• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13693
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:53 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Let’s just make up a bogus term “grandfathering” and make up bogus accusations against Boeing and the FAA.


I think it is very unfair on your fellow members here to try and accuse them of using a “bogus term” grandfather, when it is commonly used in industry.

“The U.S. regulator has shown "a surprising amount of flexibility" allowing significantly updated aircraft with new engines and wings to be grandfathered, said Hans Weber, president of Tecop International Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in aircraft certification.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-777 ... 1398916634

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-219625/
Last edited by zeke on Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
smartplane
Posts: 973
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:55 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.

What's new is the FAA and other airworthiness authorities will increase scrutiny, and if for example EASA raises issues, instead of FAA defending the Boeing position, there is likely to be more robust discussions involving FAA, EASA and Boeing.

Boeing would be wise to quarantine those involved in certifying the MAX from the X, as may trigger peer reviews of their involvement in the 787 and X.

What is the current timeline for X FAA certification? Surely there will be delays, as ongoing MAX investigations will have an impact on already finite Boeing and FAA resources, and increased FAA (versus Boeing) oversight on the X.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6257
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:17 pm

zeke wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
Let’s just make up a bogus term “grandfathering” and make up bogus accusations against Boeing and the FAA.


I think it is very unfair on your fellow members here to try and accuse them of using a “bogus term” grandfather, when it is commonly used in industry.

“The U.S. regulator has shown "a surprising amount of flexibility" allowing significantly updated aircraft with new engines and wings to be grandfathered, said Hans Weber, president of Tecop International Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in aircraft certification.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-777 ... 1398916634

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-219625/


I was more commenting on the bogus information posted all over this forum and the specific misinformation posted on this thread about the certification basis of the 777X.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:53 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.


What you are writing about here is wishful thinking, Garden of Eden utopia, only to be found in textbooks, not the workfloor.
At any aircraft design organisation, there is something called a quality department. The first step to reporting an issue is an occurrence report with the quality department.
If you try to report directly to authorities, authorities will ask you if you have reported to the quality department first, unless we're talking about outright criminal negligence that has already resulted in an accident.
The quality department keeps all reports on file and can decide whether to further report it to the appropriate authorities.
So OEM's and MRO's will be providing you with trainings about good practice and advertise "no shame, no blame" cultures, bla bla bla.

In the reality of the workfloor, report an occurrence or an issue and your career is done.

I once reported an issue in an MRO owned by a major airline group. They implemented a new logistics system, which caused them to no longer be in compliance with procedures. The issues dragged on for months and there was no improvement in sight.
Instead of going straight to the quality department, I reported it to the management to give them a chance to fix it.
Do you think that they thanked me for it?
Hahaha, quite the opposite, said manager started going after me.

Do you think that this cozyness only exists between Boeing and the FAA?
I know for a fact that most audits at my MRO ended with a lunch with the auditors at a poshy restaurant.
Do not forget that airlines also represent government interests in many cases.

It's very very hard to find proper integrity in the aerospace industry.
Whether we talk about Gambia or the U.S.A or Europe, corruption is omnipresent.
That is the reality and the public should know it.

Safety first is just a slogan.
Money and power is what it's really all about.

Here is a good starting point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0glSFfmeH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:09 am

Waterbomber2 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.

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.


What you are writing about here is wishful thinking, Garden of Eden utopia, only to be found in textbooks, not the workfloor.
At any aircraft design organisation, there is something called a quality department. The first step to reporting an issue is an occurrence report with the quality department.
If you try to report directly to authorities, authorities will ask you if you have reported to the quality department first, unless we're talking about outright criminal negligence that has already resulted in an accident.
The quality department keeps all reports on file and can decide whether to further report it to the appropriate authorities.
So OEM's and MRO's will be providing you with trainings about good practice and advertise "no shame, no blame" cultures, bla bla bla.

In the reality of the workfloor, report an occurrence or an issue and your career is done.

I once reported an issue in an MRO owned by a major airline group. They implemented a new logistics system, which caused them to no longer be in compliance with procedures. The issues dragged on for months and there was no improvement in sight.
Instead of going straight to the quality department, I reported it to the management to give them a chance to fix it.
Do you think that they thanked me for it?
Hahaha, quite the opposite, said manager started going after me.

Do you think that this cozyness only exists between Boeing and the FAA?
I know for a fact that most audits at my MRO ended with a lunch with the auditors at a poshy restaurant.
Do not forget that airlines also represent government interests in many cases.

It's very very hard to find proper integrity in the aerospace industry.
Whether we talk about Gambia or the U.S.A or Europe, corruption is omnipresent.
That is the reality and the public should know it.

Safety first is just a slogan.
Money and power is what it's really all about.

Here is a good starting point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0glSFfmeH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os


Your bad experience is not the status quo. Going around and claiming that it is a widespread epidemic is disingenuous at best, fearmongering at worst. I work in the industry and have experienced the complete opposite. You say all these things about your MRO but have you done anything to report it? Because if you haven't you are just part of the problem.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:50 am

trpmb6 wrote:
Waterbomber2 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.

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.


What you are writing about here is wishful thinking, Garden of Eden utopia, only to be found in textbooks, not the workfloor.
At any aircraft design organisation, there is something called a quality department. The first step to reporting an issue is an occurrence report with the quality department.
If you try to report directly to authorities, authorities will ask you if you have reported to the quality department first, unless we're talking about outright criminal negligence that has already resulted in an accident.
The quality department keeps all reports on file and can decide whether to further report it to the appropriate authorities.
So OEM's and MRO's will be providing you with trainings about good practice and advertise "no shame, no blame" cultures, bla bla bla.

