• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2651
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

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

Tue May 14, 2019 4:19 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Will there be elements of 787 precedents / grandfathering used for the X, for example in relation to wing design / construction, ignoring the folding tips?


Please give an example of what you're talking about. How can something used on one model's Type Certificate (TC) be "grandfathered" to another model's TC?

The 777-9 wing is a new article with or without the folding tips. As such, it will be required to step up to the FAR level in place when its amended TC application was filed.


Engineering re-use is extremely common in aviation.

This whole conversation about “grandfathering” doesn’t make any sense when it comes down to definitions certification requirements. I haven’t seen anyone in this thread who is using the term “grandfathering” actually define if it is for a new type certificate, supplemental type certificate or amended type certificate.


OldAeroGuy and BoeingGuy have both provided substantial discussion on what "really" happens in the certification process between Boeing and the FAA and what "grandfathering" (AKA Change Product Rule) actually means. I gave up a month ago early on in this discussion because this topic was opened with only one thing in mind: making Boeing look bad by misrepresenting the actual certification process.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8426
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Mon May 20, 2019 1:44 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

Please give an example of what you're talking about. How can something used on one model's Type Certificate (TC) be "grandfathered" to another model's TC?

The 777-9 wing is a new article with or without the folding tips. As such, it will be required to step up to the FAR level in place when its amended TC application was filed.


Engineering re-use is extremely common in aviation.

This whole conversation about “grandfathering” doesn’t make any sense when it comes down to definitions certification requirements. I haven’t seen anyone in this thread who is using the term “grandfathering” actually define if it is for a new type certificate, supplemental type certificate or amended type certificate.


OldAeroGuy and BoeingGuy have both provided substantial discussion on what "really" happens in the certification process between Boeing and the FAA and what "grandfathering" (AKA Change Product Rule) actually means. I gave up a month ago early on in this discussion because this topic was opened with only one thing in mind: making Boeing look bad by misrepresenting the actual certification process.


Nothing can make the Boeing FAA certification process look worth than what happened around MCAS on the 737MAX, or thinking back to the 787 battery issue. Boeing and the FAA have shot the reputation of their certification process. No outside help needed.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:02 am

Obviously, this question comes up in light of the 737MAX grounding. The questions I really want to ask are:

Should grandfathering should be eliminated entirely?

…or, should grandfathering become more conditional?

…or, should the system be left the way it is?

The trigger for these questions came from this, pulled from a WSJ article, re the FAA re-examining procedures of older 737 models, as triggered by the 737MAX grounding:

Mr. Tajer [of the AA Pilots Association] said the existing checklist for the trim wheel procedure, which is what pilots reference and train to, might not include all the information aviators need. For example, some Boeing manuals say two pilots may be needed to manually turn the wheel. But other material provided to airlines for their manuals say merely that the wheel could be difficult to turn.

Over the years, FAA rules for approving new planes or derivatives of existing models typically barred emergency procedures requiring two pilots. “There’s signs of a potential weakness of that checklist,” Mr. Tajer said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/maxs-retur ... 1558728091

At the moment, I am in favour of some conditions/limits being put on grandfathering. However, I recognize such a system has a great potential for pitfalls. Nonetheless, the simplest thing thing that comes to mind is a time limit for grandfathering. Perhaps something like a 30-year maximum from initial certification.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2855
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:13 am

No, grandfathering should not be limited. Once an aircraft is in serial production and is plying routed around the world it will get safer and safer due to learnings and corrections, to then say you cannot build upon that safety but start with an unknown to me would be a more dangerous way to go.

To a certain extent some of the risks that are added to grandfathered aircraft are as a result of the grandfathering regulations and the way that certain limits cannot be moved to keep within a type certificate. Imagine if the 737MAX was allowed to employ full FBW and still retain the type certificate, would the 2 crashes have happened?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13909
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:31 am

Thats nothing, this is taking grandfathering too far

https://youtu.be/1fVPS7eLbME
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3490
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:28 am

flipdewaf wrote:
No, grandfathering should not be limited. Once an aircraft is in serial production and is plying routed around the world it will get safer and safer due to learnings and corrections, to then say you cannot build upon that safety but start with an unknown to me would be a more dangerous way to go.


