Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Demands 787 Connectivity Security Assurances  
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7062 posts, RR: 57
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9311 times:

Source: RATI - selective quotes only.

The US FAA will require Boeing to demonstrate that certain 787 flight critical domains and digital systems and networks that for the first time will be accessible externally via wireless and other links to airline operations and maintenance systems cannot be tampered with.

“The architecture of the Boeing Model 787-8 computer systems and networks may allow access to external systems and networks, such as wireless airline operations and maintenance systems, satellite communications, electronic mail, the Internet, etc. On-board wired and wireless devices may also have access to parts of the airplanes digital systems that provide flight critical functions, says the FAA in a special conditions document published today. “These new connectivity capabilities may result in security vulnerabilities to the airplanes critical systems.

In order to “ensure the security, integrity, and availability of critical systems, the FAA will require Boeing to demonstrate that unauthorized access to the hardware, software and databases of the aircraft control and airline information domains is not possible.

Edited to remove as many of the goddammed "â€Å" as possible

[Edited 2007-12-29 08:43:12]


The world is really getting smaller these days
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9283 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As Boeing and the FAA have already agreed to the entire certification program for the 787-8, these issues must already be accounted for and will not affect certification proceedings.

User currently offlineDispatcher From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 253 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9236 times:

Regardless of where the FAA / Boeing stand on this at the current time, this is an interesting issue that I had never considered. As our airlines and the jets themselves become more reliant on networked systems for maintenance and operational tracking are we opening ourselves up for viruses and other malicious programing entering the flight control systems of the aircraft? It seems (by what is stated above) that this is already being considered by the FAA in the application of these technoligies to the industry. Good for them for once, a rule NOT written in blood.

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7062 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9176 times:



Quoting Dispatcher (Reply 2):
Good for them for once, a rule NOT written in blood.

Of couse not - the FAA are there for passenger safety, not as a walk-over for Boeing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
these issues must already be accounted for and will not affect certification proceedings.

Are you saying that the FAA have given Boeing a clean bill of health and freedom to do what the please. I doubt it. This issue may well affect certification issues if the FAA is not happy with Boeings response to the issue.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9120 times:

This should not be an issue as the aircraft systems should be on an isolated network not accessible to non-aircraft specific systems. Even for wireless applications, the aircraft/airline hardware will have hard coded security limiting their use to the aircraft system network.

This same type of certification will have to applied to network installations on older aircraft as they are retrofitted for the new realities of networking.


User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9108 times:



Quoting BestWestern (Reply 3):
Are you saying that the FAA have given Boeing a clean bill of health and freedom to do what the please. I doubt it. This issue may well affect certification issues if the FAA is not happy with Boeings response to the issue.

No, he's just saying that it's well known that the FAA and Boeing have been working together to determine what is needed to certify the airplane and determine how the regulations will be met. Boeing knows what regulations are required for certification and the FAA will have to approve it, just as they would for any other airplane program.



That's why we're here.
User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6432 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9051 times:

Require and demand are two entirely different words. Where in the process is the FAA DEMANDING anything of Boeing.

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7062 posts, RR: 57
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9005 times:



Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 6):
Require and demand are two entirely different words. Where in the process is the FAA DEMANDING anything of Boeing.

Welcome to the wonderful world of diplomacy....

If Boeing dont do as requested... they will be told. Of course, it wont come to that as Boeing will do as 'requested', as they have a healthy working relationship with the FAA, and will do anything to maintain that. One thing that could seriously delay any aircraft launch is a row with the FAA.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8955 times:



Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 6):
Require and demand are two entirely different words. Where in the process is the FAA DEMANDING anything of Boeing.

Now that's definitely playing with words as, technically, they both mean exactly the same thing and only the 'diplomacy' in the wording differs. As BestWestern correctly points point, Boeing will be required to do what the FAA 'requests'.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8948 times:



Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 6):
Require and demand are two entirely different words. Where in the process is the FAA DEMANDING anything of Boeing.

I think "require" removes any choice from the equation. Had the FAA "recommended" or "requested", then it would imply that it wasn't necessarily obligatory.