In the reality of the workfloor, report an occurrence or an issue and your career is done.

I once reported an issue in an MRO owned by a major airline group. They implemented a new logistics system, which caused them to no longer be in compliance with procedures. The issues dragged on for months and there was no improvement in sight.
Instead of going straight to the quality department, I reported it to the management to give them a chance to fix it.
Do you think that they thanked me for it?
Hahaha, quite the opposite, said manager started going after me.

Do you think that this cozyness only exists between Boeing and the FAA?
I know for a fact that most audits at my MRO ended with a lunch with the auditors at a poshy restaurant.
Do not forget that airlines also represent government interests in many cases.

It's very very hard to find proper integrity in the aerospace industry.
Whether we talk about Gambia or the U.S.A or Europe, corruption is omnipresent.
That is the reality and the public should know it.

Safety first is just a slogan.
Money and power is what it's really all about.

Here is a good starting point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0glSFfmeH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os


Your bad experience is not the status quo. Going around and claiming that it is a widespread epidemic is disingenuous at best, fearmongering at worst. I work in the industry and have experienced the complete opposite. You say all these things about your MRO but have you done anything to report it? Because if you haven't you are just part of the problem.


Sadly it is the industry norm and happy for you if you are working within an organisation with a good culture.
They are rare but they do exist.

Regarding your question about reporting it, as written above, reporting got me in a world of trouble. I decided that my soul is not for sale and left the industry. I passed an interview with an Airbus supplier as quality inspector, but when presented the miserable contract, I decided that I was too good for this industry.
Most people put up with it, because if you quit from an MRO, it's not like you have 20 other MRO's waiting to hire you.
Plus, if you report something, good luck getting hired anywhere.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20606
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:00 pm

keesje wrote:
“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.

And yet the same Chief Executive of Lufthansa Carsten Spohr answers the following question pretty definitively:

The 737 MAX grounding was unprecedented in that foreign authorities were the first to rule against it. Is this a new normal in global aviation regulation?

I hope this is an exceptional situation being caused by the 737 MAX accidents. All authorities need to trust one another. This is a global industry, we need global standards wherever [possible]. Assuming every country will have its own certification systems, that is just not realistic when it comes to resources and knowledge.

[Joint certification by German and U.S. authorities on Lufthansa’s Boeing 777X order] is there and is going on . . . and is in no way disturbed by the 737 MAX events. I [trust that] this will continue to go on and that we won’t have any delays.

Ref: https://aviationweek.com/aviation-week- ... 9045dc32cc
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
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
“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.

And yet the same Chief Executive of Lufthansa Carsten Spohr answers the following question pretty definitively:

The 737 MAX grounding was unprecedented in that foreign authorities were the first to rule against it. Is this a new normal in global aviation regulation?


you can interpret that into various directions.

LH is known to show deep scrutiny in buying frames. ( or go for defineing an airframe to be developed, see the original 737-100, that was LH's child.)
Would LH have accepted a MAX with the setup as it existed pre the crashes? ( They ordered the two tastes of NEO though )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20606
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:34 pm

WIederling wrote:
Would LH have accepted a MAX with the setup as it existed pre the crashes? ( They ordered the two tastes of NEO though )

Pretty sure answering that would be off topic, no?

The point I'm addressing is that the LH CEO is saying the 777x certification is in no way disturbed by the 737 MAX events, and I presume he'd be in a position to get updates on the topic.
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
 
smartplane
Posts: 973
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Would LH have accepted a MAX with the setup as it existed pre the crashes? ( They ordered the two tastes of NEO though )

Pretty sure answering that would be off topic, no?

The point I'm addressing is that the LH CEO is saying the 777x certification is in no way disturbed by the 737 MAX events, and I presume he'd be in a position to get updates on the topic.

And what would have prompted that statement?

Clearly neither airlines or OEM's want a slower certification process, or for the 777X to be linked with / tainted by the MAX.

Unfortunately they are linked. There must be Boeing and FAA staff involved in the MAX approval process who have 'touched' the X. Staff with the credentials to certify components, systems and entire aircraft, are not exactly thick on the ground in the USA or Europe.

What OEM's and customers want, is going to take a back seat to the political expedients of ensuring the lax management of the past is not repeated. So staff with MAX association, and staff brought in since, are going to be ultra conservative, as are senior management at the the respective authorities.

They want to try to separate the new found caution following the MAX which will slow certification for the forseeable future, and may lead to media and anet inference, that the X has MAX characteristics / shares technical staff input / needs remedial work.

The other between the lines message, is please don't change the rules for the X - namely removing or capping grandfathering, as this project is part way through development. Expect a me too statement from Airbus, who won't want to be caught by the same changes which could impact A320 family developments. If A & B are being mutually supportive (the LH CEO statement is part one of one side), expect a similar statement from a US-based Airbus customer.

If A & B are not being mutually supportive, and US silence follows........................
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:43 pm

smartplane wrote:
Revelation wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Would LH have accepted a MAX with the setup as it existed pre the crashes? ( They ordered the two tastes of NEO though )

Pretty sure answering that would be off topic, no?

The point I'm addressing is that the LH CEO is saying the 777x certification is in no way disturbed by the 737 MAX events, and I presume he'd be in a position to get updates on the topic.

And what would have prompted that statement?

Clearly neither airlines or OEM's want a slower certification process, or for the 777X to be linked with / tainted by the MAX.

Unfortunately they are linked. There must be Boeing and FAA staff involved in the MAX approval process who have 'touched' the X. Staff with the credentials to certify components, systems and entire aircraft, are not exactly thick on the ground in the USA or Europe.