Eliminating or limiting grandfathering wouldn't prevent a manufacturer from building upon a "known" or "learned" safety.

flipdewaf wrote:
To a certain extent some of the risks that are added to grandfathered aircraft are as a result of the grandfathering regulations and the way that certain limits cannot be moved to keep within a type certificate. Imagine if the 737MAX was allowed to employ full FBW and still retain the type certificate, would the 2 crashes have happened?


The FAA (and Boeing) overlooked what was then probably considered a relatively minor detail change to the existing, safe flight instrumentation system and flight control system...Are you saying that a major design change instead, by way of ripping it all out and starting all over with a shoe-horned full FBW (including a myriad of new critical details which could also be overlooked by the FAA and Boeing) would have been less risky?
Last edited by KFLLCFII on Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:44 am

flipdewaf : what's the point of a type certificate then, if two wildly different aircraft can share the same ?

I think the 737Max shows the whole certification process has to be looked at, not just grandfathering.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
kalvado
Posts: 1894
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:07 am

My impression is we're looking under the light. Certification process itself becomes an issue. It is supposed to ensure safety, but it ends up hindering things as even benign changes now require extremely expensive certification. Grandfather process is just one way to avoid those costs, and it ends up being ugly. Eliminating shortcuts is one thing, but root cause of it may be different.
 
SEU
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:13 am

Yes it has - 2 737-8MAXs crashed because of them trying to get around training and ultimately compromising safety.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:14 am

To me it was possible to make a better (perfect) MCAS within the 737 type, so grandfathering isn't an issue there. The system might have needed a more thorough certification to follow rules, but then again, the system they came up with clearly needed a more thorough certification ! Boeing would have been ready to spend the money and time for this. What they weren't ready for, is the need to train the pilots for this new system, that's the crux of the problem. Mainly because of Southwest. Southwest is already the reason the 737 kept an outdated cockpit design for so long, arguably the cause of some crashes.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
flyingisthebest
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:17 am

The issue with the max was when there is a system failure there was not a back up. If anything the FAA must be more careful about system backups. The question before certification is “If this part fails will the plane crash and if it does what back ups are in place to ensure that a crash doesn’t happen?” Clearly no one thought of a backup MCAS when designing the MAX....
 
mdavies06
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:28 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:35 am

there is an active discussion in this thread which had dozens of informed posts and replies up until last week:

viewtopic.php?t=1418197
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1752
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:02 pm

The basic 737 frame has proven over many years to be tough and reliable. Anything that has come to light has been remedied. One thing that does strike me, though. No overwing emergency exit slides.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/p ... 49881.html

It needs to be made safer. You need to be pretty agile to get down safely.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3086
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:25 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
The basic 737 frame has proven over many years to be tough and reliable. Anything that has come to light has been remedied. One thing that does strike me, though. No overwing emergency exit slides.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/p ... 49881.html

It needs to be made safer. You need to be pretty agile to get down safely.


Yes, I was wondering about that too when traveling on a 738 and being seated at the overwing emergency exit. Opening the exit is easy, nobody has to handle the heavy door, but then one has to jump off the wing's trailing edge. How high is that? About two meters? I wonder why is this allowed.
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3537
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:01 pm

The stingy man spends the most money is an old aphorism that clearly applies. If Boeing bit the bullet, designed a new small airliner they’d avoided all these problems. In almost every endeavor, just pony up the big bucks and the end result will be better.

GF
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3877
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:30 pm

WildcatYXU wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
The basic 737 frame has proven over many years to be tough and reliable. Anything that has come to light has been remedied. One thing that does strike me, though. No overwing emergency exit slides.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/p ... 49881.html

It needs to be made safer. You need to be pretty agile to get down safely.