User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3294 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8891 times:



Quoting BestWestern (Reply 3):


Quoting Stitch:
As Boeing and the FAA have already agreed to the entire certification program for the 787-8, these issues must already be accounted for and will not affect certification proceedings.

Are you saying that the FAA have given Boeing a clean bill of health and freedom to do what the please. I doubt it. This issue may well affect certification issues if the FAA is not happy with Boeings response to the issue.

No, he's saying that Boeing and the FAA have already agreed on what is required of Boeing for certification of the 787. That has already been discussed in a recent previous thread.

Where did you read that as "The FAA gave Boeing a clean bill of health and freedom to do what they please"?  crazy 



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7062 posts, RR: 57
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8835 times:



Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 10):
Where did you read that as "The FAA gave Boeing a clean bill of health and freedom to do what they please"?

In the blanket - cover all:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Boeing and the FAA have already agreed to the entire certification program for the 787-8



and the 100% belief that their requirements

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
will not affect certification proceedings




The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8610 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BestWestern (Reply 3):
Are you saying that the FAA have given Boeing a clean bill of health and freedom to do what the please. I doubt it. This issue may well affect certification issues if the FAA is not happy with Boeings response to the issue.

No I am not, and even a literal reading of what I said should not have brought you to the conclusion you have drawn.

Scott Carson stated in the last Program Update that Boeing and the FAA have agreed on what Boeing needs to do to receive FAA certification on the 787-8. As the FAA has not disputed that statement, I can only accept it as being true. Said agreement on what needs to be certified is obviously not granting of said certification. Boeing will, of course, need to meet all those requirements, but I would think that would be obvious...

As such, if the FAA wants these systems tested prior to granting certification, ergo they must already be covered in the terms of certification Boeing needs to meet and are neither something new nor something Boeing is not already planning for. Ergo, it will not affect the certification of the 787-8 provided, of course, Boeing meets it.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7062 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8553 times:

This could be a new item to arise in the FAA, hence the announcement.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 669 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8471 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
No I am not, and even a literal reading of what I said should not have brought you to the conclusion you have drawn.

Scott Carson stated in the last Program Update that Boeing and the FAA have agreed on what Boeing needs to do to receive FAA certification on the 787-8. As the FAA has not disputed that statement, I can only accept it as being true. Said agreement on what needs to be certified is obviously not granting of said certification. Boeing will, of course, need to meet all those requirements, but I would think that would be obvious...

As such, if the FAA wants these systems tested prior to granting certification, ergo they must already be covered in the terms of certification Boeing needs to meet and are neither something new nor something Boeing is not already planning for. Ergo, it will not affect the certification of the 787-8 provided, of course, Boeing meets it.

Then, what you are saying is: No need to discuss anything regarding the 787 certification? Because there ain't any problems, and never will be?

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2211 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8394 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Ergo, it will not affect the certification of the 787-8

All certification items affect the certification of the 787-8, by definition.

Perhaps your point is that the obstacle course for certification was previously laid out, and that one of these obstacles must already address the wireless security issue.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8337 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing and the FAA have agreed on what Boeing is required to pass to earn certification for the 787-8 and Boeing now needs to pass. If Boeing needs to pass Connectivity Security to earn certification, then they will need to pass it, but they must already have known that before this article was published, so it's part of the existing certification program and not something new being added at the last second that Boeing now needs to both worry about and prepare for.


Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 15):
All certification items affect the certification of the 787-8, by definition.

Of course. And I noted as such. Many times.

[Edited 2007-12-29 13:10:38]

User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8096 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dispatcher (Reply 2):
Regardless of where the FAA / Boeing stand on this at the current time, this is an interesting issue that I had never considered.

You're right, never thought about it either. Forget the NSA, a 787 is now the ultimate target. I can't wait until the first plane goes technical because of a DDoS.

Note to self: bring spare laptop battery on first 787 flight, remotely lock seat in front of me upright for the entire flight and snoop on people's email, sending juicy bits from mistress to wife. Forget IFE, this is going to be a fun flight.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 4):
This should not be an issue as the aircraft systems should be on an isolated network not accessible to non-aircraft specific systems.

My first reaction would be to say that "should" better be "will be" instead because "should" just isn't good enough, but it does beg the question as to how useful maintenance-wise an external connection will be if all aircraft systems are operating in a closed loop. I guess maintenance access will be, or should be, wired.