What OEM's and customers want, is going to take a back seat to the political expedients of ensuring the lax management of the past is not repeated. So staff with MAX association, and staff brought in since, are going to be ultra conservative, as are senior management at the the respective authorities.

They want to try to separate the new found caution following the MAX which will slow certification for the forseeable future, and may lead to media and anet inference, that the X has MAX characteristics / shares technical staff input / needs remedial work.

The other between the lines message, is please don't change the rules for the X - namely removing or capping grandfathering, as this project is part way through development. Expect a me too statement from Airbus, who won't want to be caught by the same changes which could impact A320 family developments. If A & B are being mutually supportive (the LH CEO statement is part one of one side), expect a similar statement from a US-based Airbus customer.

If A & B are not being mutually supportive, and US silence follows........................


What Carsten Spohr is saying is this.

Safety first, but if Boeing needs to certify their aircraft separetely with different authorities to guarantee that safety, the aircraft are going to cost more and I don't want to pay more.
So safety first and money first too, but if I have to choose between them, money firstest of the first.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12934
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:32 pm

smartplane wrote:
Revelation wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Would LH have accepted a MAX with the setup as it existed pre the crashes? ( They ordered the two tastes of NEO though )

Pretty sure answering that would be off topic, no?

The point I'm addressing is that the LH CEO is saying the 777x certification is in no way disturbed by the 737 MAX events, and I presume he'd be in a position to get updates on the topic.

And what would have prompted that statement?

Clearly neither airlines or OEM's want a slower certification process, or for the 777X to be linked with / tainted by the MAX.

Unfortunately they are linked. There must be Boeing and FAA staff involved in the MAX approval process who have 'touched' the X. Staff with the credentials to certify components, systems and entire aircraft, are not exactly thick on the ground in the USA or Europe.

What OEM's and customers want, is going to take a back seat to the political expedients of ensuring the lax management of the past is not repeated. So staff with MAX association, and staff brought in since, are going to be ultra conservative, as are senior management at the the respective authorities.

They want to try to separate the new found caution following the MAX which will slow certification for the forseeable future, and may lead to media and anet inference, that the X has MAX characteristics / shares technical staff input / needs remedial work.

The other between the lines message, is please don't change the rules for the X - namely removing or capping grandfathering, as this project is part way through development. Expect a me too statement from Airbus, who won't want to be caught by the same changes which could impact A320 family developments. If A & B are being mutually supportive (the LH CEO statement is part one of one side), expect a similar statement from a US-based Airbus customer.

If A & B are not being mutually supportive, and US silence follows........................



If Airbus does an A321 Plus Plus, with an entirely new wing, fodable wingtips, new landing gear, new engines, pylons, enlarged tail surfaces, new cockpit, systems and stretched fuselage build of new materials, EASA would lose credibility if they allowed grand fathering of original A320 requirements and A320 designs as cerification base. Because it would also be a new aircaft.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
smartplane
Posts: 973
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:11 pm

keesje wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Clearly neither airlines or OEM's want a slower certification process, or for the 777X to be linked with / tainted by the MAX.

Unfortunately they are linked. There must be Boeing and FAA staff involved in the MAX approval process who have 'touched' the X. Staff with the credentials to certify components, systems and entire aircraft, are not exactly thick on the ground in the USA or Europe.

What OEM's and customers want, is going to take a back seat to the political expedients of ensuring the lax management of the past is not repeated. So staff with MAX association, and staff brought in since, are going to be ultra conservative, as are senior management at the the respective authorities.

They want to try to separate the new found caution following the MAX which will slow certification for the forseeable future, and may lead to media and anet inference, that the X has MAX characteristics / shares technical staff input / needs remedial work.

The other between the lines message, is please don't change the rules for the X - namely removing or capping grandfathering, as this project is part way through development. Expect a me too statement from Airbus, who won't want to be caught by the same changes which could impact A320 family developments. If A & B are being mutually supportive (the LH CEO statement is part one of one side), expect a similar statement from a US-based Airbus customer.

If A & B are not being mutually supportive, and US silence follows........................



If Airbus does an A321 Plus Plus, with an entirely new wing, fodable wingtips, new landing gear, new engines, pylons, enlarged tail surfaces, new cockpit, systems and stretched fuselage build of new materials, EASA would lose credibility if they allowed grand fathering of original A320 requirements and A320 designs as cerification base. Because it would also be a new aircaft.

That's why the next moves are going to be fascinating and revealing.

Is the X going to get a free pass, because it's already under-development? Will Airbus reveal the A322 and new wing are also already under development, so should be accorded the same treatment? Will Boeing reveal the 797 is under development, based on the 787 or even 767, so eligible for pre-existing grandfathering?

Whats going on at EASA, TC, CAAC and CAA? New global airworthiness standards, or even a global airworthiness authority? Brains trust in Montreal next week?
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:27 pm

What a bizarre thread. The OP, as usual, started it to continue salivating over the thought of harming Boeing in any way possible. Nothing new there. Then you have several people screaming that the FAA should have their own people certifying aircraft even though there is no talent pool to hire from. Believe it or not there aren't just people sitting at home unemployed with knowledge of 777 engineering and systems design. Boeing doesn't build the batteries that go in their 787. Whoever certified them, it wasn't Boeing. I'm tired of hearing about it. If you are going to hold Boeing accountable for 787 batteries then you should hold Airbus accountable for A320neo GTF engines. Meanwhile I will wait for the Max investigations to run their course before judgments on it.
 
texl1649
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:45 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
What a bizarre thread. The OP, as usual, started it to continue salivating over the thought of harming Boeing in any way possible. Nothing new there. Then you have several people screaming that the FAA should have their own people certifying aircraft even though there is no talent pool to hire from. Believe it or not there aren't just people sitting at home unemployed with knowledge of 777 engineering and systems design. Boeing doesn't build the batteries that go in their 787. Whoever certified them, it wasn't Boeing. I'm tired of hearing about it. If you are going to hold Boeing accountable for 787 batteries then you should hold Airbus accountable for A320neo GTF engines. Meanwhile I will wait for the Max investigations to run their course before judgments on it.


