• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
JHwk
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:37 pm

Grandfathering isn’t the issue— screwed up certification is. Self certification isn’t inherently bad, but there need to be checks and balances to ensure nobody is taking shortcuts. Independence requires an adversarial relationship, which doesn’t always produce optimal results.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:09 pm

Revelation wrote:
If we believe many posters here, Airbus is working on an A322 with an all new CFRP wing as we speak, and the resulting aircraft will be similar in scope of change to 777x.


Of course, if that aircaft has new wings, new engines on a different place, a different tail, cockpit, fuselage materials, dimensions, landing gear and wing tip, it would be very strange if new TC isn't on the table! And a similar modified Boeing aircraft should not be exempted. Or do you feel it should?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20918
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:28 pm

keesje wrote:
Of course, if that aircaft has new wings, new engines on a different place, a different tail, cockpit, fuselage materials, dimensions, landing gear and wing tip, it would be very strange if new TC isn't on the table! And a similar modified Boeing aircraft should not be exempted. Or do you feel it should?

I expect Airbus to advance down the path that takes the least time and costs them the least money, and almost certainly that will be using A320neo as a basis for certification for future A32x family members.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:16 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Of course, if that aircaft has new wings, new engines on a different place, a different tail, cockpit, fuselage materials, dimensions, landing gear and wing tip, it would be very strange if new TC isn't on the table! And a similar modified Boeing aircraft should not be exempted. Or do you feel it should?

I expect Airbus to advance down the path that takes the least time and costs them the least money, and almost certainly that will be using A320neo as a basis for certification for future A32x family members.


We already discussed this ad nauseum.
If Airbus goes for the A321XLR, certification costs and time should be limited, and cost them little.
But an A322 with a bigger wing should go through an extensive certification process, with grandfathering limited to fuselage and systems within it if these are kept entirely the same. A stretched version would also have to undergo further testing.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20918
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:29 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
But an A322 with a bigger wing should go through an extensive certification process, with grandfathering limited to fuselage and systems within it if these are kept entirely the same. A stretched version would also have to undergo further testing.

Contrast to:

BoeingGuy wrote:
Yep, and the 777X has to comply with a lot of new requirements and more current certication amendments than did the 777-300ER. A couple of examples are having to step up to amendment 131 of CFR 25.1322 and comply with the totally new CFR 25.1302.

I think 777x is going through an "extensive certification process" yet using 77W as a basis for certification.

I think A322 will go through an "extensive certification process" yet use A321neo as a basis for certification.

Neither will be treated as clean sheets, if their manufacturers have anything to say about it.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:31 pm

airzona11 wrote:
brons2 wrote:
Polot wrote:
it’s a lack of proper oversight issue.


Agreed, and sad to see it hasn't changed that much in 45 years, remember the DC-10 cargo door?


Are you ignoring the staggering safety statistics of flying in the US or flying that the FAA has oversight?


No, and neither the safety statistics of flying in China where the CAAC has oversight. 0 hull losses since 2012. We are fed the information we want to hear..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:45 pm

smartplane wrote:
If airworthiness authority staff become successfully obstructive, they are head hunted by an OEM.


Not in my experience.

In a forty year career at a major OEM, I saw many co-workers move to the FAA and none that moved from the FAA to the OEM.

While at the OEM, I was a Designated Engineering Representative. I applied the appropriate FAR's to find certification compliance for the OEM's designs without fear or favor. The OEM never pressured me to find a compliance "shortcut". If such pressure had been applied, I could have complained to the FAA who would have investigated the complaint.

Unless the US Government is prepared to fund and staff the FAA to the same staff levels as the OEM engineers who create the designs, certification compliance findings will need to rely on OEM engineering talent and understanding.

EASA is in exactly the same situation.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:25 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Unless the US Government is prepared to fund and staff the FAA to the same staff levels as the OEM engineers who create the designs, certification compliance findings will need to rely on OEM engineering talent and understanding.


Thank goodness for some reality.

Dominic Gates's expose definitely showed excessive capture of certain FAA functions by Boeing. But it's never a practical solution to regulatory capture to cut the regulated industry out entirely. It robs the regulator of a lot of knowledge and expertise that is essential for the regulator to do its job. The central challenge of managing an industry regulator is striking that balance. And it is a balance, something hyperpartisans on either side have a hard time processing.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:48 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Of course, if that aircaft has new wings, new engines on a different place, a different tail, cockpit, fuselage materials, dimensions, landing gear and wing tip, it would be very strange if new TC isn't on the table! And a similar modified Boeing aircraft should not be exempted. Or do you feel it should?

I expect Airbus to advance down the path that takes the least time and costs them the least money, and almost certainly that will be using A320neo as a basis for certification for future A32x family members.


We already discussed this ad nauseum.
If Airbus goes for the A321XLR, certification costs and time should be limited, and cost them little.
But an A322 with a bigger wing should go through an extensive certification process, with grandfathering limited to fuselage and systems within it if these are kept entirely the same. A stretched version would also have to undergo further testing.

Presently, the low cost way to design an A322, assuming the current wing isn't suitable, is design an A321XLR/NEO PLUS (grandfather A321NEO), with a new wing, perhaps offered for all A32 family, then design A322 (grandfather A321XLR).

With the 777X, Boeing have effectively gone for the equivalent of jumping from NEO to A322NEO PLUS, in one step (perhaps more). Will the authorities, airlines, and insurers consider it a step too far post-MAX reviews? Certification is definitely going to change. The only issues are magnitude and timing.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3038
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:03 pm

Boeing will pay a little closer attention to what’s happening in house and the FAA will pay a little closer attention to Boeing but i don’t think they’ll be very much if any change to the agreed upon test requirements.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:16 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Who cares as long as it's tested properly and certified with full safety.



agree. Until we know and get some answers to the 737 causes to know if grandfathering is a issue we won't know. Are there other cases where grandfathering certification have showed a need to change the way things are done?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20918
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:49 am

seabosdca wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Unless the US Government is prepared to fund and staff the FAA to the same staff levels as the OEM engineers who create the designs, certification compliance findings will need to rely on OEM engineering talent and understanding.