Yes, I was wondering about that too when traveling on a 738 and being seated at the overwing emergency exit. Opening the exit is easy, nobody has to handle the heavy door, but then one has to jump off the wing's trailing edge. How high is that? About two meters? I wonder why is this allowed.


Here's the regulation.

https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-810-FAR.shtml

For over wing exits not to have an escape slide, height of the wing trailing above ground level with the gear extended must be 6 ft (1.83 m) or less. This is stated in FAR 25.810 paragraph (a).

Last amendment to this regulation was in 2004 so affirmation of the regulation was fairly recent.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Vladex
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:44 pm

flyingisthebest wrote:
The issue with the max was when there is a system failure there was not a back up. If anything the FAA must be more careful about system backups. The question before certification is “If this part fails will the plane crash and if it does what back ups are in place to ensure that a crash doesn’t happen?” Clearly no one thought of a backup MCAS when designing the MAX....


MCAS is not a design feature , it's a patch up and a simulation of a real feature.
The backups are easier to design on a new project but when there is a 4th iteration of design there has been too many compromises.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:17 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The stingy man spends the most money is an old aphorism that clearly applies. If Boeing bit the bullet, designed a new small airliner they’d avoided all these problems. In almost every endeavor, just pony up the big bucks and the end result will be better.

GF


Which would just now be entering service (maybe), would cost much more than the current NEO/MAX and would be not efficient enough to merit the cost -- few if any sales.

If they had engineered MCAS correctly this wouldn't be a discussion point.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:43 pm

keesje wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Just some light bedtime reading there.


If you don't understand what this document says, you don't understand "grandfathering" and its limitations.


The big question remains if following the rules (Chapter 3), the 777X ended up being allowed to be certified under the 77W certification basis, what happened ?
- Changes are minor (if so for the 777X, anything is apparently minor) ?
- Some one at the FAA wasn't paying attention ?
- Some one at the FAA was actually someone at Boeing & had different goals ?
- The Latest Requirements Contribute nothing Materially to the Level of Safety?

Using this 1996 flowchart roughly modelling the process; how did the 777X end up in the right lower corner instead of the left lower corner ?

Image

I thing is the wings, tail, engines, dimensions & cockpit changed we should have a new TC.
Otherwise the 757 was a 737 really?

And like the legal system, one approval seems to create a precedent, so if the magnitude of 777 to X changes are deemed derivative, assuming all other factors unchanged, that becomes the future baseline.

Further, the process seems to have been flipped. Previously, Boeing had to justify a new model was a derivative to the FAA. Now it seems the FAA has to prove it isn't a derivative. A considerable part of this process is delegated to Boeing, so should we be surprised at the outcome?
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:50 pm

waly777 wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
I think people need to grow out of this FAA-only bubble kind of mentality.
Thank god there are other certifying bodies who are not only better funded and more technically apt, but to a large degree far more independent than the FAA. Cue the UK CAA and EASA.
I trust that these bodies will both give Boeing and the FAA a run for their money in the 777/8-9 certification, and should they sniff any of the crap that has lead to having to deal with these 300 body bags they will kick up a royal stink.


And yet the 787 and 737 max were both certified by the UK CAA and EASA? so what does that say about their supposedly better funding and technical abilities?

Perhaps too much emphasis on the gentleman's agreement between the two, and not enough on rigorous scrutiny. Contrast with aircraft made in Japan, Canada and Brazil.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:02 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
The big question remains if following the rules (Chapter 3), the 777X ended up being allowed to be certified under the 77W certification basis, what happened ?
- Changes are minor (if so for the 777X, anything is apparently minor) ?
- Some one at the FAA wasn't paying attention ?
- Some one at the FAA was actually someone at Boeing & had different goals ?
- The Latest Requirements Contribute nothing Materially to the Level of Safety?

