Technology · On the aircraft
Composite primary structure
Carbon fibre fuselage and wings, composite fan blades, damage assessment
Two independent sources on every claim.
Why it is here
Composite damage can be severe and nearly invisible, so inspection relies on instruments rather than the eye.
At a glance
- The 787 and A350 are carbon fibre across most of the fuselage and wing, and the GEnx uses composite fan blades and a composite fan case.
- Composite damage can be structurally significant while almost invisible on the surface, which changes inspection from a visual task to an instrumented one.
- Several live Airworthiness Directives on the 787 originate in composite manufacturing quality rather than in service wear.
- Composite fan blades cannot fatigue crack the way a metal blade does, but they fail differently.
What it is
A composite primary structure is made from carbon fibre reinforced plastic laid up in plies and cured, rather than machined or riveted from metal. It is lighter for the same strength, does not corrode, and has no fatigue limit in the way aluminium does.
In plain terms
Metal bends and dents, and a crack in it grows in a way engineers can predict and inspect for. A composite is layers of fibre in resin. An impact can separate those layers inside while leaving the surface looking almost untouched, so the obvious inspection, looking at it, is the one that misses the damage.
Why it matters on the line
On the line
Treat impact damage on a composite as an instrumented problem, not a visual one. A bird strike or a ground handling impact that would leave an obvious dent in aluminium may leave little surface evidence here while having delaminated internal plies. Follow the manufacturer's inspection method rather than visual judgement, and resist the instinct that an unmarked panel is an undamaged panel. The same applies to GEnx fan blades: an unmarked blade is not evidence of an undamaged blade.
The manufacturing side has produced most of the regulatory activity so far. On the 787 the live directives concern excessive gaps and pull up in the forward pressure bulkhead, and nonconforming shim gaps between composite structures found during build. The common thread is that these originate in production quality rather than in service degradation, which is consistent with the broader scrutiny that programme has been under.
That distinction matters for planning. A fatigue mechanism gets worse with cycles and can be managed with an interval. A manufacturing escape is present from delivery or not present at all, so the question is effectivity rather than accumulation.
Where to read more
The composite airframes are the 787 and the A350. The composite fan is on the GEnx.
Sources
- Federal Register, "Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes", AD 2026-05-01, published 12 March 2026. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/03/12/2026-04832/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes
- Simple Flying, "FAA To Mandate Boeing 787 Inspections Following Shim Gap Manufacturing Errors", 2026. https://simpleflying.com/faa-boeing-787-inspections-shim-gap-errors/
- Justia Regulation Tracker, "Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes", 30 June 2026. https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2026/06/30/2026-13217.html
- Rolls-Royce, "Trent XWB-84 EP significantly outperforms on in-service fuel savings", 4 June 2026. https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2026/04-06-2026-rr-trent-xwb-84-ep-significantly-outperforms-on-in-service-fuel-savings.aspx