Thank goodness for some reality.

:checkmark:

seabosdca wrote:
Dominic Gates's expose definitely showed excessive capture of certain FAA functions by Boeing.

While the reporting was impressive, let's not overstate things by using words such as 'definitely'. What Gates has is a great ability to get people to talk off the record, and some of these people have reasons to point fingers at others. I'll reserve my judgement till someone talks on the record, either of their own free will or after being compelled to talk by a subpoena.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:09 am

Revelation wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Unless the US Government is prepared to fund and staff the FAA to the same staff levels as the OEM engineers who create the designs, certification compliance findings will need to rely on OEM engineering talent and understanding.

Thank goodness for some reality.

:checkmark:

seabosdca wrote:
Dominic Gates's expose definitely showed excessive capture of certain FAA functions by Boeing.

While the reporting was impressive, let's not overstate things by using words such as 'definitely'. What Gates has is a great ability to get people to talk off the record, and some of these people have reasons to point fingers at others. I'll reserve my judgement till someone talks on the record, either of their own free will or after being compelled to talk by a subpoena.


Dominic Gates has had strong links with Boeing for a very long time, showing sympathy and support. I think his research and article are impressive and I see personal courage in him publishing what he did. Although he is just the messenger, not seldom this has implications for getting interviews with executives, access to Boeing people, parties, chalets, product launches, back ground info etc.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:43 am

Wow, the cooperation process between DoT, FAA and Boeing has been going south rapidly over fast in the last few days.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/fbi-joining-criminal-investigation-into-certification-of-boeing-737-max/

I wonder if the investigation will be limited to the 737MAX certification or that DoT refuses to see the certification process of the 777-9 as a separate topic. It seems the current investigation is more process focused than aircraft type focused.

Changes of the 777-9 over the 777-300ER are far more radical, than the changes of the 737MAX-8 over the 737-800.

Image
Source : https://twitter.com/BoeingEurope
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:16 pm

What is the point (obsession) of hoping the MAX catastrophe spills over to the 77X?

I think it's a safe assumption that these events may not yet impact the "grandfathering" process as a whole but will certainly put a lot more scrutiny into every 77X certification process. A delayed EIS could be possible. But Boeing has to reap this and pay the piper. No rubber stamps. It can arguably help its own case now with an abundance of transparency about every 77X system. Get that going now and throughout testing and serve it up on a plate to the FAA, EASA, etc.
© 2019. All statements are my own. The use of my statements, including by journalists, YouTube vloggers like "DJ's Aviation", etc. without my written consent is strictly prohibited.
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:19 pm

Otherwise, we should be mourning the dead. We should be thankful that their sacrifice means regulatory processes are being examined for the safety of millions. But none of us should take some childish joy in the demise of a company or brand as some are indeed doing.
© 2019. All statements are my own. The use of my statements, including by journalists, YouTube vloggers like "DJ's Aviation", etc. without my written consent is strictly prohibited.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:29 pm

I'm amazed by members that are apparerently far more interested in blindly defending a big cooperation under investigation for handling certification in a way that possibly killed a lot of people, than being interested in assuring flight safety accross their portfolio.

Make sure you are at the right side of the line. Many found themselves defending & promoting products & processes for years, that this week initiated safety & criminal investigations.

https://rationalfaiths.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Apologist_definition.1.jpg


It can arguably help its own case now with an abundance of transparency about every 77X system. Get that going now and throughout testing and serve it up on a plate to the FAA, EASA, etc.


:checkmark:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2350
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:36 pm

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
Otherwise, we should be mourning the dead. We should be thankful that their sacrifice means regulatory processes are being examined for the safety of millions. But none of us should take some childish joy in the demise of a company or brand as some are indeed doing.

You are absolutely right (for once).

People have died. Let's make their deaths mean something and tighten up on safety, which has become nothing short of amazing in recent years. There is no such state as perfection and never can be in the real world, so rather than dance on Boeing's grave and demand they be thrown in it alive turn these disasters into learning experiences for everyone. If there are individuals or processes that are wrong, then they need to go as part of that with the main point being it makes Boeing stronger in the long term.

Look at the Comet disasters and how the whole aviation world benefited from the knowledge gained there. This is just a refined version of that.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9351
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:42 pm

keesje wrote:
I'm amazed by members that are apparerently far more interested in blindly defending a big cooperation under investigation for handling certification in a way that possibly killed a lot of people, than being interested in assuring flight safety accross their portfolio.

Make sure you are at the right side of the line. Many found themselves defending & promoting products & processes for years, that this week initiated safety & criminal investigations.

https://rationalfaiths.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Apologist_definition.1.jpg


It can arguably help its own case now with an abundance of transparency about every 77X system. Get that going now and throughout testing and serve it up on a plate to the FAA, EASA, etc.


:checkmark:

Everyone here has talked about how Boeing is likely going to face increased scrutiny when it comes to certifying the 777X, and that new aspects of the 777X will be tested with that greater scrutiny. It is not clear what more you actually want us to talk about, should we all be posting about how the 777X needs to be certified as a type? This actually goes to the heart of Revelation’s comments, in which you have a tendency to ask questions, get upset when discussion isn’t going the way you want, but contributing actually very little substance yourself (the standard “I’m just asking questions” line of argument).

It is not clear if the 737Max is a result of general failure of grandfathering, or a failure of proper oversight (again, everyone in this thread is saying Boeing will likely see increased scrutiny). If it is the former, then we should likely have a thread discussing whether all grandfathered types (ie 737Max, A320neo, A330neo, 777X, etc) should be re-evaluated (or evaluated in the case of the 777X) with new increased scrutiny. If it is the latter than most people agree Boeing will be under a larger microscope with the 777.

