

By taking a cheap shot at Boeing, Dan Rather may be headed for a comeback less graceful than Britney Spears' performance at the MTV Music Awards.

On the most recent edition of his new show, he reported on Tuesday that the new 787 Dreamliner aircraft may be unsafe. Since then, dozens of news agencies have jumped on the bandwagon. Most of them are reporting that the carbon fiber frame may not be as safe as aluminum. Few have bothered to question Rather's claims that the composite materials are brittle, more likely to shatter on impact, and prone to emit poisonous chemicals when ignited.

I haven't yet watched the segment, but I have read the full transcript [doc]. As a researcher trained materials engineering, I consider the written summaries that appeared in the news today to be very misleading.

While there is a lot of weight behind the argument that composite materials are not as well-studied as aircraft aluminum, the reasoning behind the flurry of recent articles may be faulty. First off, if a plane crashes, the composite frame will definitely not be the only source of toxic fumes. Second, high performance composites have been used in fighter aircraft and for years. Sports cars, race cars, and train cars made from composite materials have endured fantastic crashes. Claims that the impact toughness of carbon fiber is inadequate may be premature.

The title of Rather's story, Plastic Planes, indicates a lack of grounding in science. High-performance carbon composites are far stronger than plastics. My main concern is how well they will hold up to water – a point that is only briefly touched on during the show. Because they are vulnerable to slow and steady degradation by moisture, the new materials may not last as long as aluminum. The report by Rather was correct to explain that testing them for wear and tear will be more difficult. That was, perhaps, his most valid point.

To get a second opinion, I contacted Cirrus Design, a company that has been making small aircraft from composite materials for years. Here is what they had to say:

Though Cirrus' are made with different composite materials than the

Dreamliner, there is no reason to believe that composites cannot be made every bit as strong as aluminum. Some would argue there is more energy absorption in composites than in aluminum structures. Also, this Dreamliner must go through FAA Certification before it is allowed on the market, like general aviation aircraft. There is no way the FAA

would allow Boeing , nor would Boeing put an unsafe, loaded with people aircraft in the sky. Safety is paramount in decision making with all aircraft manufacturers.

Perhaps this is part of an attempt by Rather to make a comeback after the debacle that resulted in his departure from CBS News. The reporter also recently filed a lawsuit against his former employer for $70 million dollars.

Updates: Yesterday, I contacted Tom Hahn, a Professor of Mechanical, Materials, and Aerospace Engineering at UCLA and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Composite Materials. He did not get back to me until late last night. Here is what he had to say:

I have full trust in Boeing's decision to use composites in 787. It is a timely decision based on our understanding of composites stemming from many years of analytical and experimental research.

Aero-News network is reporting that a representative of Airbus, the bitter rival of Boeing, has defended the composite design, calling it as safe as aluminum. Clay McConnell, VP for corporate communications at Airbus North America, said the same thing as the engineers at Cirrus Design: if the plane is not safe, the FAA will not certify it.

I just received two emails from a man that claims to be Wayne Nelson, the executive producer of Dan Rather Reports. He followed up with an apology this evening. Our exchange was as follows:

Mr. Rowe–As Executive Producer of Dan Rather Reports i must take

issue with the unbelievably shallow piece you wrote on the program.

Yes, perhaps you should watch it before making so many inane

comments. And when you watch it, perhaps you will notice that it is

not Mr. Rather making the charges but an engineer with more than 40

years at Boeing, as well as several of his colleagues. Vince Weldon

has serious concerns with the "crashworthiness" of the 787. As

someone who worked closely on the design of the plane we believe he

has the right to air his concerns before thousands of passengers

begin flying the plane.

Wayne Nelson

Dan Rather Reports

New York, NY *** Wayne, Perhaps you should have provided some balance to your story by

contacting some third party experts. Aaron Rowe *** You wouldn't know balance if it bit you in the ass. Why don't you stick to engineering. Hopefully you're better at that. Want more bloggger boy? Get a life Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Also, I would like to draw some attention to this comment from John in the long thread below:

DAN RATHER IS CAUGHT LYING RED-HANDED IN THIS SEGMENT.

I can't believe no one else saw this! When the guy has a square piece of laminent in his hand and is flipping it around, he tells Dan that it has impact damage. Dan says "It does?!" with an overly surprised expression on his face. Like he never saw this piece of material before the tape was rolling. He then says that he can't see any kind of damage on the sample.

I did, and I grabbed my TIVO remote, but waited to see what they were going to do before re-winding. This guy then places it into an expensive machine, which I'm sure he is trying to sell, and it shows where the impact damage is on a video screen. A dark round punch in the middle of the square surrounded by lighter ones. Now I re-wind the video to see that I can CLEARLY see a round impression on the square as the guy is flipping around. The light catches it perfectly. How come

Dan can't see it from across the table, but I can see from across my living room? Dan, it's HDTV for God's sake! Your Hocus-Pocus Bullshit isn't going to work anymore! I really don't care if the planes are safe or not. Odds are someone else will find out before me. But, my bet is that they are. Because if one has to lie to prove a point, then there is no point to be made.

If anyone would care show me a screen shot of that, I would love to see it!

Sorry, video.google.com is no longer available