Using this 1996 flowchart roughly modelling the process; how did the 777X end up in the right lower corner instead of the left lower corner ?

Image


I thing is the wings, tail, engines, dimensions & cockpit changed we should have a new TC.
Otherwise the 757 was a 737 really?


Because it's a simplified flow chart. It ignores the conversation that goes on between the certifying agency and the manufacturer about the certification basis.

For instance, if an area has changed but the regulations haven't changed for the area of change, you can still use the original certification basis for the area of change.

This doesn't mean you don't have to test the changed area. The new 777X wing will be required to pass a fatigue test and a structural load test to be certified but that certification may need only pass unchanged parts of the regulations that were in force during the original certification basis.

Or has Boeing argued it's a derivative, using 787 experience in relation to materials used / construction techniques, and within accepted size and weight scaling tolerances?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3877
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

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

Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:38 pm

smartplane wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
This doesn't mean you don't have to test the changed area. The new 777X wing will be required to pass a fatigue test and a structural load test to be certified but that certification may need only pass unchanged parts of the regulations that were in force during the original certification basis.

Or has Boeing argued it's a derivative, using 787 experience in relation to materials used / construction techniques, and within accepted size and weight scaling tolerances?


Since Boeing is doing a fatigue test and structural load test on the new 777-9 wing and will need to pass the latest regulations as it's a new part, I'm having difficulty understanding your issue/statement.

Derivative of what and what more would Boeing need to do with the new wing beyond what they are doing?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:58 pm

787 Boeing experience will obviously be relevant to certain systems and parts. Derivative - don't know what is meant by that.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6315
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:29 pm

SEU wrote:
Yes it has - 2 737-8MAXs crashed because of them trying to get around training and ultimately compromising safety.


No that’s not why those tragic accidents occurred. That typical over dramatization. MCAS wasn’t added to get around training. That’s been misreported all over.

MCAS was added to meet Aero S&C requirements about how the airplane responds when it approaches a stall condition.

There was no intent to compromise safety. Clearly some mistakes or incorrect assumptions were made during the analysis, but most of what is being reported and posted on A.net is BS.

Facts like this don’t sell newspapers and make for a good story though.

Everyone is deeply sorry and sad about the tragic losses, but the over dramatization and incorrect information is getting old.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:47 pm

grandfathering has been taken to where it is now because the FAA doesn't HAVE and Can't GET enough qualified people to oversee the certification.
The only remedy I can see is that they use Army,Navy, Airforce, Marine, and Coast Guard aviators to supplement the civilian inspectors at the FAA.
OR? Increase the salary so that Aviation Professionals can leave the Airlines and work for the FAA.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6315
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:51 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
grandfathering has been taken to where it is now because the FAA doesn't HAVE and Can't GET enough qualified people to oversee the certification.
The only remedy I can see is that they use Army,Navy, Airforce, Marine, and Coast Guard aviators to supplement the civilian inspectors at the FAA.
OR? Increase the salary so that Aviation Professionals can leave the Airlines and work for the FAA.


Not correct. Myself and several others have explained multiple times how the cert basis on programs such as the 777X work and how “grandfathering” is somewhat of a fallacy.

People who wouldn’t know a FAR Amendment from a hole in the ground keep posting over-dramatic BS.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1752
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:14 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
WildcatYXU wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
The basic 737 frame has proven over many years to be tough and reliable. Anything that has come to light has been remedied. One thing that does strike me, though. No overwing emergency exit slides.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/p ... 49881.html

It needs to be made safer. You need to be pretty agile to get down safely.


Yes, I was wondering about that too when traveling on a 738 and being seated at the overwing emergency exit. Opening the exit is easy, nobody has to handle the heavy door, but then one has to jump off the wing's trailing edge. How high is that? About two meters? I wonder why is this allowed.