It just sounds like you are trying to goad people into turning this into a 777X needs to be a new type/bash or celebrate Boeing’s current predicament thread, in which case most people here seem to disagree with you and this discussion has run its course. If you think the 777X should be certified as a new type, resulting in Boeing spending a lot more time and money than expected, then say it. Don’t try and get others to do your dirty work while you try and give an air of impartiality.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2609
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:10 pm

3 Pages and it seems only one person really knows what they're talking about (OldAeroGuy).

Here is a glimpse of reality. Suppose you say the FAA must now reclaim the certification process. What happens? Well, all of the current DER's or ODA members would be brought in under the FAA name, and to pay for it, say the FAA just charges the OEM's the cost the OEMs were paying those people to begin with. So essentially in this situation I'm saying the cost to the OEMs is unchanged.

The reality is, you would have to do this because there is no other talent pool the FAA could pull from to accomplish such a thing. We're talking about thousands of engineers. But this would have disastrous effects on developing aircraft because these DERs and ODA members are subject matter experts in their respective fields. They help guide the design from the start so that it actually can meet regulatory requirements. That's the whole point. They are so intertwined with the product that they know it inside and out and are thus the most qualified in making the compliance matrix. The FAA still reviews their findings - and trust me they are thorough - but they are leveraging these folks who take their jobs very seriously.

To be clear: What folks here are suggesting is that there exists a class of people out there who care more about what their CEO/Shareholders/BoardMembers/etc think than the safety of the product. This couldn't be further from the truth. These folks are not beholden to anyone. Have a process for reporting undue pressure to the FAA and will use that if management even tries to make them work excessive overtime to meet their own perceived schedules. There are even rules about how high up the management chain someone with delegated authority can be. Essentially you can't be higher than a first level manager.

Reading these types of threads is often frustrating on this site. A lot of assumptions based little in fact. The reality is far more complex. We are constantly leveraging previous aircraft experiences because that's the safest and best business minded choice to make. It's safe because we are relying on existing proven designs, and it makes business sense because we are leveraging existing production methods, available materials etc. The grandfathering process is not, and should not, go away. What should go away is this fear mongering that is currently going on that is suggesting there is some sort of flaw in the certification process. People make mistakes, and to suggest that MCAS would have been caught if the FAA had more oversight is misleading at best. In all likelihood, the person who approved the cert work related to MCAS would have been the same person - just wearing a shirt with FAA stitched on it instead of Boeing. Something was interpreted wrong or the way it was implemented didn't behave as they understood it to behave - that's it. It's a tragic mistake that potentially led to two mistakes. But to damn the whole certification process because of such a mistake is incredibly foolish.
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:19 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
3 Pages and it seems only one person really knows what they're talking about (OldAeroGuy).

Here is a glimpse of reality. Suppose you say the FAA must now reclaim the certification process. What happens? Well, all of the current DER's or ODA members would be brought in under the FAA name, and to pay for it, say the FAA just charges the OEM's the cost the OEMs were paying those people to begin with. So essentially in this situation I'm saying the cost to the OEMs is unchanged.

The reality is, you would have to do this because there is no other talent pool the FAA could pull from to accomplish such a thing. We're talking about thousands of engineers. But this would have disastrous effects on developing aircraft because these DERs and ODA members are subject matter experts in their respective fields. They help guide the design from the start so that it actually can meet regulatory requirements. That's the whole point. They are so intertwined with the product that they know it inside and out and are thus the most qualified in making the compliance matrix. The FAA still reviews their findings - and trust me they are thorough - but they are leveraging these folks who take their jobs very seriously.

To be clear: What folks here are suggesting is that there exists a class of people out there who care more about what their CEO/Shareholders/BoardMembers/etc think than the safety of the product. This couldn't be further from the truth. These folks are not beholden to anyone. Have a process for reporting undue pressure to the FAA and will use that if management even tries to make them work excessive overtime to meet their own perceived schedules. There are even rules about how high up the management chain someone with delegated authority can be. Essentially you can't be higher than a first level manager.

Reading these types of threads is often frustrating on this site. A lot of assumptions based little in fact. The reality is far more complex. We are constantly leveraging previous aircraft experiences because that's the safest and best business minded choice to make. It's safe because we are relying on existing proven designs, and it makes business sense because we are leveraging existing production methods, available materials etc. The grandfathering process is not, and should not, go away. What should go away is this fear mongering that is currently going on that is suggesting there is some sort of flaw in the certification process. People make mistakes, and to suggest that MCAS would have been caught if the FAA had more oversight is misleading at best. In all likelihood, the person who approved the cert work related to MCAS would have been the same person - just wearing a shirt with FAA stitched on it instead of Boeing. Something was interpreted wrong or the way it was implemented didn't behave as they understood it to behave - that's it. It's a tragic mistake that potentially led to two mistakes. But to damn the whole certification process because of such a mistake is incredibly foolish.


I get what you are saying about the intertwined part.

So where, in your estimation, did the process break down?
© 2019. All statements are my own. The use of my statements, including by journalists, YouTube vloggers like "DJ's Aviation", etc. without my written consent is strictly prohibited.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20918
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:37 pm

Great post, let me amplify a few things:

trpmb6 wrote:
3 Pages and it seems only one person really knows what they're talking about (OldAeroGuy).