Yes for some reason his antics are tolerated here. The GTF engine shutdowns due to their mounting (which led to cooling/wear issues) were tolerated for years on the NEO, and regulators took basically no notice. All because they rushed it into production/service to prevent Boeing from launching a new 737 replacement. Good point.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:20 pm

texl1649 wrote:
All because they rushed it into production/service to prevent Boeing from launching a new 737 replacement.

When was the NEO announced and when did the NEO have EIS ?
Barely 2 years of rushing it to market?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12934
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:56 pm

If Boeing and the FAA took the same approach on the 777X as on the 737MAX we will have to see how certification proceeds. In my opinion it would help if people support clear responsibilities and flight safety standards instead of sub par attacks on anyone asking questions on relevant certification processes.

This a very good article if you can read it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/boeing-777x-clears-hurdle-with-faa-1398916634
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:51 am

keesje wrote:
If Boeing and the FAA took the same approach on the 777X as on the 737MAX we will have to see how certification proceeds. In my opinion it would help if people support clear responsibilities and flight safety standards instead of sub par attacks on anyone asking questions on relevant certification processes.

This a very good article if you can read it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/boeing-777x-clears-hurdle-with-faa-1398916634


At this stage of the Program, the 777-9 Certification basis is locked down. I doubt the 737 MAX issues will change the 777-9 basis.

But just for fun, enlighten us all as to what "grandfathering" instance is implicated in the 737 MAX accidents?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
WPIAeroGuy
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:52 pm

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:02 am

Having worked in the industry myself, BoeingGuy and OldAeroGuy are the only ones that have a clue what they are talking about.

If ‘grandfathering’ is eliminated, what you’re actually saying is that the original type’s certification basis is no longer safe. If there’s a safety concern with a current type, issue an AD or SB to directly fix the issue.

Since everyone is arguing in generalities I looked at the specific regs that would have been affected during max certification. The 737 Max8 TCDS is A16WE. I am not an expert on flight controls, but I believe this regulation is the most appropriate: 25.672 Stability Augmentation and Automatic and Power Operated Systems. The latest amendment of this reg is Amendment 32, which is also the reg the Max is certified to. I’ll need more time to dive in and see if there’s any glaring omissions, but if anyone wants to make an argument against grandfathering I suggest looking at the regs and identifying specifically which ones were certified to an old amendment before making claims.
-WPIAeroGuy
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1066
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:41 am

keesje wrote:
In my opinion it would help if people support clear responsibilities and flight safety standards


Where are the people who don’t support clear responsibilities and flight safety standards. This line of attack is 100% strawman? There have been several people here to factually point out areas where the standards are being raised, but those points are seemingly not being acknowledged.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13693
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:38 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
But just for fun, enlighten us all as to what "grandfathering" instance is implicated in the 737 MAX accidents?


I don’t know enough about the MAX failure mode to comment on that.

What I will say if after the FAA issued the TCDS for the 737NG which had its flight control system grandfathered from earlier 737s (and even borrowing from the 707), the JAA required additional changes for the low speed stall situation before they would issue the TCDS.

As part of that change the stall detection circuit via the speed trim function trims the stabilizer to a nose down condition to allow for trim above the stick shaker AOA and idle thrust. The trim continues until the stabilizer gets to its limits or the aft column cutout position is exceeded.

These are the FCC/SYMD changes made after the FAA 737NG TCDS was issued.

JPL 701-799, 803-899, 901-999

The stall detection circuit monitors the flap position and the angle of airflow. Near stall, the speed trim function trims the stabilizer to a nose down condition to allow for trim above the stick shaker AOA and idle thrust. The trim continues until the stabilizer gets to its limits or the aft column cutout position is exceeded.

If the roll angle from the ADIRU is more than 40 degrees, it opens an electronic switch and stops the speed trim signals.

JPL 801, 802

The stall detection circuit monitors the flap position and the angle of airflow. If it calculates that the airplane is near a stall condition, it opens a switch and stops the speed trim signals.

If the roll angle from the ADIRU is more than 40 degrees, it opens the same switch and stops the speed trim signals.


I understand that a unexpected behaviour of that low speed function was partially attributed to the crash of 737-500 registered VQ-BBN operated by Tatarstan Airlines.

This low speed trimming to limit seems to be very similar process MCAS seemed to be using. It is almost like the copied and pasted the low speed process and used it for MCAS with a different initial trigger. The low speed function trim continues until the stabilizer gets to its limits or the aft column cutout position is exceeded.

The 777 is a totally different architecture to the 737, comparisons between them are as about as valid as comparing a 737 to an A320.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:47 pm

I’ve lost track of what we are actually discussing. Has anyone actually stated what grandfathering is in terms of how it applies to amended type certificates? What FARs and CFRs are we talking about?

Seems like a battle between America and Europe.

I have the utmost respect for both The FAA and EASA. We will all learn from recent events. It is incredibly important that the regulatory agencies work together because in cases like the recent 737 MAX events, FAA is party to the investigation, but EASA is not. They don’t have access to the same information, so it is important for the agencies to work together and not recreate a battle of the Atlantic.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12934
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:57 pm

When certifying a modification to an existing design, you are focusing on the differences with the previous design. You are addressing if/how the changes have effect on a string of requirements "qualification" (E.g. flammability, flight stability, strength, weight/cg, etc etc.). You are explaining the differences have no negative effect on safety, using certification by similarity, computation, testing, etc.