If there is indeed a direct network connection (wired or wireless) between a 787 and the airline's own network, the FAA needs to worry about more than just the security installed onboard the aircraft. I know from personal experience that some airlines are not as thoughtful as they need to be about securing their network (and that's as specific as I'll get). The reason it is a potential problem with a 787 is that, if you can penetrate the airline's network at the airport where the 787 is, the 787's own security will consider as "safe" any connection coming from the airline's network, even if that connection was initiated by Kevin Mitnick and his wireless laptop comfortably seated in the check-in lobby.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 4):
the aircraft/airline hardware will have hard coded security limiting their use to the aircraft system network.

Hard-coded security ?



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7957 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
As Boeing and the FAA have already agreed to the entire certification program for the 787-8, these issues must already be accounted for and will not affect certification proceedings.

 checkmark  That's exactly what I thought. I thought this process was over and agreed to.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7062 posts, RR: 57
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7697 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 18):
I thought this process was over and agreed to

Maybe this is an new issue, not considered significant before now. To say:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Boeing and the FAA have already agreed to the entire certification program

eliminates the right of the FAA to make changes to the certification program, to ensure passenger safety. The blank cheque that you suggest doesnt exist if and when the FAA deem further certification to be essential. This issue could be one of them.

To quote Stitch from earlier this year...

"some folks were recently of the opinion that the FAA was going to "cook the books" to give the 787 a cleaner (and, allegedly, riskier to passengers) path to certification. So if the FAA is indeed requiring Boeing to at least meet current standards on Al aircraft then that will hopefully allay some of the possible fears the traveling public may have."

[Edited 2007-12-29 15:05:19]


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30415 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7519 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BestWestern (Reply 19):
The blank cheque that you suggest doesnt exist if and when the FAA deem further certification to be essential. This issue could be one of them.

It isn't a bloody blank cheque so why portray it as such? We've already had people claim the FAA effectively certified the 787 the day Boeing offered it for sale and will willfully disregard any issue that comes up because it's an American product and that is all that matters. Do we really need to have another forum knife-fight about it?

Carson said Boeing and the FAA have agreed on what Boeing needs to prove to certify the 787-8. The FAA didn't call him on it, so I am taking him at his word on that. That means one of two things: this is a known part of the certification process the FAA and Boeing agreed to, or the FAA has decided to alter that agreement (cue Vader voice - "Pray I do not alter it again").

I am of the opinion that it is a known part of the certification process the FAA and Boeing agreed to. However, if this is something new since that agreement, we'll likely hear about it at the January webcast. Heck, send it in ahead of time as a question and with luck we'll know for sure.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7062 posts, RR: 57
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7507 times:

Again, all I'm saying is what you said earlier this year

"some folks were recently of the opinion that the FAA was going to "cook the books" to give the 787 a cleaner (and, allegedly, riskier to passengers) path to certification. So if the FAA is indeed requiring Boeing to at least meet current standards on Al aircraft then that will hopefully allay some of the possible fears the traveling public may have".

FAA Issues Proposed Special Condition Re 787 (by Amicus Apr 9 2007 in Civil Aviation)



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3854 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7476 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
As such, if the FAA wants these systems tested prior to granting certification, ergo they must already be covered in the terms of certification Boeing needs to meet and are neither something new nor something Boeing is not already planning for. Ergo, it will not affect the certification of the 787-8 provided, of course, Boeing meets it.

Bestwestern actually has a point here - Boeing did announce that they had come to terms with the FAA regarding certification requirements, but I do not think that was the whole picture with regard to type certification - just what *did* and *didn't* need doing, for example an evacuation test (its another widebody, with X number of doors on each side, Y meters apart, serving Z number of passengers...) doesn't need to be done as its been done time and again on the same layouts.

The agreement reached should not be read as the be all end all, with no room for further requirements to be made or dropped, as the FAA may need to see more or less data on subjects as they are given certification information - and that may be happening here.

Certainly don't assume that the FAA cannot now make extra demands on Boeing with regard to the 787 certification. This may or may not be covered under what was previously agreed, but we have no way of knowing that because we have no access to the particulars of the agreement.