I'd add BoeingGuy to the list, I've quoted him a few times now to try to correct some of the gross mistakes being made here.

trpmb6 wrote:
Reading these types of threads is often frustrating on this site. A lot of assumptions based little in fact. The reality is far more complex. We are constantly leveraging previous aircraft experiences because that's the safest and best business minded choice to make. It's safe because we are relying on existing proven designs, and it makes business sense because we are leveraging existing production methods, available materials etc. The grandfathering process is not, and should not, go away. What should go away is this fear mongering that is currently going on that is suggesting there is some sort of flaw in the certification process. People make mistakes, and to suggest that MCAS would have been caught if the FAA had more oversight is misleading at best. In all likelihood, the person who approved the cert work related to MCAS would have been the same person - just wearing a shirt with FAA stitched on it instead of Boeing. Something was interpreted wrong or the way it was implemented didn't behave as they understood it to behave - that's it. It's a tragic mistake that potentially led to two mistakes. But to damn the whole certification process because of such a mistake is incredibly foolish.

The internet / social media is in essence a giant experiment with lots of unintended consequences.

Technical complexity gets lost as people tweet OMG to each other.

In the end our choices will be to dumb things down to the point the OMG crowd doesn't freak out, or find techniques to let the outrage erupt and consume all its fuel so the serious work can begin.

The sad part is the OMG crowd doesn't seem to understand how much their quality of life depends on people they vent their outrage against.

We can dumb things down so there are no airplane crashes by having no airplanes or airplanes that take forever to ceritify, but then, OMG, why I can't go bar hopping in Ibiza for EUR 29.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:47 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
3 Pages and it seems only one person really knows what they're talking about (OldAeroGuy).

Here is a glimpse of reality. Suppose you say the FAA must now reclaim the certification process. What happens? Well, all of the current DER's or ODA members would be brought in under the FAA name, and to pay for it, say the FAA just charges the OEM's the cost the OEMs were paying those people to begin with. So essentially in this situation I'm saying the cost to the OEMs is unchanged.

The reality is, you would have to do this because there is no other talent pool the FAA could pull from to accomplish such a thing. We're talking about thousands of engineers. But this would have disastrous effects on developing aircraft because these DERs and ODA members are subject matter experts in their respective fields. They help guide the design from the start so that it actually can meet regulatory requirements. That's the whole point. They are so intertwined with the product that they know it inside and out and are thus the most qualified in making the compliance matrix. The FAA still reviews their findings - and trust me they are thorough - but they are leveraging these folks who take their jobs very seriously.

To be clear: What folks here are suggesting is that there exists a class of people out there who care more about what their CEO/Shareholders/BoardMembers/etc think than the safety of the product. This couldn't be further from the truth. These folks are not beholden to anyone. Have a process for reporting undue pressure to the FAA and will use that if management even tries to make them work excessive overtime to meet their own perceived schedules. There are even rules about how high up the management chain someone with delegated authority can be. Essentially you can't be higher than a first level manager.

Reading these types of threads is often frustrating on this site. A lot of assumptions based little in fact. The reality is far more complex. We are constantly leveraging previous aircraft experiences because that's the safest and best business minded choice to make. It's safe because we are relying on existing proven designs, and it makes business sense because we are leveraging existing production methods, available materials etc. The grandfathering process is not, and should not, go away. What should go away is this fear mongering that is currently going on that is suggesting there is some sort of flaw in the certification process. People make mistakes, and to suggest that MCAS would have been caught if the FAA had more oversight is misleading at best. In all likelihood, the person who approved the cert work related to MCAS would have been the same person - just wearing a shirt with FAA stitched on it instead of Boeing. Something was interpreted wrong or the way it was implemented didn't behave as they understood it to behave - that's it. It's a tragic mistake that potentially led to two mistakes. But to damn the whole certification process because of such a mistake is incredibly foolish.


Thanks for the well written description of how people actually work within the certification system.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2609
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:11 pm

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

I get what you are saying about the intertwined part.

So where, in your estimation, did the process break down?


The process breaks down when the media brings talking heads out to discuss aircraft accidents when there is no evidence to discuss at that point. They sensationalize the moment for ratings and when the real findings become apparent months or years later the amount of air time given to the truth is minimal.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8505
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:31 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
3 Pages and it seems only one person really knows what they're talking about (OldAeroGuy).

Here is a glimpse of reality. Suppose you say the FAA must now reclaim the certification process. What happens? Well, all of the current DER's or ODA members would be brought in under the FAA name, and to pay for it, say the FAA just charges the OEM's the cost the OEMs were paying those people to begin with. So essentially in this situation I'm saying the cost to the OEMs is unchanged. .


No certification authority works itself through the source code for a complex machine. This is impossible, you read the documentation on how the software is supposed to work and asses the risk of failure in case it fails.
It is way too early to asses if the FAA made a mistake during the certification of the MAX. If MCAS really changes the trim about 4 times faster than documented it changes the whole risk analysis, simply because the time frame for the crew to detect the failure becomes much shorter. (by about factor 4)

Anybody who already foresees consequences on the whole certification process is simply dishonest or has an agenda. At the moment we do not know what went wrong and who caused this. In the end we do not even know the exact technical problem, much less how the solution was certified and how much influence it had in the accidents.
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:40 pm

Te whole 0.6 vs. 2.5 degrees of adjustment really has me stumped. The former was documented and submitted and certified (?) but the latter somehow became the reality. To be honest, I really think someone screwed up a line of code or something. A mistake really, that unfortunately went unnoticed. I just almost feel it wasn't intentional. Or just hoping?
© 2019. All statements are my own. The use of my statements, including by journalists, YouTube vloggers like "DJ's Aviation", etc. without my written consent is strictly prohibited.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:52 pm

seahawk wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
3 Pages and it seems only one person really knows what they're talking about (OldAeroGuy).

Here is a glimpse of reality. Suppose you say the FAA must now reclaim the certification process. What happens? Well, all of the current DER's or ODA members would be brought in under the FAA name, and to pay for it, say the FAA just charges the OEM's the cost the OEMs were paying those people to begin with. So essentially in this situation I'm saying the cost to the OEMs is unchanged. .