Here's the regulation.

https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-810-FAR.shtml

For over wing exits not to have an escape slide, height of the wing trailing above ground level with the gear extended must be 6 ft (1.83 m) or less. This is stated in FAR 25.810 paragraph (a).

Last amendment to this regulation was in 2004 so affirmation of the regulation was fairly recent.
Which just happens to let the 737 squeak in. No one is going to jump six feet with any safety. I'd be lucky to jump two feet.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1894
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:32 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
WildcatYXU wrote:

Yes, I was wondering about that too when traveling on a 738 and being seated at the overwing emergency exit. Opening the exit is easy, nobody has to handle the heavy door, but then one has to jump off the wing's trailing edge. How high is that? About two meters? I wonder why is this allowed.


Here's the regulation.

https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-810-FAR.shtml

For over wing exits not to have an escape slide, height of the wing trailing above ground level with the gear extended must be 6 ft (1.83 m) or less. This is stated in FAR 25.810 paragraph (a).

Last amendment to this regulation was in 2004 so affirmation of the regulation was fairly recent.
Which just happens to let the 737 squeak in. No one is going to jump six feet with any safety. I'd be lucky to jump two feet.

I believe RJs also use the rule.
If you consider that slide evacuation is generally not considered aggressive enough if there are no broken limbs, 6 ft is not that outrageous.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3086
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:03 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
Which just happens to let the 737 squeak in. No one is going to jump six feet with any safety. I'd be lucky to jump two feet.


Exactly. When I was a kid, jumping from 10' wasn't a problem. Now I'm 53 and I guess I could jump the 6' without problems. But I doubt I'll be able to do that when I'm 73.
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:58 pm

Muilenburg says the controversy surrounding 737 MAX certification is unlikely to affect certification of the new widebody. “I don't see anything there right now that would significantly alter the timeline for the 777X, but it's possible we could see something that would alter the content of the test program or how we go about certification”.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aerotime.aero/aerotime.team/22693-boeing-ceo-says-777x-not-yet-affected-by-737-max-crisis%3fv=amp

The investigations are progressing. Boeing communication likes to announce findings, changes themselves. It looks better than authorities doing so. Stay tuned.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
SEU
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:40 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
SEU wrote:
Yes it has - 2 737-8MAXs crashed because of them trying to get around training and ultimately compromising safety.


No that’s not why those tragic accidents occurred. That typical over dramatization. MCAS wasn’t added to get around training. That’s been misreported all over.

MCAS was added to meet Aero S&C requirements about how the airplane responds when it approaches a stall condition.

There was no intent to compromise safety. Clearly some mistakes or incorrect assumptions were made during the analysis, but most of what is being reported and posted on A.net is BS.

Facts like this don’t sell newspapers and make for a good story though.

Everyone is deeply sorry and sad about the tragic losses, but the over dramatization and incorrect information is getting old.


No, it was done to make it feel and act like the 737NG so they didnt have to do extra training.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:52 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
smartplane wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
This doesn't mean you don't have to test the changed area. The new 777X wing will be required to pass a fatigue test and a structural load test to be certified but that certification may need only pass unchanged parts of the regulations that were in force during the original certification basis.

Or has Boeing argued it's a derivative, using 787 experience in relation to materials used / construction techniques, and within accepted size and weight scaling tolerances?


Since Boeing is doing a fatigue test and structural load test on the new 777-9 wing and will need to pass the latest regulations as it's a new part, I'm having difficulty understanding your issue/statement.

Derivative of what and what more would Boeing need to do with the new wing beyond what they are doing?

Thank you for your own, and BoeingGuy's (an insider actually working on the X) assurances Boeing is treating and testing the X wing as a completely new wing (ALL the wing, not just the outer section, with no test exemptions), designed and built to the latest regulations, with no exemptions, mods or grandfathering sought or given.

Based on the Boeing slide earlier in the thread, the as 'new' testing regime also presumably applies to the fuselage (depending how the increased interior space is achieved), wing to fuselage, systems, undercarriage and engines.

