Part147 From Ireland, joined Dec 2008, 366 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5743 times:
Right now, we have a great opportunity to understand just how precise and well planned the type certification process is for a brand new airliner. High, consistent standards are the norm across every aspect of aviation. After all, new aircraft types are tested in every detail to make sure they meet or exceed minimum safety/strength/operational requirements and nothing is left to chance!
It's essential to maintain those standards by keeping ourselves informed, especially during training. However it's a bit difficult sometimes to find good clear information that can be used for training/informational purposes on something as important as this.
I think it would be useful if we could keep a choronological list of each technical milestone that the B787 passes along with a brief explanation as if talking to someone with no prior knowledge. Extra commentary would be good too, but as we all know here on A.net, it sometimes gets in the way of the thread 'flow'. Pictures/video/links to stories would be excellent!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26922 posts, RR: 83 Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5079 times:
Another web report noted that Initial gauntlet testing was completed in 12 hours which was ahead of schedule.
I only have one worry...
Quote "As the 787 development now exceeds a five-year period from when the certification process was begun, talks are underway to evaluate if the aircraft should be subject to rules subsequently adopted regarding emergency egress lighting."
Hmmm? Personally I think that Boeing should ENSURE it complies with ALL current requirements, instead of trying to go along with older rules. After all, it's supposed to be the most up to date airliner in the world yes!? Surely the 787 isn't starting out with obsolete/outdated systems. Surely they can change the design of future aircraft before any metal is cut (or should I say composites) so to speak?
It's better to ask a stupid question during training, rather than make a REALLY stupid mistake later on!
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4776 times:
Quoting Part147 (Reply 4): Hmmm? Personally I think that Boeing should ENSURE it complies with ALL current requirements, instead of trying to go along with older rules.
That's totally unrealistic, since requirements are changing all the time and not at all synchronized to any particular aircraft development cycle. What would you do if they brought out a new regulation the day prior to type certification?
Quoting Part147 (Reply 4): Surely the 787 isn't starting out with obsolete/outdated systems. Surely they can change the design of future aircraft before any metal is cut (or should I say composites) so to speak?
Compliance with FAR's has nothing to do with obsolescene/dated-ness of systems. It just means that you and the FAA agree which set of FAR's you're going to work to and the FAA gives you five years to do it. If you run past five years, you talk about any differences that came up in the intervening five years and figure out if you need to bring yourself up to date.
If you're that concerned about this aspect of the 787, keep in mind that you've got aircraft running around that were certified under the FAR's of 20 years ago.
Part147 From Ireland, joined Dec 2008, 366 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4729 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5): If you run past five years, you talk about any differences that came up in the intervening five years and figure out if you need to bring yourself up to date.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5): If you're that concerned about this aspect of the 787, keep in mind that you've got aircraft running around that were certified under the FAR's of 20 years ago.
That's true, and many more twice that age! But my initial reaction was prompted since it seemed to be a very minor issue, and yet was considered important enough to include in a positive spin type report! So maybe I'm reading too much between the lines here...?
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5): Surely they can change the design of future aircraft before any metal is cut
I still stand by this statement - I personally think it is important to at least maintain CURRENT legislative standards rather than try to apply 5-year old standards to a brand new aircraft.
Otherwise, why bother coming up with new regs if they can be just ignored?
Good certification procedures ensures compliance with state-of-the-art best practices leading to safe & efficient air transportation
It's better to ask a stupid question during training, rather than make a REALLY stupid mistake later on!
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5123 posts, RR: 29 Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4719 times:
Quoting Part147 (Reply 4): Quote "As the 787 development now exceeds a five-year period from when the certification process was begun, talks are underway to evaluate if the aircraft should be subject to rules subsequently adopted regarding emergency egress lighting."
I'm not too worried if egress lighting is the biggest issue.
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3215 posts, RR: 66 Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4687 times:
Quoting Part147 (Reply 6): Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Surely they can change the design of future aircraft before any metal is cut
I still stand by this statement - I personally think it is important to at least maintain CURRENT legislative standards rather than try to apply 5-year old standards to a brand new aircraft.