No certification authority works itself through the source code for a complex machine. This is impossible, you read the documentation on how the software is supposed to work and asses the risk of failure in case it fails.
It is way too early to asses if the FAA made a mistake during the certification of the MAX. If MCAS really changes the trim about 4 times faster than documented it changes the whole risk analysis, simply because the time frame for the crew to detect the failure becomes much shorter. (by about factor 4)

Anybody who already foresees consequences on the whole certification process is simply dishonest or has an agenda. At the moment we do not know what went wrong and who caused this. In the end we do not even know the exact technical problem, much less how the solution was certified and how much influence it had in the accidents.


Seahawk touches an interesting issue. Naturally, legally anybody is not guilty until proven. This leads parties waiting for proof, before they take steps. Nothing wrong there. The FAA & Boeing hit the wall last week because of that approach, 2 crashes and even then they were dragging their feet waiting for confirmation / proof. Probably because of the aftermath they foresaw.

Safety Culture in Aviation Risk Management is about avoiding events before they happen, pre-empting them. Waiting for hard proof can be very damaging. Apparently there is grey area and other forces can drive decisions. That would be at the heart of today's investigation at Boeing and the FAA.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2609
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:00 pm

The interesting thing about "safety culture in aviation risk management" is that the best way to ensure a safe product is to leverage the existing products.. ie... grandfathering.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:06 pm

JHwk wrote:
Grandfathering isn’t the issue


Absolutely it is the issue. If a certification requirement mandates a certain parameter then there should be NO WAY to bypass that for an airframe submitted after the effective date of that requirement.

All the dodgy aspects of hacking around certification derive from the existence of that bypass capability.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9351
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:12 pm

ELBOB wrote:
JHwk wrote:
Grandfathering isn’t the issue


Absolutely it is the issue. If a certification requirement mandates a certain parameter then there should be NO WAY to bypass that for an airframe submitted after the effective date of that requirement.

All the dodgy aspects of hacking around certification derive from the existence of that bypass capability.

What if the 737Max MCAS was implemented correctly (ie had the supposed fix from the very beginning) and there was never any crashes or ever any training issues. Would you still say grandfathering is an issue with the 737Max in regards to safety, and demand re-evaluation? Do you feel unsafe on the 737NG? A320neo? A330neo? If the answer to those questions is no, then grandfathering isn’t what you have a problem with. It is the oversight of the certification, the overall certification process (new or grandfathered), or what data Boeing was supplying to the certifying authorities that you actually have an issue with. Would the MCAS issues been caught if the 737Max was certified like new?
 
texl1649
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:23 pm

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
Te whole 0.6 vs. 2.5 degrees of adjustment really has me stumped. The former was documented and submitted and certified (?) but the latter somehow became the reality. To be honest, I really think someone screwed up a line of code or something. A mistake really, that unfortunately went unnoticed. I just almost feel it wasn't intentional. Or just hoping?


It has been reported that this change was made due to experiences in flight testing. Apparently, it was communicated to the FAA (I assume on calls/emails) but wasn’t incorporated into the documentation. Of course, the whole existence/operation of MCAS wasn’t then communicated to pilots, let alone that repeated MCAS actuation could lead to ‘unlimited’ elevator movement to maximum nose down (not just 2.5 or .6 degrees). Reasonable flight control engineering at Boeing should have made many different design conclusions on this feature, even if it was only ‘hazardous’ (meaning it wouldn’t risk loss of the plane/lives, which it clearly isn’t).

The Lionair and ET pilots obviously were unaware of this, based on the findings in the former and elevator screw position wreckage in the latter.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:04 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Who cares as long as it's tested properly and certified with full safety.


That is the issue. The FAA exported much of the process to the manufacturer which is an absolutely appalling derogation of their duties as regulators. This was certainly done via a lobbying effort by Boeing which has one of the most expensive lobbying/buy politician efforts in Washington.

The 777X and any aircraft beyond a simple stretch should go through a normal certification process. This isn't for PR purposes but to demonstrate the airworthiness of the new aircraft. The 777X has a huge number of changes compared to the aircraft it is meant to replace. Amending the certificate is a pathetic short cut. The question is whether Congress can resist the absurd vote buying efforts of Boeing and codify the requirement. I don't trust the FAA to police itself at this point.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:06 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Of course, the whole existence/operation of MCAS wasn’t then communicated to pilots, let alone that repeated MCAS actuation could lead to ‘unlimited’ elevator movement to maximum nose down (not just 2.5 or .6 degrees).


text1649, I apologize in advance if this reply is too personal in nature but I've become a bit frustrated by people pontificating about these accidents when they really don't understand how MCAS works. I'm using your reply as an example of many responses.

MCAS does nothing to move the elevators, it moves the horizontal stabilizer. If people are going to comment, they should at least educate themselves on the operation of the system they are criticizing.

Furthermore, it would be best to wait until the accident reports have been published so all aspects of the accidents can be described. This would include system design, component reliability, maintenance actions, pilot performance etc. It is rare that any accident has only one cause. There is much that is still unknown.

Likewise, people who wish to criticize the 777X certification basis are doing so with no real knowledge of the certification basis content. In fact, it is probably vey close to what a new TC would entail for the new portions of the design. Using an example I made further up the thread, I'm pretty sure the magnetic compass hasn't had to be re-certified but that is probably the exception rather than the rule.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2609
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:43 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Likewise, people who wish to criticize the 777X certification basis are doing so with no real knowledge of the certification basis content. In fact, it is probably vey close to what a new TC would entail for the new portions of the design. Using an example I made further up the thread, I'm pretty sure the magnetic compass hasn't had to be re-certified but that is probably the exception rather than the rule.


Exactly! It's not like the wing is being grandfathered in. It's a brand new wing and they are stepping up to the newest regs to find compliance. They're going to do all the static and fatigue testing required.