If are you using that approach on an entirely new design, the risk you are missing out on interfaces between systems grows. Specially if you are using requirements valid at the time of certification of the certification base (grandfathering rights).

E.g. if you certify MCAS as part of the existing Speed Trim System (STS) for a speed stability augmentation, you might not fully understand the changed aircraft configuration effects on it, if you use an aircraft with a different configuration and different (older) requirements as certification base. Specially if you aim to leave out human interfaces.

I think comparing the 737MAX and 777X, the latter is hardly a subversion anymore & I can understand the FAA tried to kill far reaching grandfathering rights in the past.

"There may be a considerable difference between the standards required for a new product and for a product undergoing change," the FAA points out, explaining: "The amendments are needed to address the trend toward fewer products that are of completely new design and more products with multiple changes to previously approved designs."


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-rules-kill-39grandfather-rights39-in-usa-and-europe-67064/

You have to wonder what changed since 2000 and why.
Last edited by keesje on Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:41 pm

Murphy is an optimist
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6257
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:08 pm

WPIAeroGuy wrote:
Having worked in the industry myself, BoeingGuy and OldAeroGuy are the only ones that have a clue what they are talking about.

If ‘grandfathering’ is eliminated, what you’re actually saying is that the original type’s certification basis is no longer safe. If there’s a safety concern with a current type, issue an AD or SB to directly fix the issue.

Since everyone is arguing in generalities I looked at the specific regs that would have been affected during max certification. The 737 Max8 TCDS is A16WE. I am not an expert on flight controls, but I believe this regulation is the most appropriate: 25.672 Stability Augmentation and Automatic and Power Operated Systems. The latest amendment of this reg is Amendment 32, which is also the reg the Max is certified to. I’ll need more time to dive in and see if there’s any glaring omissions, but if anyone wants to make an argument against grandfathering I suggest looking at the regs and identifying specifically which ones were certified to an old amendment before making claims.


Thanks for your nice comment. I’ve had a few people PM me too and thank me for my postings.

Apparently the moderators don’t think so though. Once again they deleted one of my lengthy comments providing FACTS and rebuttal to a habitual Boeing attacker.

I think I’m done participating on A.net. I feel like I’ve made significant contributions but apparently we’d rather turn it into a lot of sensationalism, tabloid type postings without factual basis, and attacks against Boeing. Those kind of postings are apparently welcome.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20606
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:39 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
I feel like I’ve made significant contributions...

I think so, so significant that they get ignored time and time again.

Maybe someday we will get an answer to:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

keesje wrote:
If Boeing and the FAA took the same approach on the 777X as on the 737MAX we will have to see how certification proceeds. In my opinion it would help if people support clear responsibilities and flight safety standards instead of sub par attacks on anyone asking questions on relevant certification processes.

This a very good article if you can read it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.co ... 1398916634

At this stage of the Program, the 777-9 Certification basis is locked down. I doubt the 737 MAX issues will change the 777-9 basis.

But just for fun, enlighten us all as to what "grandfathering" instance is implicated in the 737 MAX accidents?

I think maybe the inconvenient truth, that the 777-9 Certification basis is already locked down, is perhaps being missed in this long running thread, and maybe sensationalist terms such as grandfathering are being used irresponsibly, but it's hard to know without clarification on what is actually meant.

Hopefully someday we will get an answer to an interesting question.
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: 12934
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:59 pm

I think certification processes that people might think are locked down, are broken open as we speak.

With good reason, the ones locking them down are under investigation. The rooting for the home team I see here is amazing.

Lack of opposition on type certification, might have slowly grown into something damaging.

Companies & authorities might have worked shoulder to shoulder to face the competition

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/capt-sullenberger-737-max-crashes-reveal-cozy-relationship-between-boeing-faa

In this post I see trying to suppress questions, suggest deletions, divert focus, kill the messenger, try to turn it into A vs B . :yuck:

Maybe there is an attitude problem. Last week DoJ started an investigation for a reason.

:arrow: For the 777X : the same FAA, the same Boeing, same time span, competitive pressure, a similar upgrade, both based on grand fathering rights for designs & requirements.
:arrow: It would be highly unprofessional and possibly negligent to look the other way, like a few posters promote here on a.net.
:arrow: EASA & CAA won't, so the FAA can't.

http://www.travelweekly.com.au/article/us-department-of-justice-launches-investigation-into-boeing-737-max/

Things changed, live with it.
Last edited by keesje on Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:16 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:09 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
I think I’m done participating on A.net. I feel like I’ve made significant contributions but apparently we’d rather turn it into a lot of sensationalism, tabloid type postings without factual basis, and attacks against Boeing. Those kind of postings are apparently welcome.

As long as they have pretty graphics and insects. Thanks for you posts though.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:19 pm

keesje wrote:
It would be highly unprofessional and possibly negligent to look the other way. EASA & CAA won't, so the FAA can't.

So to be clear, you're now saying that EASA and the CAA are complicit in the two MAX crashes, because apparently they didn't do their own due diligence in the past.

And would you care to address the critique I have made of your shift in position on the B777X, from formerly a warmed over rehash to now a totally new plane?
To me your conversion smacks of crass fanboy opportunism, cynically capitalizing on the twin tragedies.

Post reported and subsequently deleted in 3....2....1...
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12934
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:28 pm

Bricktop wrote:
keesje wrote:
It would be highly unprofessional and possibly negligent to look the other way. EASA & CAA won't, so the FAA can't.