Otherwise, why bother coming up with new regs if they can be just ignored?
Good certification procedures ensures compliance with state-of-the-art best practices leading to safe & efficient air transportation
The problem with your idea is that there are many "flavors" of regulation changes. Many are of the "nice to have" variety that have a small or insignificant effect on overall safety while others are in the "must have" category and address some newly discovered serious safety issue.
Those in the "nice to have" category may be difficult or very expensive to implement on airplanes that are already designed and/or built. As a result, they are not made retroactive to inservice airplanes and the five year rule protects airplanes in the design process.
The "must have" changes are applied to the inservice fleet via Airworhiness Directives while Special Conditions may be written against airplanes in the design stage.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4637 times:
Quoting Part147 (Reply 6): I still stand by this statement - I personally think it is important to at least maintain CURRENT legislative standards rather than try to apply 5-year old standards to a brand new aircraft.
Otherwise, why bother coming up with new regs if they can be just ignored?
Because they can't be ignored forever...they're driven into all new designs, and forced into any derivative of existing designs. The alternative is to update all aircraft, everywhere, for all regulation changes when they happen. That's an economic and technical non-starter, and has a marginal safety benefit, at best.
Quoting Part147 (Reply 6): Good certification procedures ensures compliance with state-of-the-art best practices leading to safe & efficient air transportation
Well, no, they don't, unless you want to take the position that all current certification procedures are bad.
Part147 From Ireland, joined Dec 2008, 366 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4597 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9): Because they can't be ignored forever...they're driven into all new designs
To me, that sounds as if manufacturers resist change
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9): Quoting Part147 (Reply 6):
Good certification procedures ensures compliance with state-of-the-art best practices leading to safe & efficient air transportation
Well, no, they don't, unless you want to take the position that all current certification procedures are bad.
Ummm, well leave out 'Good' and just say 'Compliance with' Certification Procedures then, i didn't intend to infer any regs are bad - they're there to ensure safety
It's better to ask a stupid question during training, rather than make a REALLY stupid mistake later on!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26922 posts, RR: 83 Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4580 times:
Quoting Part147 (Reply 10): To me, that sounds as if manufacturers resist change...
They do, in no small part because so do the operators, who have to spend the money to implement those changes on their in-service aircraft and pay more for their new deliveries because of the extra costs the manufacturer will pass on.
Flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1791 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4435 times:
Quoting Part147 (Reply 6): I still stand by this statement - I personally think it is important to at least maintain CURRENT legislative standards rather than try to apply 5-year old standards to a brand new aircraft.
Otherwise, why bother coming up with new regs if they can be just ignored?
Good certification procedures ensures compliance with state-of-the-art best practices leading to safe & efficient air transportation
Unfortunately the lead time and costs are so great that this isn't always possible. Let's say you complete a design that took 2 years... tested the blasted thing to bits and got something that performs it's intended function and is compliant to a particular amendment level of the FARs. Somehow the amendment level changes during the course of that time and new compliance needs to be found... suddenly the 1,000s of hours design work mean nothing and if the new amended regs weren't pegged during testing, all your tests (which by chance cost a boatload) mean nothing and have to be redone. This is unnecessary rework unless some major safety issue is discovered.
Certification is extremely straightforward and intuitive on paper, but in reality it is not. That's why any new airplane program that's run into snags and surpasses the 5 year limit on certification will be heavily dependent on exemptions and FAA concurrence on equivalent levels of safety. This by no means suggests that the plane is unsafe, but means that an airplane must demonstrate that it is capable of performing similarly had the design followed the amended regulations to a "T".
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3288 times:
Quoting Part147 (Reply 13): Okay - she's finally flown and I think it's a nice time to bring this thread back, so what are the next steps the her getting a type certificate?...
The next step is Type Inspection Authorization...that's what formally opens up the certification portion of the flight test program.
Sponsor Message: 
From Ireland, joined Dec 2008, 366 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26922 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