This whole thread is a sham built on a complete lack of understanding of the certification process and should honestly be locked.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8505
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:28 pm

keesje wrote:
seahawk wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
3 Pages and it seems only one person really knows what they're talking about (OldAeroGuy).

Here is a glimpse of reality. Suppose you say the FAA must now reclaim the certification process. What happens? Well, all of the current DER's or ODA members would be brought in under the FAA name, and to pay for it, say the FAA just charges the OEM's the cost the OEMs were paying those people to begin with. So essentially in this situation I'm saying the cost to the OEMs is unchanged. .


No certification authority works itself through the source code for a complex machine. This is impossible, you read the documentation on how the software is supposed to work and asses the risk of failure in case it fails.
It is way too early to asses if the FAA made a mistake during the certification of the MAX. If MCAS really changes the trim about 4 times faster than documented it changes the whole risk analysis, simply because the time frame for the crew to detect the failure becomes much shorter. (by about factor 4)

Anybody who already foresees consequences on the whole certification process is simply dishonest or has an agenda. At the moment we do not know what went wrong and who caused this. In the end we do not even know the exact technical problem, much less how the solution was certified and how much influence it had in the accidents.


Seahawk touches an interesting issue. Naturally, legally anybody is not guilty until proven. This leads parties waiting for proof, before they take steps. Nothing wrong there. The FAA & Boeing hit the wall last week because of that approach, 2 crashes and even then they were dragging their feet waiting for confirmation / proof. Probably because of the aftermath they foresaw.

Safety Culture in Aviation Risk Management is about avoiding events before they happen, pre-empting them. Waiting for hard proof can be very damaging. Apparently there is grey area and other forces can drive decisions. That would be at the heart of today's investigation at Boeing and the FAA.


It is not my point. My point is that there is a big difference between the decision to ground the plane and the need to re-evaluate the certification process.

For the first plausible indication that there might be something wrong should be enough, for the analyses of the process you need to find out exactly what went wrong before you can take action. And I strongly dislike your wording that implies that there was some kind o collusion between Boeing and the FAA, we should simply wait for the results of the investigations before throwing the blame around. Still everything is possible from a simple human error, to criminal energy by the OEM up to collusion between the FAA and the OEM.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2609
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:57 pm

The post insinuates that there is a culture of people choosing to create unsafe aircraft just to make a quick buck. But this goes counter to historical context. Boeing is already making plenty of profit and they have a great safety record.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:15 pm

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Likewise, people who wish to criticize the 777X certification basis are doing so with no real knowledge of the certification basis content. In fact, it is probably vey close to what a new TC would entail for the new portions of the design. Using an example I made further up the thread, I'm pretty sure the magnetic compass hasn't had to be re-certified but that is probably the exception rather than the rule.


Exactly! It's not like the wing is being grandfathered in. It's a brand new wing and they are stepping up to the newest regs to find compliance. They're going to do all the static and fatigue testing required.

This whole thread is a sham built on a complete lack of understanding of the certification process and should honestly be locked.


I reported this thread yesterday as a bias attempt to kick a horse while it's down. No reply from the mods.

The answer is to avoid threads such as this with a trolling premise. The OP has much to offer, but unfortunately veers often into a similar variation on the same basic flavor. As I said upthread, there has been typical goalpost switch from "B77X is warmed over leftovers" to "brand new airplane that requires complete certification from the ground up". Throw in the inevitable other ingredients of the dish, namely accusing others of what you do yourself, a nice handful of martyrdom, a dash of "who me?" and you have the same old boring to consume same old..
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2609
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:22 pm

Bricktop wrote:
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:

Exactly! It's not like the wing is being grandfathered in. It's a brand new wing and they are stepping up to the newest regs to find compliance. They're going to do all the static and fatigue testing required.

This whole thread is a sham built on a complete lack of understanding of the certification process and should honestly be locked.


I reported this thread yesterday as a bias attempt to kick a horse while it's down. No reply from the mods.

The answer is to avoid threads such as this with a trolling premise. The OP has much to offer, but unfortunately veers often into a similar variation on the same basic flavor. As I said upthread, there has been typical goalpost switch from "B77X is warmed over leftovers" to "brand new airplane that requires complete certification from the ground up". Throw in the inevitable other ingredients of the dish, namely accusing others of what you do yourself, a nice handful of martyrdom, a dash of "who me?" and you have the same old boring to consume same old..


Don't forget the myriad of posts that say an A321(insert acronym here) modification would be the best response to a Boeing 797 and you can see the hypocrisy at work. On the one hand Airbus should utilize the grandfathering system for their response to a cleansheet program Boeing plans to go forward with, on the other hand Boeing should stop using the grandfathering practice because it is unsafe.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:49 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Likewise, people who wish to criticize the 777X certification basis are doing so with no real knowledge of the certification basis content. In fact, it is probably vey close to what a new TC would entail for the new portions of the design. Using an example I made further up the thread, I'm pretty sure the magnetic compass hasn't had to be re-certified but that is probably the exception rather than the rule.


Amending a certification shortens the process considerably, are you saying it does not? The 777X has major changes compared to the previous generation including wing, engines, pylons, MLG, environmental systems etc. I'm happy to be corrected if your claim that for those portions of the design which are "new," the FAA mandates full testing/documentation as they do for a brand new aircraft like the 787.

The notion that the manufacturer itself is in charge of any part of the certification process is absurd. What's the point of the FAA otherwise? We now know for example that the MCAS system on the Max was designed with a single point of failure built-in. That runs contrary to every critical flight system. Boeing designed the system. Either Boeing "certified" it with the FAA's rubber stamp or the FAA missed it in the design review.

My base point is that the FAA needs to stand apart from the manufacturer and fully review new aircraft. The amended STC is an example of short cuts we should not be taking.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2609
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:10 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Likewise, people who wish to criticize the 777X certification basis are doing so with no real knowledge of the certification basis content. In fact, it is probably vey close to what a new TC would entail for the new portions of the design. Using an example I made further up the thread, I'm pretty sure the magnetic compass hasn't had to be re-certified but that is probably the exception rather than the rule.