So to be clear, you're now saying that EASA and the CAA are complicit in the two MAX crashes, because apparently they didn't do their own due diligence in the past.

And would you care to address the critique I have made of your shift in position on the B777X, from formerly a warmed over rehash to now a totally new plane?
To me your conversion smacks of crass fanboy opportunism, cynically capitalizing on the twin tragedies.

Post reported and subsequently deleted in 3....2....1...


777X warmed over?! Not at all, I think it's an entirely new aircraft (a heavy one as such) & should be certified as a new aircraft.

What do you think? Should the 777X with it new wings, engines, fusealge, cockpit and tail be certified a derivative using grandfathered design & requirements?

Should any lessons be drawn from the MAX certification. Or not?

Be honest, please, or is there a conflict of interest?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:36 pm

keesje wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
keesje wrote:
It would be highly unprofessional and possibly negligent to look the other way. EASA & CAA won't, so the FAA can't.

So to be clear, you're now saying that EASA and the CAA are complicit in the two MAX crashes, because apparently they didn't do their own due diligence in the past.

And would you care to address the critique I have made of your shift in position on the B777X, from formerly a warmed over rehash to now a totally new plane?
To me your conversion smacks of crass fanboy opportunism, cynically capitalizing on the twin tragedies.

Post reported and subsequently deleted in 3....2....1...


777X warmed over?! Not at all, I think it's an entirely new aircraft (a heavy one as such) & should be certified as a new aircraft.

What do you think? Should it the 777X with it new wings, engines, fusealge, cockpit and tail be certified a derivative using grandfathered design * requirements?

Be honest, please, or is there a conflict of interest?

Your convenient selective memory betrays you. Nevertheless, I think there will and should be extra scrutiny of this airframe. And probably the 797 and whatever frame any other OEM produces.
And you also skipped my original question re EASA/CAA and the MAX. Care to give it an honest response, or is there a conflict of interest?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12934
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:01 pm

Bricktop wrote:
keesje wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
So to be clear, you're now saying that EASA and the CAA are complicit in the two MAX crashes, because apparently they didn't do their own due diligence in the past.

And would you care to address the critique I have made of your shift in position on the B777X, from formerly a warmed over rehash to now a totally new plane?
To me your conversion smacks of crass fanboy opportunism, cynically capitalizing on the twin tragedies.

Post reported and subsequently deleted in 3....2....1...


777X warmed over?! Not at all, I think it's an entirely new aircraft (a heavy one as such) & should be certified as a new aircraft.

What do you think? Should it the 777X with it new wings, engines, fusealge, cockpit and tail be certified a derivative using grandfathered design * requirements?

Be honest, please, or is there a conflict of interest?

Your convenient selective memory betrays you. Nevertheless, I think there will and should be extra scrutiny of this airframe. And probably the 797 and whatever frame any other OEM produces.
And you also skipped my original question re EASA/CAA and the MAX. Care to give it an honest response, or is there a conflict of interest?


EUltraFan9XGTF, I think EASA and CAA and other authorities more or less relied on FAA certification, like they have for decades. And the other way around.
Also on the MAX. Do you feel they still should? What I see in the news is that Canadian, Chinese and German authorities will have a good look on the MAX certification now.

Trying to corner someone as an Airbus or Boeing fan, is to me a weak attempt to divert the topic or hide your own strong preference.
In the past members started this non sense in the hope of threads being closed / going away. Poor tactics in my opinion.

Trying to disqualify anything that doesn't help Boeing as pro-Airbus & indirectly trying to put pressure on the Mods is a very, desperate show in my opinion.

Maybe some here got slow.

As FAA certification process faces criticism, questions linger around 777X approval

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2019/03/26/boeingfaa-wont-say-if-boeings-737-max-crisis-will.html
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
smartplane
Posts: 973
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
I feel like I’ve made significant contributions...

I think so, so significant that they get ignored time and time again.

Maybe someday we will get an answer to:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

keesje wrote:
If Boeing and the FAA took the same approach on the 777X as on the 737MAX we will have to see how certification proceeds. In my opinion it would help if people support clear responsibilities and flight safety standards instead of sub par attacks on anyone asking questions on relevant certification processes.

This a very good article if you can read it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.co ... 1398916634

At this stage of the Program, the 777-9 Certification basis is locked down. I doubt the 737 MAX issues will change the 777-9 basis.

But just for fun, enlighten us all as to what "grandfathering" instance is implicated in the 737 MAX accidents?

I think maybe the inconvenient truth, that the 777-9 Certification basis is already locked down, is perhaps being missed in this long running thread, and maybe sensationalist terms such as grandfathering are being used irresponsibly, but it's hard to know without clarification on what is actually meant.

Hopefully someday we will get an answer to an interesting question.

MAX certification was locked down until 4 weeks ago, now subject to multiple agency reviews, so the definitions of 'locked down' and 'certification' may need to be reviewed.

It's why the LH CEO made his comments regarding the X and no delays.

Airworthiness authorities continuing their recent London meetings in Montreal this week? Seems reasonable to assume the agenda reaches beyond the MAX grounding, to include new model certification (short-term changes) and perhaps even a one stop, global certification entity (medium-term).
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6257
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:13 am

keesje wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
keesje wrote:
It would be highly unprofessional and possibly negligent to look the other way. EASA & CAA won't, so the FAA can't.

So to be clear, you're now saying that EASA and the CAA are complicit in the two MAX crashes, because apparently they didn't do their own due diligence in the past.

And would you care to address the critique I have made of your shift in position on the B777X, from formerly a warmed over rehash to now a totally new plane?
To me your conversion smacks of crass fanboy opportunism, cynically capitalizing on the twin tragedies.