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 17):
If there is indeed a direct network connection (wired or wireless) between a 787 and the airline's own network, the FAA needs to worry about more than just the security installed onboard the aircraft. I know from personal experience that some airlines are not as thoughtful as they need to be about securing their network (and that's as specific as I'll get). The reason it is a potential problem with a 787 is that, if you can penetrate the airline's network at the airport where the 787 is, the 787's own security will consider as "safe" any connection coming from the airline's network, even if that connection was initiated by Kevin Mitnick and his wireless laptop comfortably seated in the check-in lobby.

That scenario can be circumvented by requiring a 'zero pass barrier' - there is no physical or logical link between the trusted network (the aircraft uplink) and the untrusted network (the corporate network, the internet, anything else basically). Its easy to implement, you simply put the uplink connection on its own separated network that when people wish to access, they have to physically switch computers. There is no reason why this sort of thing should be accessible in any number of logical hops to the internet.

Of course, theres always the case of 'oh, never thought of that' - recently there was a case of the Tamil Tigers using a very expensive satellite to carry out propaganda broadcasts. How did they gain access? There was no security on the satellite, it was all based on the premise that no one would point a powerful transceiver in the right direction on the right frequency and issue the right commands....

Oh, and nearly all civilian sats are like that.

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 17):
You're right, never thought about it either. Forget the NSA, a 787 is now the ultimate target. I can't wait until the first plane goes technical because of a DDoS.

Unfortunately, within the hacking scene its quite common for something to be done simply because 'it looked like it was possible' - people are destructive, and if shutting down an aircraft for a day gets some spotty teenagers name in lights, believe me when I say its going to happen - a lot.

None of this has to be permanent, a simple denial of service (as you allude to) would be enough - I *really* hope Boeing has not made the critical systems wireless as some in this thread are alluding to, as they can be blocked trivially without ever breaking the encryption.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7419 times:



Quoting BestWestern (Reply 3):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
these issues must already be accounted for and will not affect certification proceedings.

Are you saying that the FAA have given Boeing a clean bill of health and freedom to do what the please. I doubt it. This issue may well affect certification issues if the FAA is not happy with Boeings response to the issue.

I think what he's saying is that Boeing and the FAA have agreed to make testing for this potential problem a part of the certification process.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7360 times:



Quoting BestWestern (Reply 21):
"some folks were recently of the opinion that the FAA was going to "cook the books" to give the 787 a cleaner (and, allegedly, riskier to passengers) path to certification.

What "folks" are we talking about? Industry insiders? FAA insiders? Rumor mongers? And ask yourself this: Why on earth would the FAA destroy their reputation ... not to mention Boeing's ... by taking such stupid action as throwing the books aside and giving Boeing a better bill of health on their new airplane than it deserves? You have to know that sooner or later such action would come back to severely haunt them both.