Amending a certification shortens the process considerably, are you saying it does not? The 777X has major changes compared to the previous generation including wing, engines, pylons, MLG, environmental systems etc. I'm happy to be corrected if your claim that for those portions of the design which are "new," the FAA mandates full testing/documentation as they do for a brand new aircraft like the 787.

The notion that the manufacturer itself is in charge of any part of the certification process is absurd. What's the point of the FAA otherwise? We now know for example that the MCAS system on the Max was designed with a single point of failure built-in. That runs contrary to every critical flight system. Boeing designed the system. Either Boeing "certified" it with the FAA's rubber stamp or the FAA missed it in the design review.

My base point is that the FAA needs to stand apart from the manufacturer and fully review new aircraft. The amended STC is an example of short cuts we should not be taking.


And your base point may make sense to someone who is unfamiliar with the certification process. Major changes don't happen in a vacuum. It's not like you can just slap a new composite wing on and say, viola! it fits on a 777, therefore it is the same! We don't have to test it then! To the contrary, everything is reanalyzed from the wing tip to deep into the fuselage to a point that is agreed upon as being sufficiently into the base structure to not have any further significant impact on the existing design. The change from a metallic wing to a CFRP wing would have varying impacts on the loads at the root of the wing. The increased wingspan would certainly result in higher bending moments at the root - but this may have been mitigated by other design modifications (such as possibly reducing total wing area) such that the total bending moment at the wing root may be approximately the same as before - thus allowing you to possibly re-use the existing drag links and carry thru structure. (editorial note: I'm not saying that this is what was actually done on 777x, I have no insider knowledge to share in this regard; only suggesting that this is one possible way of making this work.) This would not, of course, preclude any structural testing that would have to be done to prove the design.

Again.. the whole premise here is that engineers would take short cuts. It's utterly ridiculous. We FLY on our airplanes during test flights. Why the hell would we step on an aircraft we've designed if we weren't 100% confident in our design?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:26 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:
Amending a certification shortens the process considerably, are you saying it does not? The 777X has major changes compared to the previous generation including wing, engines, pylons, MLG, environmental systems etc. I'm happy to be corrected if your claim that for those portions of the design which are "new," the FAA mandates full testing/documentation as they do for a brand new aircraft like the 787.


Amending the TC saves resources as you don't have to recertify things that haven't changed. Time may not be saved though. Look at the 777-9 flight test program. It will take about a year which is par for the course for a new airplane. It all depends if the change are on the critical path.

This is spelled out in AC 21.101-1B, usually know as the Changed Product Rule (CPR, ironic isn't it). As I said early in this thread, if you don't understand this AC, you should refrain from commenting on amended TC's. Basically, if a part has changed in fit, form or function, it needs to be certified to the latest regulations. The 777X wing certainly fits in this category.

SonomaFlyer wrote:
The notion that the manufacturer itself is in charge of any part of the certification process is absurd. What's the point of the FAA otherwise?


To develop airworthiness regulations and oversee OEM compliance with the regulations. Compliance is usually performed by OEM employees selected by the certification agency. The OEM employees are picked based on their experience, technical expertise and regulatory knowledge. This system has been in place since the 1950's.

SonomaFlyer wrote:
My base point is that the FAA needs to stand apart from the manufacturer and fully review new aircraft.


Then you're asking the FAA/EASA and any other certification agency to take about 20 years to hire and educate the staff required to do this job. As the industry stands right now, only the OEM's have the staff to do what you're asking.

A large portion of the regulatory staff are former OEM staff. I was approached at one time to go from an OEM to an agency. I declined because I preferred to create new products as opposed to regulating those products.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:46 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Again.. the whole premise here is that engineers would take short cuts. It's utterly ridiculous. We FLY on our airplanes during test flights. Why the hell would we step on an aircraft we've designed if we weren't 100% confident in our design?

Engineers designed, implemented and audited MCAS. They made multiple mistakes. Perhaps one of the mistakes was potentially having the same person, wearing a different shirt (earlier poster's comment), auditing their own work.

If there had been no accidents, MCAS philosophy as in the MAX, would then be potentially incorporated and scaled in different models, including FBW.

Bet MCAS was sold to the FAA as the grandfathered evolution of STS, which is why MCAS was subject to little scrutiny - wasn't deemed to be a new system.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:08 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
It's not like you can just slap a new composite wing on and say, viola! it fits on a 777, therefore it is the same! We don't have to test it then! To the contrary, everything is reanalyzed from the wing tip to deep into the fuselage to a point that is AGREED UPON as being sufficiently into the base structure to not have any further significant impact on the existing design. The change from a metallic wing to a CFRP wing would have varying impacts on the loads at the root of the wing. The increased wingspan would certainly result in higher bending moments at the root - but this may have been mitigated by other design modifications (such as possibly reducing total wing area) such that the total bending moment at the wing root may be approximately the same as before - thus allowing you to possibly re-use the existing drag links and carry thru structure. (editorial note: I'm not saying that this is what was actually done on 777x, I have no insider knowledge to share in this regard; only suggesting that this is one possible way of making this work.) This would not, of course, preclude any structural testing that would have to be done to prove the design.

Two weaknesses of grandfathering, as presently exists.

Agreed upon. Agreed between whom? The OEM expert, and the same OEM expert delegated to approve by the airworthiness authority?

Grandfathering permits modelling and testing to be curtailed. Grandfathering permits scaling, using other models and modelling. For example, the 777X will use elements of the 787 for grandfathering, just as 707 fuselage construction techniques were scaled to 747, and grandfathered for the 767 and 777.