Post reported and subsequently deleted in 3....2....1...


777X warmed over?! Not at all, I think it's an entirely new aircraft (a heavy one as such) & should be certified as a new aircraft.

What do you think? Should the 777X with it new wings, engines, fusealge, cockpit and tail be certified a derivative using grandfathered design & requirements?

Should any lessons be drawn from the MAX certification. Or not?

Be honest, please, or is there a conflict of interest?


You are great at posting but it doesn’t sound like you read much. Go back and read the multiple posts where people who actually know what they are talking about have explained it.

One more time: THE 777X IS HAVING TO STEP UP TO THE LATEST FAR AMENDMENTS FOR EVERY PART OF THE DESIGN THAT IS CHANGED FROM THE 777-300ER.

Is that clear enough to you, or are you going to continue with you factless rampage against Boeing?
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:24 am

So correct me if I'm wrong because I legitimately want to understand.

The picture I have in my head about the 777x certification is that:

1. The only parts that are being "grandfathered" are those that are unchanged from the 777W
2. All of the new systems are being certified like they would be if this was a new aircraft
3. Every new system is being certified according to the very latest standards (again as if this was a new aircraft)
4. The reason for 1 is basically if it is good and not changing, you don't need to recertifiy systems and components because they are still considered safe and that is based on the standards when the 777W were certified, but is also backed up by the record and flight experience of the 777 up to this point, so we have high confidence in those systems, given they incorporate any ADs that were subsequently issued after the 777 was initially certified.

Do I have this correct? If so I don't really see what the problem is.
DH1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30/50/80 717 727 735/6/7/8/9 744 762/3 77E/W E40/75/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150
J/S DH8D 736/7/8 763
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6257
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:37 am

YYZatcboy wrote:
So correct me if I'm wrong because I legitimately want to understand.

The picture I have in my head about the 777x certification is that:

1. The only parts that are being "grandfathered" are those that are unchanged from the 777W
2. All of the new systems are being certified like they would be if this was a new aircraft
3. Every new system is being certified according to the very latest standards (again as if this was a new aircraft)
4. The reason for 1 is basically if it is good and not changing, you don't need to recertifiy systems and components because they are still considered safe and that is based on the standards when the 777W were certified, but is also backed up by the record and flight experience of the 777 up to this point, so we have high confidence in those systems, given they incorporate any ADs that were subsequently issued after the 777 was initially certified.

Do I have this correct? If so I don't really see what the problem is.


Correct. There isn’t a problem.

The OP’s comments that the 777X has all new Flight Deck, Wings, Engines, etc but is “grandfathered” under the same requirements as the 77W is simply factually incorrect.

Those new engines, touch screen displays, folding wing tips, etc will all have to comply with the latest certification requirements.

Several of us have explained this multiple times but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Never let facts get in the way of a vendetta against Boeing and/or the FAA.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20606
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:40 am

keesje wrote:
In this post I see trying to suppress questions, suggest deletions, divert focus, kill the messenger, try to turn it into A vs B . :yuck:

Suppress questions? In this thread I see the inability to defend one's flippant statements by answering a simple question: what "grandfathering" instance is implicated in the 737 MAX accidents?

So, pot meet kettle: focus being diverted in front of your eyes!

Bricktop wrote:
keesje wrote:
It would be highly unprofessional and possibly negligent to look the other way. EASA & CAA won't, so the FAA can't.

So to be clear, you're now saying that EASA and the CAA are complicit in the two MAX crashes, because apparently they didn't do their own due diligence in the past.

And would you care to address the critique I have made of your shift in position on the B777X, from formerly a warmed over rehash to now a totally new plane?
To me your conversion smacks of crass fanboy opportunism, cynically capitalizing on the twin tragedies.

Post reported and subsequently deleted in 3....2....1...

Apparently this isn't a dialog it is a monologue, and any questioning of the assertions being made are a diversion of focus.

BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Should the 777X with it new wings, engines, fusealge, cockpit and tail be certified a derivative using grandfathered design & requirements?

You are great at posting but it doesn’t sound like you read much. Go back and read the multiple posts where people who actually know what they are talking about have explained it.

One more time: THE 777X IS HAVING TO STEP UP TO THE LATEST FAR AMENDMENTS FOR EVERY PART OF THE DESIGN THAT IS CHANGED FROM THE 777-300ER.

Is that clear enough to you, or are you going to continue with your factless rampage against Boeing?

This inconvenient truth should have registered a long time ago....

YYZatcboy wrote:
1. The only parts that are being "grandfathered" are those that are unchanged from the 777W
2. All of the new systems are being certified like they would be if this was a new aircraft
3. Every new system is being certified according to the very latest standards (again as if this was a new aircraft)
4. The reason for 1 is basically if it is good and not changing, you don't need to recertifiy systems and components because they are still considered safe and that is based on the standards when the 777W were certified, but is also backed up by the record and flight experience of the 777 up to this point, so we have high confidence in those systems, given they incorporate any ADs that were subsequently issued after the 777 was initially certified.

Do I have this correct? If so I don't really see what the problem is.


Yep, and if this sounds familiar, see how the EASA certified the A320neo, A330neo, A340-600/600, etc.
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
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7069
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:07 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Safety first, but if Boeing needs to certify their aircraft separetely with different authorities to guarantee that safety, the aircraft are going to cost more and I don't want to pay more.
So safety first and money first too, but if I have to choose between them, money firstest of the first.


I think MAX killed, safety is our top priority as long as it doesn't cost money approach.

Even if EASA comes around, CAAC will be a hard sell. If not a separate certification, at least representatives from more that one regulator should be part of the certification team. Just approving each other's certificates within the elite club is not going to sell frames.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:32 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Is that clear enough to you, or are you going to continue with you factless rampage against Boeing?


