2020, he had seen the corporate introduce shortcuts in meeting processes, to be able to velocity up manufacturing and supply of the plane. These, he mentioned, “had allowed potentially defective parts and defective installations in 787 fleets”.

He additionally famous that on nearly all of plane he checked out, tiny gaps within the joints between sections of fuselage had not been correctly rectified. This, he mentioned, meant these joints could be susceptible to “premature fatigue failure over time” and created “extremely unsafe conditions for the aircraft” with “potentially catastrophic” penalties.

He advised that greater than 1,000 plane – the majority of the 787 fleet – may very well be affected.

Boeing insists that “claims about the structural integrity of the 787 are inaccurate”. It says: “The issues raised have been subject to rigorous examination under US Federal Aviation Administration oversight. This analysis has validated that the aircraft will maintain its durability and service life over several decades, and these issues do not present any safety concerns.”

There is not any query that Boeing has come below enormous stress lately over its company tradition and manufacturing requirements. In the wake of two deadly accidents involving its bestselling 737 Max, and an additional severe incident final 12 months, it has been repeatedly accused of placing the pursuit of revenue over passenger security.

It is a notion that chief government Kelly Ortberg, who joined the corporate final 12 months, has been working onerous to overturn – overhauling its inner processes and dealing with regulators on a complete security and high quality management plan.

But has the 787 already been compromised by previous failures, that will have created ongoing security dangers?

Richard Aboulafia believes not. “You know. It’s been 16 years of operations, 1,200 jets and over a billion passengers flown, but no crashes until now,” he says. “It’s a stellar safety record.”

He thinks that any main points would have already got change into obvious.

“I really think production problems are more of a short-term concern,” he says. “For the past few years, there’s been far greater oversight of 787 production.

“For older planes, I feel any severe issues would have proven up by now.”

The Air India plane that crashed in Ahmedabad was more than 11 years old, having first flown in 2013.

But the Foundation for Aviation Safety, a US organisation established by the former Boeing whistleblower Ed Pierson that has previously been highly critical of the company, says it did have concerns about 787s prior to the recent crash.

“Yes, it was a doable security threat,” claims Mr Pierson. “We monitor incident studies, we monitor regulatory paperwork. Airworthiness directives come out that describe numerous points, and it does make you marvel.”

One such issue, he argues, is water potentially leaking from washroom taps into electrical equipment bays. Last year, the FAA instructed airlines to carry out regular inspections, following reports that leaks were going undetected on certain 787 models.

However, he stresses that the cause of the recent tragedy is still unknown – and that it is vital the investigation moves forward quickly, so that any problems, whether they lie with the aircraft, the airline or elsewhere, can be resolved.

For the moment, however, the 787’s safety record remains strong.

“We do not know at this level what induced the Air India crash,” says Scott Hamilton, managing director of aviation consulting firm Leeham Company.

“But based mostly on what we do know concerning the airplane, I’d not hesitate to get on board a 787.”

Top picture credit score: Getty Images

BBC InDepth is the house on the web site and app for the most effective evaluation, with contemporary views that problem assumptions and deep reporting on the most important problems with the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content material from throughout BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can ship us your suggestions on the InDepth part by clicking on the button beneath.