So unlike the MAX, the X is a new aircraft, with full new model testing, no exemptions (in full or part) to the latest regulations, and no grandfathering?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:22 am

smartplane wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Or has Boeing argued it's a derivative, using 787 experience in relation to materials used / construction techniques, and within accepted size and weight scaling tolerances?


Since Boeing is doing a fatigue test and structural load test on the new 777-9 wing and will need to pass the latest regulations as it's a new part, I'm having difficulty understanding your issue/statement.

Derivative of what and what more would Boeing need to do with the new wing beyond what they are doing?

Thank you for your own, and BoeingGuy's (an insider actually working on the X) assurances Boeing is treating and testing the X wing as a completely new wing (ALL the wing, not just the outer section, with no test exemptions), designed and built to the latest regulations, with no exemptions, mods or grandfathering sought or given.

Based on the Boeing slide earlier in the thread, the as 'new' testing regime also presumably applies to the fuselage (depending how the increased interior space is achieved), wing to fuselage, systems, undercarriage and engines.

So unlike the MAX, the X is a new aircraft, with full new model testing, no exemptions (in full or part) to the latest regulations, and no grandfathering?


Based on new insights, it's possible we could see something that would alter the content of the 777x test program or how they go about certification.

A correction of the program blindly defended by members here until the day before yesterday. A slow learning curver by people telling us they know it all, dimissing any doubts / questions. Even after all we have seen on the MAX. A questionable safety culture / resistance to accept, if you ask me.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3877
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:10 pm

smartplane wrote:
So unlike the MAX, the X is a new aircraft, with full new model testing, no exemptions (in full or part) to the latest regulations, and no grandfathering?


As has been explained many times in this thread, any new regulations apply only if the part has been changed.

There may be many unchanged parts, identical to ones being delivered on 777-300ER's today, that will not be subject to a new certification on the 777-9.

The issue is complex and subject to many years of discussion between Boeing and the FAA to develop the 777-9 Certification Basis. No simple statement will provide an accurate answer.

Again, H L Mencken made the correct statement for the situation: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:51 pm

From my understanding you need to certify anything new. New variant of the aircraft or not. However Boeing doesn't need to certify the complete aircraft anew, if it's grandfathered. So the new wings, new engines, etc., get a full certification regime, but not the completed aircraft.

That's exactly how the MCAS happened. Nobody had realized that the new engines would alter the way the 737 flies until it appeared during testing. Then a quick fix happened.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21221
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:00 pm

keesje wrote:
Based on new insights, it's possible we could see something that would alter the content of the 777x test program or how they go about certification.

A correction of the program blindly defended by members here until the day before yesterday. A slow learning curver by people telling us they know it all, dimissing any doubts / questions. Even after all we have seen on the MAX. A questionable safety culture / resistance to accept, if you ask me.

So you're doing all this pompous chest beating just because it's possible something might change?

Feel free to show us "people telling us they know it all, dimissing any doubts / questions".

Also, please tell us about that learning curve that you've gone up that people here who work with aircraft certification day in and out haven't gone up.

What I see in this thread is the opposite of a question being dismissed: one question is being presented time and again in various forms, the one requesting you and others to explain the basis of the "grandfathering" complaint:

This whole conversation about “grandfathering” doesn’t make any sense when it comes down to definitions certification requirements. I haven’t seen anyone in this thread who is using the term “grandfathering” actually define if it is for a new type certificate, supplemental type certificate or amended type certificate.

Yet this goes unanswered while you take a ceremonial victory lap for a possible change?

I guess we know why it goes unanswered: the only way the complaint exists is if this question goes unanswered.

This all reminds me of another old saying, "Throw enough poop against the wall, some's bound to stick!".
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: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:20 pm

"Possible" is literary what Muilenberg says. You better jump on him.. you won't.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21221
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:55 pm

keesje wrote:
"Possible" is literary what Muilenberg says. You better jump on him.. you won't.