We'll judge the "facts" coming up when we see the long list of things officially "unchanged" from the base airframe.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:37 pm

If you would like to educate yourself further on what "grandfathering" truly means, please take a look at the following AC: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 101-1B.pdf

I know it was posted earlier but it is clear from some of these posts that some users are still not truly aware of what "grandfathering" actually entails. (To the point where calling it "grandfathering" isn't really even right in my opinion..)

As an engineer in the industry, I can't even imagine trying to develop aircraft without the change product rule. Consumers should *want* us to operate in this manner. It produces a safer and cheaper product.

Taken to the extreme, OP would want you to re-certify every single aircraft that comes off the line - why do I say this? Because every single aircraft that comes off the line is different than the one that came before. Fasteners aren't exactly the same, materials are substituted as needed due to supply chain issues, had to put a doubler in because there was a gouge in the skin that was blended out and exceeded minimum tolerances. The list goes on.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:39 pm

YYZatcboy wrote:
4. The reason for 1 is basically if it is good and not changing, you don't need to recertifiy systems and components because they are still considered safe and that is based on the standards when the 777W were certified, but is also backed up by the record and flight experience of the 777 up to this point, so we have high confidence in those systems, given they incorporate any ADs that were subsequently issued after the 777 was initially certified.


The MAX cert directly show were the issue can come up with this simplistic stance:
Even if previously certified solutions persist unchanged the airframe around that solution has changed
( sometimes only in a minor way but also on occasion in a rather drastic way. )

The original detail cert was based on that detail in an existing environment ( here for example the 737-100 )
proven savety exists in that context. And only in that context.
Last edited by WIederling on Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Murphy is an optimist
 
texl1649
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:53 pm

The 777 has also been the safest aircraft ever made, I think. The track record is impeccable, if the pilot isn't suicidal, or negligent landing it short of the runway, or it isn't shot down by a missile, the aircraft has an immense track record (the lone uncontained engine failure led to no fatalities). The certs for the changed components will be at the latest FAR as above. Again this is just a fanboy thread ranting about Boeing/US regulators.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:45 pm

With regard to the continued use of the term "grandfathering", a paraphrase of H. L. Mencken is perhaps in order:

For every complex situation, there is a word that is simple, neat, and wrong.

For every complex problem,
there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
- H.L. Mencken
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
WPIAeroGuy
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:52 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:04 pm

trpmb6 wrote:

Taken to the extreme, OP would want you to re-certify every single aircraft that comes off the line - why do I say this? Because every single aircraft that comes off the line is different than the one that came before. Fasteners aren't exactly the same, materials are substituted as needed due to supply chain issues, had to put a doubler in because there was a gouge in the skin that was blended out and exceeded minimum tolerances. The list goes on.


Great Post. So many people can’t understand that sharing components and having a common type certificate does mean the Max 8 only has to be built to the standards of the 737-100.
-WPIAeroGuy
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:06 pm

WPIAeroGuy wrote:
... sharing components and having a common type certificate
does mean the Max 8 only has to be built to the standards of the 737-100.


did you really itended to say that?
But thank you . This is the correct version.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20606
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:11 pm

WIederling wrote:
WPIAeroGuy wrote:
... sharing components and having a common type certificate
does mean the Max 8 only has to be built to the standards of the 737-100.


did you really itended to say that?
But thank you . This is the correct version.

You forget it is April 1?
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
trpmb6
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:12 pm

WIederling wrote:
WPIAeroGuy wrote:
... sharing components and having a common type certificate
does mean the Max 8 only has to be built to the standards of the 737-100.


did you really itended to say that?
But thank you . This is the correct version.


Quite certain WPIAeroGuy mean't "Doesn't" based on the context. Typos happen - for instance you dropped the 'n' in "intended."

In all seriousness, I would prefer that people who don't have a background in aircraft certification limit their assertions on what is best for aircraft certification. It's really stretching the limits of "armchair engineering" references.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:19 pm

texl1649 wrote:
The 777 has also been the safest aircraft ever made, I think.


Such a claim is very hard to make. We can say that it is one of the safest planes ever made, but singling it out in such a way is very hard to prove.

While 777 does have a great safety record, there are other types that never had a fatal crash: A340, A380, 787, and A350. If you are disregarding crashes that weren't caused by a design's fault, the list would be even bigger.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2575
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:32 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
The 777 has also been the safest aircraft ever made, I think.


Such a claim is very hard to make. We can say that it is one of the safest planes ever made, but singling it out in such a way is very hard to prove.

While 777 does have a great safety record, there are other types that never had a fatal crash: A340, A380, 787, and A350. If you are disregarding crashes that weren't caused by a design's fault, the list would be even bigger.


If you take into account the amount of aircraft produced and hours flown. I think it’s the 777 by a long shot. Especially since the 777’s fatal accidents were all basically external factors. One got shot down(MH17), another one has basically vanished (MH370) and the last one the pilot couldn’t do a basic approach in clear weather (OZ214).

Pretty solid if you ask me.
 
smartplane
Posts: 973
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:55 pm

If the X doesn't utilise / exploit grandfathering in any form or shape, what is this discussion about?

Boeing and airworthiness experts here advise the 777X doesn't utilise any meaningful (except a compass) grandfathered features, structures, components or systems, from earlier iterations (or even different models), supported by, but not limited to justifications of practicality, experience and/or no material safety changes.

The X fuselage, wings and engines are treated as a green fields design, not using any scaling or material composition precedents or rules.

X isn't affected. 797 will be a green fields design. MAX grandfathering all disclosed.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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