Dare to dream; dream big!
25 Post contains images Stitch : Yes, and I have admitted as such. I think BestWestern and I just crossed wires somewhere. , though I am evidently doing a whizz-poor job of it. Anywa
26 Post contains images BestWestern : French Champagne or some nice WA sparkling wine? You are actually quoting stitich - but IMHO I fully agree with you.. The FAA will do what they do be
27 Gigneil : Nothing Boeing is doing is any different than Airshow moving maps accessing flight data. The IFE networks will not interact with the, admittedly more
28 CygnusChicago : Well, pretty soon we can replace our controllers with an automated AI system as well, which can then control the aircraft. I, for one, welcome our Ro
29 Tdscanuck : They've agreed to the certification plan. The FAA still has absolute authority to determine when they feel that Boeing has successfully demonstrated
30 Post contains links Rheinbote : Here's a Boeing presentation on wireless airport operations, even mentioning the 787: http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/airp.../downloads/4a2_Mitchell_
31 OldAeroGuy : Absolutely correct. The last thing any airplane certification program needs is to enter the testing phase with open issues on what constitutes compli
32 BlueFlyer : But the question is whether these "flight critical data" networks can be accessed from the outside, say for maintenance purpose. I can't think of too
33 BestWestern : Probably the issue boeing has to proove is that these flight critical data networks cannot be hacked.
34 Moo : I know of many many places where its been implemented (banks certainly come to mind), and increased maintenance costs are trivial compared to the cos
35 Post contains images Andz : Made me think of this
36 Fairchild24 : Well as much the hacker issue will be a hurdle for Boeing to manage, and I think they will. If Boeing has choosen a standard protocol e.g 802.11g to c
37 Tdscanuck : This is always an issue with aircraft. If you think IFE on Airbii is bad, just imagine what happens when you're maintaining an 707 or 727. Tom.
38 Spacecadet : Incorrect on both counts. The 787 is using a new system designed by Honeywell called the "common core system", whereby a central system handles both
39 2175301 : There is an old answer on how to prevent hacking of a system. The programs are written onto ROMs (Read Only Memory) chips. This is used for certain ap
40 Tdscanuck : There is a physical barrier between parts of the CCS...different functions run on different cards. The CCS provides a common infrastructure for the p
41 Spacecadet : Yes, but if they're all running on the CDN, then it doesn't matter that they're physically separate. That was one of my points. You say the CCS provi
42 Starrion : I will be happy provided that when power-on time arrives not one of the computers booting up displays the Windows logo. One Windows logo, and I am not
43 Post contains links ComairGuyCVG : Just came across this article.... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321326,00.html It's just amazing a company like Boeing didn't see this coming. A
44 Fairchild24 : Well if the plan is to have the 787 to communicate with Airports/Airlines the communication protocol would probably IMO be some kind of commercial ap
45 Sphealey : > I'm not suggesting that it's at all impossible, but it's > important to realize that this is a *far* more difficult > task than hacking any kind of
46 Moo : I guarantee that at least the OS will not be custom designed in this case - OSes are *very* hard to get right, so they pretty much end up as a 'write
47 Tdscanuck : By that definition, it's impossible to physically separate any avionics from any other because they all have to trade data at some level. It can't ha
48 Fairchild24 : Perhaps not your PC Tom, but for a hacker the TCP/IP protocol is the key to access in your example NW network. If Boeing planning to use TCP/IP v4 on
49 Tdscanuck : I'm pretty sure it's some ARINC flavour, although I don't have any hard info on that. The physical layer is ethernet, I believe. The WiFi is just for
50 Crewchief : Thanks to everyone for the entertaining posts. I have four observations: 1) Hacking today isn't one child in a basement working into the wee hours. It
51 Tdscanuck : According to the most recent Boeing press release on the topic, they're not. How they define "link" is somewhat open to interpretation since, as has
52 NoWorries : I believe it's ARINC 629 -- same A380, except it's over fiber instead of twisted pair.
53 NoWorries : Sorry, have to correct my own post -- it's ARINC 664, same as on A380. ARINC 629 was on the 777.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FAA Issues Proposed Special Condition Re 787 posted Mon Apr 9 2007 22:03:49 by Amicus
Official 787-10 Drawing+FAA Special Cert. For 787 posted Mon Mar 19 2007 16:28:45 by N328KF
Ryanair Demands UK Govt To Relax Airport Security posted Tue Aug 22 2006 11:24:00 by Carnoc
FAA To Propose Security Cameras On Planes posted Wed Sep 21 2005 01:18:05 by Syncmaster
FAA's New Airport Security Measures... posted Mon Aug 12 2002 21:28:10 by Jetguy
Statement By FAA On Security posted Thu Sep 20 2001 18:15:43 by Contrails
New FAA Security Measures posted Sat Sep 15 2001 18:15:37 by Cba
787 Customers Being Informed Of Further Delay posted Fri Dec 28 2007 09:42:31 by Jimboski93
BA Finalise B787 Contract: 787 Orders At 790 posted Thu Dec 27 2007 02:13:24 by PanAm_DC10
What's Going On With The 787? posted Mon Dec 24 2007 09:49:47 by Boeingluvr
New FAA Security Measures posted Sat Sep 15 2001 18:15:37 by Cba
A330 First To Be Certified To New FAA Etops Rules posted Mon Jan 7 2008 06:41:42 by Zeke
787-10: What/When And If? posted Sun Jan 6 2008 12:55:53 by T773ER