In other words, you still won't explain what you mean by "grandfathering", right?
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: 3877
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:58 pm

Aesma wrote:
From my understanding you need to certify anything new. New variant of the aircraft or not. However Boeing doesn't need to certify the complete aircraft anew, if it's grandfathered. So the new wings, new engines, etc., get a full certification regime, but not the completed aircraft.

That's exactly how the MCAS happened. Nobody had realized that the new engines would alter the way the 737 flies until it appeared during testing. Then a quick fix happened.


How can you say that the complete airplane is not certified anew? Many aspects certainly are. If Boeing didn't need to meet the current stall handling characteristics as shown by applying them to the whole airplane in flight testing, then there would have been no need for MCAS.

Your "grandfathering" statement with regard to the whole configuration makes no sense.

Once again, a simple explanation of a complex situation.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3877
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:18 pm

WildcatYXU wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
Which just happens to let the 737 squeak in. No one is going to jump six feet with any safety. I'd be lucky to jump two feet.


Exactly. When I was a kid, jumping from 10' wasn't a problem. Now I'm 53 and I guess I could jump the 6' without problems. But I doubt I'll be able to do that when I'm 73.


Well, I'm 74 and have no trouble getting down from a 6' height. You don't need to jump to do it.

If the flaps are down, it becomes even easier (maybe even fun). A new amusement park ride?
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
kalvado
Posts: 1894
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:31 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
WildcatYXU wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
Which just happens to let the 737 squeak in. No one is going to jump six feet with any safety. I'd be lucky to jump two feet.


Exactly. When I was a kid, jumping from 10' wasn't a problem. Now I'm 53 and I guess I could jump the 6' without problems. But I doubt I'll be able to do that when I'm 73.


Well, I'm 74 and have no trouble getting down from a 6' height. You don't need to jump to do it.

If the flaps are down, it becomes even easier (maybe even fun). A new amusement park ride?

Assuming you have enough time - yes, that is fun. When you need to get one person down every 2 seconds with fire raging behind, some of them may land face down, or even head first. to make it more fun, next guy will be landing on their backs.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3877
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:45 pm

kalvado wrote:
with fire raging behind


Yes, a fire would add an incentive.
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: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:32 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
with fire raging behind


Yes, a fire would add an incentive.

Do responses like these (see also 291), highlight safety has been discounted / ignored, reinforcing why airworthiness authorities need to review / re-review NG, MAX and X certification and grandfathering / exemption processes?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3537
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:59 pm

No, it reinforces the fact that humor is lacking in the dull and overly serious.

GF
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3877
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:03 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No, it reinforces the fact that humor is lacking in the dull and overly serious.

GF


:checkmark: :checkmark:
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3537
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:08 pm

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but Boeing engineers and management didn’t get together and decide to cut corners so they could risk killing passengers to save a few bucks. Like some posters here, I’ve worked at an OEM, not Boeing, design and certification is intense, scrutinized process from the application to final TC and PC. Thousands of judgements and decisions are made and, despite the toughest testing profiles, in service use reveals problems never anticipated.

Boeing screwed up, but the media and many here believe Boeing is heedless of the risk and willfully endangered the public. That’s hard to believe and armchair certification engineers won’t come close to appreciating the process.

GF
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:10 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
smartplane wrote:
So unlike the MAX, the X is a new aircraft, with full new model testing, no exemptions (in full or part) to the latest regulations, and no grandfathering?


As has been explained many times in this thread, any new regulations apply only if the part has been changed.

There may be many unchanged parts, identical to ones being delivered on 777-300ER's today, that will not be subject to a new certification on the 777-9.

The issue is complex and subject to many years of discussion between Boeing and the FAA to develop the 777-9 Certification Basis. No simple statement will provide an accurate answer.

Again, H L Mencken made the correct statement for the situation: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."


In US building design there is the model code the "International Building Code" that is updated every 3 years. When adopted by each state, the states can add or remove requirements in the adoption, then the locals do the same. I design a building, turning in the design drawings along with the calculations for review. Approval of my project does not remove any of my liability, they are not responsible unless they interfered or changed my design, and they clearly avoid that. I am on the hook for the design for 30 years in Washington State, my E & O insurance for what looks like a paltry sum runs 9-10% of revenue. I can design right to the code limits but that worry about a claim keeps me well away from that. I won't design for any amount of money anything that I feel is unsafe. The FAA's FAR part 25 is the aviation industry equivalent to the IBC. The $ 2B+ that Boeing will be paying is their insurance claim.

In building as well as in aviation all new work is to meet the latest regulations, but the existing unchanged items do not provided that it can be shown that
the Demand remains less than the part original Capacity. But in the regulations new regulations can be made to apply immediately to all cases, apply to cases that exceed say 20% of area or value, or existing cases need to be applied by a certain date. In buildings, after the Great White fire, all nightclub occupancies in most jurisdictions had to have sprinklers installed within 3 years, but upgrading for seismic or FEMA flood elevation only apply when alterations exceeding 50% of value over the past 10 years. The IBC codes went more performance based, where if sprinklers are added the requirements for fire walls, exits, etc are more relaxed than previous codes, but if no sprinklers the requirements well well up. It reduces building cost if sprinklers are added and made the added cost of sprinklers less, so more buildings are sprinklered. However, that didn't really address that in the last 20 years the fuel content of furniture went sky high with all of the foams used.

In aviation, fuel tank inerting requirements are quickly making the 744 too costly to operate. Wing lightning protection is a rule that is I believe fully grandfathered. I am sure there are many requirements that are grandfathered but really shouldn't be, other requirements that are excessive and just add cost or other issues, and items that are not grandfathered but should be allowed.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6315
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:10 pm

SEU wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
SEU wrote:
Yes it has - 2 737-8MAXs crashed because of them trying to get around training and ultimately compromising safety.


No that’s not why those tragic accidents occurred. That typical over dramatization. MCAS wasn’t added to get around training. That’s been misreported all over.

MCAS was added to meet Aero S&C requirements about how the airplane responds when it approaches a stall condition.

There was no intent to compromise safety. Clearly some mistakes or incorrect assumptions were made during the analysis, but most of what is being reported and posted on A.net is BS.

Facts like this don’t sell newspapers and make for a good story though.

Everyone is deeply sorry and sad about the tragic losses, but the over dramatization and incorrect information is getting old.


No, it was done to make it feel and act like the 737NG so they didnt have to do extra training.


Not entirely. It is as I stated. At least that’s what I was told by people who know (more than most of the people on A.net would know).
 
DenverTed
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:14 pm

Yes, grandfathering has gone too far, like when Airbus built the A346. They should not be allowed to rewing the A321, but the 777x should be 'grandfathered in'. :)
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:22 pm

smartplane wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
kalvado wrote:
with fire raging behind


Yes, a fire would add an incentive.

Do responses like these (see also 291), highlight safety has been discounted / ignored, reinforcing why airworthiness authorities need to review / re-review NG, MAX and X certification and grandfathering / exemption processes?


Do you imply that the 90 second evacuation rate needs to be changed to 45 seconds because the SSJ crash fire engulfed the plane that fast.

Do you imply that the landing gear need to be certified to 9G's because this plane's 3rd hop hit almost 6G's.

We could design planes to take a 10g inpact onto the runway but the OEW might exceed the MTOW.

In steel buildings and ships the design safety factor is 1.6 to yield and 2.5 to failure typically, but under seismic and wind we allow stresses 1/3 higher. Aviation Factor's of Safety are far less, but that is the reason QA/QC is so important and the reason we test for fatigue to 3x the in service cycles, with the stress range covered is full, real flights are always something less than MTOW, and less than max altitude.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 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