Every new model uses grandfathering to a certain extent, and that new model, then becomes the 'base' for future grandfathering. So the 100/200 (and quite possibly other Boeing models too) was the grandfathering base for the classic. The classic was the grandfathering base for the NG. The NG was the grandfathering base for the MAX.

Interesting to see if the FAA were concerned the grandfathering pyramid was getting too high for the 737, and how those findings translate to the X, proposed 797/NSA, and Airbus family models too.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20918
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:05 pm

keesje wrote:
Wow, the cooperation process between DoT, FAA and Boeing has been going south rapidly over fast in the last few days.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/fbi-joining-criminal-investigation-into-certification-of-boeing-737-max/

Unfortunately the article whose link you posted doesn't justify your comment.

The article says the FBI is joining the investigation of the 737 MAX's certification.

The article says nothing about the cooperation between DoT, FAA and Boeing changing in any way.

We don't know if the investigation itself or the FBI's involvement will cause southward or northward changes in cooperation.

Right now it seems to me they are being jointly investigated and they'll sink or swim together.

Both parties know no matter what, they will be co-dependent for a long time to come.

keesje wrote:
I wonder if the investigation will be limited to the 737MAX certification or that DoT refuses to see the certification process of the 777-9 as a separate topic. It seems the current investigation is more process focused than aircraft type focused.

This is a great example of a loaded question:

A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Can you tell us the basis of your controversial assumption that the DoT does (or does not) see the certification process of the 777-9 as a separate topic?

It's not easy to figure out what your actual concerns are.

IMO it'd be better if you just tell us what your concerns are instead of posting them as questions.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:50 pm

smartplane wrote:
Grandfathering permits scaling, using other models and modelling. For example, the 777X will use elements of the 787 for grandfathering, just as 707 fuselage construction techniques were scaled to 747, and grandfathered for the 767 and 777.


What are you talking about?

Do you mean that material properties testing such as bench strength testing and corrosion resistance testing can be used for many models and that represents "grandfathering"?

If this thread has devolved to that level, it needs to be closed.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6259
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:32 pm

ELBOB wrote:
JHwk wrote:
Grandfathering isn’t the issue


Absolutely it is the issue. If a certification requirement mandates a certain parameter then there should be NO WAY to bypass that for an airframe submitted after the effective date of that requirement.

All the dodgy aspects of hacking around certification derive from the existence of that bypass capability.


It’s called the Product Change Rule. If something wasn’t changed from the previous derivative (i.e. from the 777-300ER to the 777X, then it can comply with the FAR at the same amendment level of the previous derivative if the regulator approves.

This isn’t always granted either. For example the 767-2C (aka KC-46) had to comply with CFR 25.1322 at amendment 131, which the previous 767 models did not.

The 777-9 also has to comply with the new CFR 25.1302 and also 25.1322 at and 131 which the previous 777s did not.

As usual, there is a lot of drama, sensationalism and inaccurate information posted in this thread by A.net posters who really have no idea how certification works, or what they are talking about.

Let’s just make up a bogus term “grandfathering” and make up bogus accusations against Boeing and the FAA.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2609
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:47 am

These threads really need better monitoring because you end up with folks in the media (that we know lurk in these forums) reading these posts and taking them as fact. Reality is so much different.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:16 pm

"Certification for Boeing 777x could be delayed as many regulators including China, Europe and Canada have signalled that they will not rubber stamp an FAA decision."

http://newsinflight.com/2019/03/27/certification-for-boeing-777x-could-be-delayed/
https://trending.network/view/PCqyrnyHl4s/boeing-777x-certification-could-be-delayed

There will be close cooperation between the FAA and EASA to prevent significant delayed certification.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6259
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:39 pm

keesje wrote:
"Certification for Boeing 777x could be delayed as many regulators including China, Europe and Canada have signalled that they will not rubber stamp an FAA decision."

http://newsinflight.com/2019/03/27/certification-for-boeing-777x-could-be-delayed/
https://trending.network/view/PCqyrnyHl4s/boeing-777x-certification-could-be-delayed

There will be close cooperation between the FAA and EASA to prevent significant delayed certification.


This has always been the case. It’s nothing new.

A few examples: Boeing had further scrutiny from the CAAC in the color design of a certain switch, that the FAA and EASA didn’t squawk. EASA has certain requirements that the FAA doesn’t. For example, EASA required a unique aural alert even on EICAS airplanes for Autopilot Disconnect. The FAA did not for many years, but followed EASA’s lead several years ago. (That’s why the 787, KC-46, and 777X have the AUTOPILOT DISC wailer as baseline).

I’m not sure what is so new about this.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13025
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 777-8/-9 Grandfathering Certification, 777X or 7X7?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:45 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
"Certification for Boeing 777x could be delayed as many regulators including China, Europe and Canada have signalled that they will not rubber stamp an FAA decision."

http://newsinflight.com/2019/03/27/certification-for-boeing-777x-could-be-delayed/
https://trending.network/view/PCqyrnyHl4s/boeing-777x-certification-could-be-delayed

There will be close cooperation between the FAA and EASA to prevent significant delayed certification.


This has always been the case. It’s nothing new.

A few examples: Boeing had further scrutiny from the CAAC in the color design of a certain switch, that the FAA and EASA didn’t squawk. EASA has certain requirements that the FAA doesn’t. For example, EASA required a unique aural alert even on EICAS airplanes for Autopilot Disconnect. The FAA did not for many years, but followed EASA’s lead several years ago. (That’s why the 787, KC-46, and 777X have the AUTOPILOT DISC wailer as baseline).

I’m not sure what is so new about this.


The Lufthansa CEO thinks it has changed.

“Overall, foreign authorities will be more thorough in accepting American certifications. I think that for me is one of the outputs of these terrible events in Indonesia and Ethiopia already,” Chief Executive of Lufthansa Carsten Spohr told reporters."
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos