• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
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 9:52 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
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.

Good explanation, but surely your reference is in regards to upgrading / modifying an existing building, not constructing an entirely new one. If constructing a new building, today, you have to design and construct to ALL the current standards. There is no option to lobby to use 1999 Fire Protection Standards, and 2005 Earthquake Standards, etc.

In contrast, when you design a new aircraft, you first make sure it uses an existing model designation, and then justify curtailed testing and scrutiny on as many parts, systems and structures as possible, arguing comparable to existing models, within scaling precedents (same but 10% bigger), keep wing, fuselage and other weights similar.................

Boeing employees, also wearing an FAA hat, have no FAA career path, so perceived performance as Boeing employees is pivotal to their future livelihood. Not the same conflicts for you.

They also are required to insure.

Using your building analogy. The new building you are designing today is an updated replica of one you designed 20 years ago. It occupies a slightly larger footprint. It has a larger roof overhang, made of new materials. The interior has been enlarged, with some materials changed. The exterior has been extended, with some new materials used. The weight of the roof is similar. The weight of the structure is similar.

Can you in 2019, argue that other than the roof, it's comparable to the one you designed in 1999, so most of the building, can be built to the same standards that applied in 1999?
 
kalvado
Posts: 1814
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:17 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
smartplane wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

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.

We can require 5 second evacuation. Nobody passes that test, no planes, end of story.
SOmetimes it has to be a compromise, and a good compromise means nobody is particularly happy about it. 6 feet IMHO is on a high side. It is not unreasonable, though,- fire behind can help, as well as footprint of FA's boot below the back. (this is a dark joke spiced with a pinch of truth, if you didn't get it)
Blaming Boeing for keeping that? Ughm.. no real point, 6" is survivable in most cases; and we're talking about evacuation when most bets are already off.
The issue here, if you want to take issue with grandfathering, is that modification to that 6' jump would ruin a lot of other grandfathered assumptions about 737 cabin and will be too costly to implement. Best intentions are paving a certain way, you know...
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:35 pm

Now 777X buyers (EK) are looking at options to compensate further delayed EIS. Because of changes to the certification process.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buyers-of-boeings-newest-jet-fear-delays-11559451419

Why changes to the 777x certification process? It's good as is, but there's opportunity to make it even better to make it the safest aircraft ever? :indifferent:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:10 pm

smartplane wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
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.

Good explanation, but surely your reference is in regards to upgrading / modifying an existing building, not constructing an entirely new one. If constructing a new building, today, you have to design and construct to ALL the current standards. There is no option to lobby to use 1999 Fire Protection Standards, and 2005 Earthquake Standards, etc.

In contrast, when you design a new aircraft, you first make sure it uses an existing model designation, and then justify curtailed testing and scrutiny on as many parts, systems and structures as possible, arguing comparable to existing models, within scaling precedents (same but 10% bigger), keep wing, fuselage and other weights similar.................

Boeing employees, also wearing an FAA hat, have no FAA career path, so perceived performance as Boeing employees is pivotal to their future livelihood. Not the same conflicts for you.

They also are required to insure.

Using your building analogy. The new building you are designing today is an updated replica of one you designed 20 years ago. It occupies a slightly larger footprint. It has a larger roof overhang, made of new materials. The interior has been enlarged, with some materials changed. The exterior has been extended, with some new materials used. The weight of the roof is similar. The weight of the structure is similar.

Can you in 2019, argue that other than the roof, it's comparable to the one you designed in 1999, so most of the building, can be built to the same standards that applied in 1999?


I have designed and gone thru permitting adding a floor to an existing 2 story unreinforced masonry building that is 120 years old with unreinforced masonry prohibited in new construction. But I could use the existing masonry up to its allowable shear based on design standards that cover existing masonry. The new work needed to be at 100% of the design seismic force, but the existing building below could be designed for 75% of that force. The long near solid walls worked, the cross direction which was basically open required new moment frames to carry the forces down to new foundations. I was not required to update all of the connections in the existing to the new standards for ductility, just to show the load path was sufficient Capacity to carry the Demand. We saved an historic building but it would have been far cheaper to tear it down and start fresh. This altered building will perform far better than the existing, but still far less than a new building.
 
Canuck600
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:19 pm

For all of you calling for pilots to be made inspectors this type of inspection needs a more technical background, people with engineering backgrounds would be a lot better.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:47 am

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.


I always love posts like this. Someone who has been on A.net two months and likely has very little knowledge of aviation is more of an “expert” on something than people with direct knowledge of an issue.

I suppose you read what you think in the Internet, so therefore it’s more correct than what has been stated in internal briefings on the issue.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:57 am

kalvado wrote:
6" is survivable in most cases


Yes, 6" is definitely survivable in every single case :-P
Now, talking of 6', I'd be really not happy find myself in the situation where I got off the burning aircraft and I find my egress route blocked by a crowd afraid of jumping off the wing. You bet I'd blame Boeing if I'd survive. Especially after the videos of me throwing the other passengers off the wing would hit Facebook and Youtube.
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
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:01 am

keesje wrote:
Now 777X buyers (EK) are looking at options to compensate further delayed EIS. Because of changes to the certification process.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buyers-of-boeings-newest-jet-fear-delays-11559451419

Why changes to the 777x certification process? It's good as is, but there's opportunity to make it even better to make it the safest aircraft ever? :indifferent:


I sure hope so. After all, the current 777 has proven to have a very dangerous record. Oh wait, there has never been a fatal accident in 25 years that was proven to be the fault of the airplane design. The 777 is arguably the safest airplane ever designed.

What ever kind of bitterness and vendetta you have against Boeing, you are really picking a silly battle. I’m wondering why it is that attack Boeing so much. Hmmmmm.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20953
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:51 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
What ever kind of bitterness and vendetta you have against Boeing, you are really picking a silly battle. I’m wondering why it is that attack Boeing so much. Hmmmmm.

Maybe there is a listed company to protect.

Maybe financial interests are involved.

Where have I heard such accusations before? :scratchchin:

From this same member, of course.

Turnabout is fair play, says I.
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
 
kalvado
Posts: 1814
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:20 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Now 777X buyers (EK) are looking at options to compensate further delayed EIS. Because of changes to the certification process.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buyers-of-boeings-newest-jet-fear-delays-11559451419

Why changes to the 777x certification process? It's good as is, but there's opportunity to make it even better to make it the safest aircraft ever? :indifferent:


I sure hope so. After all, the current 777 has proven to have a very dangerous record. Oh wait, there has never been a fatal accident in 25 years that was proven to be the fault of the airplane design. The 777 is arguably the safest airplane ever designed.

What ever kind of bitterness and vendetta you have against Boeing, you are really picking a silly battle. I’m wondering why it is that attack Boeing so much. Hmmmmm.

737 was a very safe plane as well, until it was maxed. Problems of max seem to be much deeper than a single mistake, and surely people felt there was nothing wrong with that program. Until things went out of control and systematic issues came to light.
Is there any guarantee that the culture of 777x program is different from max, or 777x team members were reassigned from MAX as things move along?
Like it or hate it, Boeing is on probation, and there will be many more questions asked in 777x certification process. That means money, time, and very possibly schedule slips. And it would be unwise for customers not to prepare for those delays.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3388
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:37 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Now 777X buyers (EK) are looking at options to compensate further delayed EIS. Because of changes to the certification process.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buyers-of-boeings-newest-jet-fear-delays-11559451419

Why changes to the 777x certification process? It's good as is, but there's opportunity to make it even better to make it the safest aircraft ever? :indifferent:


I sure hope so. After all, the current 777 has proven to have a very dangerous record. Oh wait, there has never been a fatal accident in 25 years that was proven to be the fault of the airplane design. The 777 is arguably the safest airplane ever designed.

What ever kind of bitterness and vendetta you have against Boeing, you are really picking a silly battle. I’m wondering why it is that attack Boeing so much. Hmmmmm.


Isn’t great when people seek out professionals to ask highly technical questions, get detailed answers then argue with professionals they sought the information from in the first place?

GF
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3388
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:38 am

kalvado wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Now 777X buyers (EK) are looking at options to compensate further delayed EIS. Because of changes to the certification process.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buyers-of-boeings-newest-jet-fear-delays-11559451419

Why changes to the 777x certification process? It's good as is, but there's opportunity to make it even better to make it the safest aircraft ever? :indifferent:


I sure hope so. After all, the current 777 has proven to have a very dangerous record. Oh wait, there has never been a fatal accident in 25 years that was proven to be the fault of the airplane design. The 777 is arguably the safest airplane ever designed.

What ever kind of bitterness and vendetta you have against Boeing, you are really picking a silly battle. I’m wondering why it is that attack Boeing so much. Hmmmmm.

737 was a very safe plane as well, until it was maxed. Problems of max seem to be much deeper than a single mistake, and surely people felt there was nothing wrong with that program. Until things went out of control and systematic issues came to light.
Is there any guarantee that the culture of 777x program is different from max, or 777x team members were reassigned from MAX as things move along?
Like it or hate it, Boeing is on probation, and there will be many more questions asked in 777x certification process. That means money, time, and very possibly schedule slips. And it would be unwise for customers not to prepare for those delays.


Who put Boeing, or any business, “on probation”? Is there an official probation process and period? Do tell.

GF
 
kalvado
Posts: 1814
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:59 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
kalvado wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

I sure hope so. After all, the current 777 has proven to have a very dangerous record. Oh wait, there has never been a fatal accident in 25 years that was proven to be the fault of the airplane design. The 777 is arguably the safest airplane ever designed.

What ever kind of bitterness and vendetta you have against Boeing, you are really picking a silly battle. I’m wondering why it is that attack Boeing so much. Hmmmmm.

737 was a very safe plane as well, until it was maxed. Problems of max seem to be much deeper than a single mistake, and surely people felt there was nothing wrong with that program. Until things went out of control and systematic issues came to light.
Is there any guarantee that the culture of 777x program is different from max, or 777x team members were reassigned from MAX as things move along?
Like it or hate it, Boeing is on probation, and there will be many more questions asked in 777x certification process. That means money, time, and very possibly schedule slips. And it would be unwise for customers not to prepare for those delays.


Who put Boeing, or any business, “on probation”? Is there an official probation process and period? Do tell.

GF

Of course, one may pretending that things would go as always. Smile and wave, boys, smile and wave.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:42 pm

Grandfather rights have finally been killed on both sides of the Atlantic. A new US Federal Aviation Administration rule has replaced the regulation which allowed completely new aircraft models in a well established family, like Boeing's 737 series, for example, to continue to be produced to some of the out-of-date certification standards in force when the first 737 was produced.


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

That was 2000, after the 737NG. I wonder if this approach was consistently upheld, when Boeing came under enormous pressure to field the 737MAX asap without much extra training for crews. Maybe solutions met the requirements, but those grandfathered from a different aircraft with the same name.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:45 pm

keesje wrote:
Grandfather rights have finally been killed on both sides of the Atlantic. A new US Federal Aviation Administration rule has replaced the regulation which allowed completely new aircraft models in a well established family, like Boeing's 737 series, for example, to continue to be produced to some of the out-of-date certification standards in force when the first 737 was produced.


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

That was 2000, after the 737NG. I wonder if this approach was consistently upheld, when Boeing came under enormous pressure to field the 737MAX asap without much extra training for crews. Maybe solutions met the requirements, but those grandfathered from a different aircraft with the same name.


Several of us have explained how the Change Product Rule and FAR amendments work. Those of us who actually know something about aviation.

I’m quite sure you haven’t read it. You don’t seem interested in real facts, especially not those that dispute your baseless attacks.

I’m more interested in knowing why you find it necessary to attack and falsely attempt to discredit Boeing’s certification of new minor models like the 777X.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:40 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Grandfather rights have finally been killed on both sides of the Atlantic. A new US Federal Aviation Administration rule has replaced the regulation which allowed completely new aircraft models in a well established family, like Boeing's 737 series, for example, to continue to be produced to some of the out-of-date certification standards in force when the first 737 was produced.


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

That was 2000, after the 737NG. I wonder if this approach was consistently upheld, when Boeing came under enormous pressure to field the 737MAX asap without much extra training for crews. Maybe solutions met the requirements, but those grandfathered from a different aircraft with the same name.


Several of us have explained how the Change Product Rule and FAR amendments work. Those of us who actually know something about aviation.

I’m quite sure you haven’t read it. You don’t seem interested in real facts, especially not those that dispute your baseless attacks.

I’m more interested in knowing why you find it necessary to attack and falsely attempt to discredit Boeing’s certification of new minor models like the 777X.


Minor models like the 777X, You deep down feel the BS factor don't you? If so you're not alone. It's why Muilenburg, Emirates and Lufthansa are uneasy. Boeing asked the FAA to approve the 777X as a slightly modified version of its 777-300 Extended Range widebody jet. With new wings, engines, tail, fuselage, LDG, systems, WTF.. Signs are the FAA was embedded at that stage, investigation are going on. Now we are so far in the process, there is hardly a way back. Will Boeing / FAA get away with promises again? Did DER's have real options to not approve far reaching minor alterations like a new shape, material, span, fold-able wing? If there was any incentive of consultants to be paid for approving, I hope it is on the table now. Boeing will no doubt try to lift it over the 777X TC (again).
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
DenverTed
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:14 am

keesje wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:

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

That was 2000, after the 737NG. I wonder if this approach was consistently upheld, when Boeing came under enormous pressure to field the 737MAX asap without much extra training for crews. Maybe solutions met the requirements, but those grandfathered from a different aircraft with the same name.


Several of us have explained how the Change Product Rule and FAR amendments work. Those of us who actually know something about aviation.

I’m quite sure you haven’t read it. You don’t seem interested in real facts, especially not those that dispute your baseless attacks.

I’m more interested in knowing why you find it necessary to attack and falsely attempt to discredit Boeing’s certification of new minor models like the 777X.


Minor models like the 777X, You deep down feel the BS factor don't you? If so you're not alone. It's why Muilenburg, Emirates and Lufthansa are uneasy. Boeing asked the FAA to approve the 777X as a slightly modified version of its 777-300 Extended Range widebody jet. With new wings, engines, tail, fuselage, LDG, systems, WTF.. Signs are the FAA was embedded at that stage, investigation are going on. Now we are so far in the process, there is hardly a way back. Will Boeing / FAA get away with promises again? Did DER's have real options to not approve far reaching minor alterations like a new shape, material, span, fold-able wing? If there was any incentive of consultants to be paid for approving, I hope it is on the table now. Boeing will no doubt try to lift it over the 777X TC (again).

Where would you draw the line in retrospect? New wing and engines on the A346 and 737NG? Should have been a new certificate in retrospect? When you were drawing up the most modified 737 with a new forward section, wing, and engines, or the A323, you seemed to be singing a different song. What's the new name for the A323, A360?
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:32 am

keesje wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:

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

That was 2000, after the 737NG. I wonder if this approach was consistently upheld, when Boeing came under enormous pressure to field the 737MAX asap without much extra training for crews. Maybe solutions met the requirements, but those grandfathered from a different aircraft with the same name.


Several of us have explained how the Change Product Rule and FAR amendments work. Those of us who actually know something about aviation.

I’m quite sure you haven’t read it. You don’t seem interested in real facts, especially not those that dispute your baseless attacks.

I’m more interested in knowing why you find it necessary to attack and falsely attempt to discredit Boeing’s certification of new minor models like the 777X.


Minor models like the 777X, You deep down feel the BS factor don't you? If so you're not alone. It's why Muilenburg, Emirates and Lufthansa are uneasy. Boeing asked the FAA to approve the 777X as a slightly modified version of its 777-300 Extended Range widebody jet. With new wings, engines, tail, fuselage, LDG, systems, WTF.. Signs are the FAA was embedded at that stage, investigation are going on. Now we are so far in the process, there is hardly a way back. Will Boeing / FAA get away with promises again? Did DER's have real options to not approve far reaching minor alterations like a new shape, material, span, fold-able wing? If there was any incentive of consultants to be paid for approving, I hope it is on the table now. Boeing will no doubt try to lift it over the 777X TC (again).


Guess you didn’t read, or don’t understand, how the Change Product Rule works. Let me refresh the facts for you.

EVERYTHING on the 777-9 that is changed from the 777–300ER is subject to the latest FAR amendment.

Further, the 777-9 will have to comply with the new (and demanding) CFR 25.1302.

In addition, Boeing will have to step up to CFR 25.1322 amd 131 (as did the KC-46). Boeing EICAS airplanes all meet this FAR in general, but it’s a pain to do all the work to show compliance.

Pretty sure the 777-9 has to step up to new ETOPS requirements too.

Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER, which by the way has a perfect safety record.

Let this sink in.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:37 am

keesje wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:

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

That was 2000, after the 737NG. I wonder if this approach was consistently upheld, when Boeing came under enormous pressure to field the 737MAX asap without much extra training for crews. Maybe solutions met the requirements, but those grandfathered from a different aircraft with the same name.


Several of us have explained how the Change Product Rule and FAR amendments work. Those of us who actually know something about aviation.

I’m quite sure you haven’t read it. You don’t seem interested in real facts, especially not those that dispute your baseless attacks.

I’m more interested in knowing why you find it necessary to attack and falsely attempt to discredit Boeing’s certification of new minor models like the 777X.


Minor models like the 777X, You deep down feel the BS factor don't you? If so you're not alone. It's why Muilenburg, Emirates and Lufthansa are uneasy. Boeing asked the FAA to approve the 777X as a slightly modified version of its 777-300 Extended Range widebody jet. With new wings, engines, tail, fuselage, LDG, systems, WTF.. Signs are the FAA was embedded at that stage, investigation are going on. Now we are so far in the process, there is hardly a way back. Will Boeing / FAA get away with promises again? Did DER's have real options to not approve far reaching minor alterations like a new shape, material, span, fold-able wing? If there was any incentive of consultants to be paid for approving, I hope it is on the table now. Boeing will no doubt try to lift it over the 777X TC (again).


By the way “Minor Model” is a technical term, which apparently you didn’t know, due to your clear huge knowledge of aviation. It’s not minor as in opposite of major in the dictionary.

Every derivative of a major model (e.g. 787) is a minor model (e.g. -8, -9, -10).
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:24 am

Duplication
Last edited by smartplane on Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:26 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Minor models like the 777X, You deep down feel the BS factor don't you? If so you're not alone. It's why Muilenburg, Emirates and Lufthansa are uneasy. Boeing asked the FAA to approve the 777X as a slightly modified version of its 777-300 Extended Range widebody jet. With new wings, engines, tail, fuselage, LDG, systems, WTF.. Signs are the FAA was embedded at that stage, investigation are going on. Now we are so far in the process, there is hardly a way back. Will Boeing / FAA get away with promises again? Did DER's have real options to not approve far reaching minor alterations like a new shape, material, span, fold-able wing? If there was any incentive of consultants to be paid for approving, I hope it is on the table now. Boeing will no doubt try to lift it over the 777X TC (again).


Guess you didn’t read, or don’t understand, how the Change Product Rule works. Let me refresh the facts for you.

EVERYTHING on the 777-9 that is changed from the 777–300ER is subject to the latest FAR amendment.

Further, the 777-9 will have to comply with the new (and demanding) CFR 25.1302.

In addition, Boeing will have to step up to CFR 25.1322 amd 131 (as did the KC-46). Boeing EICAS airplanes all meet this FAR in general, but it’s a pain to do all the work to show compliance.

Pretty sure the 777-9 has to step up to new ETOPS requirements too.

Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER, which by the way has a perfect safety record.

Theory. EVERYTHING on the 777-9 that is changed from the 777–300ER is subject to the latest FAR amendment. Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER.
Practice. OEM can, and has, challenged and contested 'changes'.
Reality. Much of what a reasonable person would consider a change, isn't.

Theory: Further, the 777-9 will have to comply with the new (and demanding) CFR 25.1302. In addition, Boeing will have to step up to CFR 25.1322 amd 131 (as did the KC-46). Boeing EICAS airplanes all meet this FAR in general, but it’s a pain to do all the work to show compliance.
Practice: For a 21st century aircraft, these CFR's are commercial aircraft design 101.
Reality: Should be a given. Shame if 787, 777X and MAX don't already comply.

'Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER, which by the way has a perfect safety record.' Isn't that precisely what Boeing told the FAA about the MAX.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:37 am

smartplane wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Minor models like the 777X, You deep down feel the BS factor don't you? If so you're not alone. It's why Muilenburg, Emirates and Lufthansa are uneasy. Boeing asked the FAA to approve the 777X as a slightly modified version of its 777-300 Extended Range widebody jet. With new wings, engines, tail, fuselage, LDG, systems, WTF.. Signs are the FAA was embedded at that stage, investigation are going on. Now we are so far in the process, there is hardly a way back. Will Boeing / FAA get away with promises again? Did DER's have real options to not approve far reaching minor alterations like a new shape, material, span, fold-able wing? If there was any incentive of consultants to be paid for approving, I hope it is on the table now. Boeing will no doubt try to lift it over the 777X TC (again).


Guess you didn’t read, or don’t understand, how the Change Product Rule works. Let me refresh the facts for you.

EVERYTHING on the 777-9 that is changed from the 777–300ER is subject to the latest FAR amendment.

Further, the 777-9 will have to comply with the new (and demanding) CFR 25.1302.

In addition, Boeing will have to step up to CFR 25.1322 amd 131 (as did the KC-46). Boeing EICAS airplanes all meet this FAR in general, but it’s a pain to do all the work to show compliance.

Pretty sure the 777-9 has to step up to new ETOPS requirements too.

Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER, which by the way has a perfect safety record.

Theory. EVERYTHING on the 777-9 that is changed from the 777–300ER is subject to the latest FAR amendment. Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER.
Practice. OEM can, and has, challenged and contested 'changes'.
Reality. Much of what a reasonable person would consider a change, isn't.

Theory: Further, the 777-9 will have to comply with the new (and demanding) CFR 25.1302. In addition, Boeing will have to step up to CFR 25.1322 amd 131 (as did the KC-46). Boeing EICAS airplanes all meet this FAR in general, but it’s a pain to do all the work to show compliance.
Practice: For a 21st century aircraft, these CFR's are commercial aircraft design 101.
Reality: Should be a given. Shame if 787, 777X and MAX don't already comply.

'Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER, which by the way has a perfect safety record.' Isn't that precisely what Boeing told the FAA about the MAX.


Yeah, what I stated is just a theory because I don’t work in that area or know what I’m taking about. :roll:

Please state your credentials in the industry to suggest that what I just stated is a “theory”. I have first hand experience with the areas I stated. I bet don’t have a clue what CFR even means.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:07 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
smartplane wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

Guess you didn’t read, or don’t understand, how the Change Product Rule works. Let me refresh the facts for you.

EVERYTHING on the 777-9 that is changed from the 777–300ER is subject to the latest FAR amendment.

Further, the 777-9 will have to comply with the new (and demanding) CFR 25.1302.

In addition, Boeing will have to step up to CFR 25.1322 amd 131 (as did the KC-46). Boeing EICAS airplanes all meet this FAR in general, but it’s a pain to do all the work to show compliance.

Pretty sure the 777-9 has to step up to new ETOPS requirements too.

Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER, which by the way has a perfect safety record.

Theory. EVERYTHING on the 777-9 that is changed from the 777–300ER is subject to the latest FAR amendment. Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER.
Practice. OEM can, and has, challenged and contested 'changes'.
Reality. Much of what a reasonable person would consider a change, isn't.

Theory: Further, the 777-9 will have to comply with the new (and demanding) CFR 25.1302. In addition, Boeing will have to step up to CFR 25.1322 amd 131 (as did the KC-46). Boeing EICAS airplanes all meet this FAR in general, but it’s a pain to do all the work to show compliance.
Practice: For a 21st century aircraft, these CFR's are commercial aircraft design 101.
Reality: Should be a given. Shame if 787, 777X and MAX don't already comply.

'Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER, which by the way has a perfect safety record.' Isn't that precisely what Boeing told the FAA about the MAX.


Yeah, what I stated is just a theory because I don’t work in that area or know what I’m taking about. :roll:

Please state your credentials in the industry to suggest that what I just stated is a “theory”. I have first hand experience with the areas I stated. I bet don’t have a clue what CFR even means.


The constant trying to build credibility based on unclear credentials, vague experience is starting to look weakish.
Maybe we underestimate who is hanging around here, unimpressed by boohaa.
Boeing & the FAA screwed up, 350 dead. Lionair was "neutralized" but then Ethiopian happened.
EASA & CAAC pulled the breaks and FAA/Boeing had to follow, kicking & screaming.
DoJ is in now, on the process & independency. This week Dennis is sending out pre-warnings on the 777X.
These aren't the good old days.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:10 pm

keesje wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Theory. EVERYTHING on the 777-9 that is changed from the 777–300ER is subject to the latest FAR amendment. Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER.
Practice. OEM can, and has, challenged and contested 'changes'.
Reality. Much of what a reasonable person would consider a change, isn't.

Theory: Further, the 777-9 will have to comply with the new (and demanding) CFR 25.1302. In addition, Boeing will have to step up to CFR 25.1322 amd 131 (as did the KC-46). Boeing EICAS airplanes all meet this FAR in general, but it’s a pain to do all the work to show compliance.
Practice: For a 21st century aircraft, these CFR's are commercial aircraft design 101.
Reality: Should be a given. Shame if 787, 777X and MAX don't already comply.

'Only things “grandfathered” in are things unchanged from the 777-300ER, which by the way has a perfect safety record.' Isn't that precisely what Boeing told the FAA about the MAX.


Yeah, what I stated is just a theory because I don’t work in that area or know what I’m taking about. :roll:

Please state your credentials in the industry to suggest that what I just stated is a “theory”. I have first hand experience with the areas I stated. I bet don’t have a clue what CFR even means.


The constant trying to build credibility based on unclear credentials, vague experience is starting to look weakish.
Maybe we underestimate who is hanging around here, unimpressed by boohaa.
Boeing & the FAA screwed up, 350 dead. Lionair was "neutralized" but then Ethiopian happened.
EASA & CAAC pulled the breaks and FAA/Boeing had to follow, kicking & screaming.
DoJ is in now, on the process & independency. This week Dennis is sending out pre-warnings on the 777X.
These aren't the good old days.


I don’t really want to identify myself but yeah, I work directly in the field and know what I’m talking about. I’ve cited specific regulations and FARs and how they apply to specific models. I could describe parts of the 777X design in great detail. Can you?

I bet you don’t have a clue what an Amendment Level is or how it is determined what one each system has to comply with. I’m sure you have no clue what CFR 25.1302 is or how compliance is shown. Or you have no clue how the FAA challenges Boeing on every little thing associated with 25.1322 amd 131 even though it’s a no-brained than an EICAS airplane complies with it.

You have yet to back up any of your Boeing bashing with facts; discredit anything that doesn’t fit you agenda; only look at selective posts that support your agenda; and have yet to post anything that indicated you have any clue what you are talking about.

You make claims based on emotion with no knowledge to back them up.

You need to try harder than this. When you actually have some knowledge and facts to post, then come talk to me.

Quite honestly, I feel like you are someone who was fired or has an axe to grind for some reason - very similar to Mr. Ludtke who was laid off due to poor performance and himself dropped the ball on some MCAS analysis, or that Last Inspector guy who bashed Boeing because he was fired and almost ended up in jail for fraud. Funny how you guys then bash Boeing with sour grapes.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1814
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:30 pm

So, we do have a medical fact: 777x will be certified as a derivative of 773ER.
Another statement- there is no real use of grandfathering rights.
So, what is the point of certification as derivative as opposed to a new type?
Main point I can think of is crew training - so FAs can work both types (probably feasible) and pilots can fly completely different airplane with minimal training (khm... I heard something along those lines not that long ago...)
Or there is another reason of using certification as derivative?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21480
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

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

Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:34 pm

keesje wrote:
The picture states "wider cross section". We're talking cabin width here, right? Not fuselage width which remains unchanged at 6.20m.


The fusealge has been stretched, interior dimensions grew. The question would be if structural changes have been made to achieve this, that could influence e.g. structures fatigue testing. [/quote]

The wider cabin cross-section comes from making the ribs flatter in the vertical part of the fuselage:
Image

The fuselage exterior dimensions will remain the same other than length.

I think the 777X is a different kettle of fish from the 737. The 737-MAX used essentially the same wing as the 737-NG, and so the new nacelles created a problem there. The 777X uses an entirely new wing with its new nacelles and it has way more under-wing clearance. Moreover, the 777X is FBW, so while an MCAS won't need to be included, the FBW system can be arranged such that it handles very similarly to its first and second-generation siblings.

In the case of the 737, I think grandfathering has been taken too far. In the case of the 777X I don't think it has.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:19 pm

DocLightning wrote:
keesje wrote:
The picture states "wider cross section". We're talking cabin width here, right? Not fuselage width which remains unchanged at 6.20m.


The fusealge has been stretched, interior dimensions grew. The question would be if structural changes have been made to achieve this, that could influence e.g. structures fatigue testing.


The wider cabin cross-section comes from making the ribs flatter in the vertical part of the fuselage:
Image

The fuselage exterior dimensions will remain the same other than length.

I think the 777X is a different kettle of fish from the 737. The 737-MAX used essentially the same wing as the 737-NG, and so the new nacelles created a problem there. The 777X uses an entirely new wing with its new nacelles and it has way more under-wing clearance. Moreover, the 777X is FBW, so while an MCAS won't need to be included, the FBW system can be arranged such that it handles very similarly to its first and second-generation siblings.

In the case of the 737, I think grandfathering has been taken too far. In the case of the 777X I don't think it has.[/quote]

Actually the 777X FBW system is not designed so it handles like the previous 777s. The 777X FBW system will function more like the 787. It has the same architecture and updated control laws as the 787.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:32 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

Yeah, what I stated is just a theory because I don’t work in that area or know what I’m taking about. :roll:

Please state your credentials in the industry to suggest that what I just stated is a “theory”. I have first hand experience with the areas I stated. I bet don’t have a clue what CFR even means.


The constant trying to build credibility based on unclear credentials, vague experience is starting to look weakish.
Maybe we underestimate who is hanging around here, unimpressed by boohaa.
Boeing & the FAA screwed up, 350 dead. Lionair was "neutralized" but then Ethiopian happened.
EASA & CAAC pulled the breaks and FAA/Boeing had to follow, kicking & screaming.
DoJ is in now, on the process & independency. This week Dennis is sending out pre-warnings on the 777X.
These aren't the good old days.


I don’t really want to identify myself but yeah, I work directly in the field and know what I’m talking about. I’ve cited specific regulations and FARs and how they apply to specific models. I could describe parts of the 777X design in great detail. Can you?

I bet you don’t have a clue what an Amendment Level is or how it is determined what one each system has to comply with. I’m sure you have no clue what CFR 25.1302 is or how compliance is shown. Or you have no clue how the FAA challenges Boeing on every little thing associated with 25.1322 amd 131 even though it’s a no-brained than an EICAS airplane complies with it.

You have yet to back up any of your Boeing bashing with facts; discredit anything that doesn’t fit you agenda; only look at selective posts that support your agenda; and have yet to post anything that indicated you have any clue what you are talking about.

You make claims based on emotion with no knowledge to back them up.

You need to try harder than this. When you actually have some knowledge and facts to post, then come talk to me.

Quite honestly, I feel like you are someone who was fired or has an axe to grind for some reason - very similar to Mr. Ludtke who was laid off due to poor performance and himself dropped the ball on some MCAS analysis, or that Last Inspector guy who bashed Boeing because he was fired and almost ended up in jail for fraud. Funny how you guys then bash Boeing with sour grapes.


No disrespect to you personally intended here.

There clearly have been some huge mistakes made by Boeing with the design and launch of Max 737.

What makes you so confident similar mistakes/errors can't/won't have happened with the new 777?
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:44 pm

Interested wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:

The constant trying to build credibility based on unclear credentials, vague experience is starting to look weakish.
Maybe we underestimate who is hanging around here, unimpressed by boohaa.
Boeing & the FAA screwed up, 350 dead. Lionair was "neutralized" but then Ethiopian happened.
EASA & CAAC pulled the breaks and FAA/Boeing had to follow, kicking & screaming.
DoJ is in now, on the process & independency. This week Dennis is sending out pre-warnings on the 777X.
These aren't the good old days.


I don’t really want to identify myself but yeah, I work directly in the field and know what I’m talking about. I’ve cited specific regulations and FARs and how they apply to specific models. I could describe parts of the 777X design in great detail. Can you?

I bet you don’t have a clue what an Amendment Level is or how it is determined what one each system has to comply with. I’m sure you have no clue what CFR 25.1302 is or how compliance is shown. Or you have no clue how the FAA challenges Boeing on every little thing associated with 25.1322 amd 131 even though it’s a no-brained than an EICAS airplane complies with it.

You have yet to back up any of your Boeing bashing with facts; discredit anything that doesn’t fit you agenda; only look at selective posts that support your agenda; and have yet to post anything that indicated you have any clue what you are talking about.

You make claims based on emotion with no knowledge to back them up.

You need to try harder than this. When you actually have some knowledge and facts to post, then come talk to me.

Quite honestly, I feel like you are someone who was fired or has an axe to grind for some reason - very similar to Mr. Ludtke who was laid off due to poor performance and himself dropped the ball on some MCAS analysis, or that Last Inspector guy who bashed Boeing because he was fired and almost ended up in jail for fraud. Funny how you guys then bash Boeing with sour grapes.


No disrespect to you personally intended here.

There clearly have been some huge mistakes made by Boeing with the design and launch of Max 737.

What makes you so confident similar mistakes/errors can't/won't have happened with the new 777?


No disrespect taken. That’s a fair question.

The 777-9 is an evolution of a much more advanced and robust airplane design than the 737 Max was. It wasn’t rushed into design. It has a lot of 787 systems which are robust. Plus it now has the benefit of lessons learned.

The 777X has a highly advanced FBW system. It doesn’t need slap on stuff like MCAS.
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:57 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Interested wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

I don’t really want to identify myself but yeah, I work directly in the field and know what I’m talking about. I’ve cited specific regulations and FARs and how they apply to specific models. I could describe parts of the 777X design in great detail. Can you?

I bet you don’t have a clue what an Amendment Level is or how it is determined what one each system has to comply with. I’m sure you have no clue what CFR 25.1302 is or how compliance is shown. Or you have no clue how the FAA challenges Boeing on every little thing associated with 25.1322 amd 131 even though it’s a no-brained than an EICAS airplane complies with it.

You have yet to back up any of your Boeing bashing with facts; discredit anything that doesn’t fit you agenda; only look at selective posts that support your agenda; and have yet to post anything that indicated you have any clue what you are talking about.

You make claims based on emotion with no knowledge to back them up.

You need to try harder than this. When you actually have some knowledge and facts to post, then come talk to me.

Quite honestly, I feel like you are someone who was fired or has an axe to grind for some reason - very similar to Mr. Ludtke who was laid off due to poor performance and himself dropped the ball on some MCAS analysis, or that Last Inspector guy who bashed Boeing because he was fired and almost ended up in jail for fraud. Funny how you guys then bash Boeing with sour grapes.


No disrespect to you personally intended here.

There clearly have been some huge mistakes made by Boeing with the design and launch of Max 737.

What makes you so confident similar mistakes/errors can't/won't have happened with the new 777?


No disrespect taken. That’s a fair question.

The 777-9 is an evolution of a much more advanced and robust airplane design than the 737 Max was. It wasn’t rushed into design. It has a lot of 787 systems which are robust. Plus it now has the benefit of lessons learned.

The 777X has a highly advanced FBW system. It doesn’t need slap on stuff like MCAS.


Thanks. That's a good answer as far as I'm concerned.

I bet you wish you guys could turn the clock back and do Max all over again?

Knowing what you know now:

Would you still grandfather 737 NG but do it a better way?

Or start with a clean sheet of paper and design a new plane?
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:08 pm

Interested wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
Interested wrote:

No disrespect to you personally intended here.

There clearly have been some huge mistakes made by Boeing with the design and launch of Max 737.

What makes you so confident similar mistakes/errors can't/won't have happened with the new 777?


No disrespect taken. That’s a fair question.

The 777-9 is an evolution of a much more advanced and robust airplane design than the 737 Max was. It wasn’t rushed into design. It has a lot of 787 systems which are robust. Plus it now has the benefit of lessons learned.

The 777X has a highly advanced FBW system. It doesn’t need slap on stuff like MCAS.


Thanks. That's a good answer as far as I'm concerned.

I bet you wish you guys could turn the clock back and do Max all over again?

Knowing what you know now:

Would you still grandfather 737 NG but do it a better way?

Or start with a clean sheet of paper and design a new plane?


I’d have done a new airplane. There was some preliminary work done on a 737 replacement. However, Boeing leadership bungled the 787 so much that it took away all the financial and engineering resources from the project.

I’m not a big fan of the 737. I think much of the MCAS Stuff has been misreported, tragic losses notwithstanding, but I think it’s absurd to be delivering a non-EICAS airplane in 2019.

If we hadn’t had two slimeball CEOs running the company into the ground to line their own pockets with money, things might be very different now.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8363
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:11 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Interested wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

I don’t really want to identify myself but yeah, I work directly in the field and know what I’m talking about. I’ve cited specific regulations and FARs and how they apply to specific models. I could describe parts of the 777X design in great detail. Can you?

I bet you don’t have a clue what an Amendment Level is or how it is determined what one each system has to comply with. I’m sure you have no clue what CFR 25.1302 is or how compliance is shown. Or you have no clue how the FAA challenges Boeing on every little thing associated with 25.1322 amd 131 even though it’s a no-brained than an EICAS airplane complies with it.

You have yet to back up any of your Boeing bashing with facts; discredit anything that doesn’t fit you agenda; only look at selective posts that support your agenda; and have yet to post anything that indicated you have any clue what you are talking about.

You make claims based on emotion with no knowledge to back them up.

You need to try harder than this. When you actually have some knowledge and facts to post, then come talk to me.

Quite honestly, I feel like you are someone who was fired or has an axe to grind for some reason - very similar to Mr. Ludtke who was laid off due to poor performance and himself dropped the ball on some MCAS analysis, or that Last Inspector guy who bashed Boeing because he was fired and almost ended up in jail for fraud. Funny how you guys then bash Boeing with sour grapes.


No disrespect to you personally intended here.

There clearly have been some huge mistakes made by Boeing with the design and launch of Max 737.

What makes you so confident similar mistakes/errors can't/won't have happened with the new 777?


No disrespect taken. That’s a fair question.

The 777-9 is an evolution of a much more advanced and robust airplane design than the 737 Max was. It wasn’t rushed into design. It has a lot of 787 systems which are robust. Plus it now has the benefit of lessons learned.

The 777X has a highly advanced FBW system. It doesn’t need slap on stuff like MCAS.


What you do not seem to get is, that the Boeing SYSTEM of designing frames is suspect after the MAX debacle. A big part of the Boeing system is to try to grandfather everything in sight.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:19 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
Interested wrote:

No disrespect to you personally intended here.

There clearly have been some huge mistakes made by Boeing with the design and launch of Max 737.

What makes you so confident similar mistakes/errors can't/won't have happened with the new 777?


No disrespect taken. That’s a fair question.

The 777-9 is an evolution of a much more advanced and robust airplane design than the 737 Max was. It wasn’t rushed into design. It has a lot of 787 systems which are robust. Plus it now has the benefit of lessons learned.

The 777X has a highly advanced FBW system. It doesn’t need slap on stuff like MCAS.


What you do not seem to get is, that the Boeing SYSTEM of designing frames is suspect after the MAX debacle. A big part of the Boeing system is to try to grandfather everything in sight.


Yeah I don’t get it. I just work in the field you are referring to.

I don’t deny that Boeing has a lot of work to do on reputation, but your comment about grandfathering everything in sight is amateurish.

Have you read the multiple postings explaining how the cert basis works? Are you really familiar with how it works?

Or are you just making an (incorrect) statement based on emotion because you read it on the Internet?
 
Interested
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:34 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Interested wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

No disrespect taken. That’s a fair question.

The 777-9 is an evolution of a much more advanced and robust airplane design than the 737 Max was. It wasn’t rushed into design. It has a lot of 787 systems which are robust. Plus it now has the benefit of lessons learned.

The 777X has a highly advanced FBW system. It doesn’t need slap on stuff like MCAS.


Thanks. That's a good answer as far as I'm concerned.

I bet you wish you guys could turn the clock back and do Max all over again?

Knowing what you know now:

Would you still grandfather 737 NG but do it a better way?

Or start with a clean sheet of paper and design a new plane?


I’d have done a new airplane. There was some preliminary work done on a 737 replacement. However, Boeing leadership bungled the 787 so much that it took away all the financial and engineering resources from the project.

I’m not a big fan of the 737. I think much of the MCAS Stuff has been misreported, tragic losses notwithstanding, but I think it’s absurd to be delivering a non-EICAS airplane in 2019.

If we hadn’t had two slimeball CEOs running the company into the ground to line their own pockets with money, things might be very different now.


Nice honest answer

I can sympathise with and trust Boeing people when they don't just blindly defend everything Boeing do
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:48 pm

Interested wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
Interested wrote:

Thanks. That's a good answer as far as I'm concerned.

I bet you wish you guys could turn the clock back and do Max all over again?

Knowing what you know now:

Would you still grandfather 737 NG but do it a better way?

Or start with a clean sheet of paper and design a new plane?


I’d have done a new airplane. There was some preliminary work done on a 737 replacement. However, Boeing leadership bungled the 787 so much that it took away all the financial and engineering resources from the project.

I’m not a big fan of the 737. I think much of the MCAS Stuff has been misreported, tragic losses notwithstanding, but I think it’s absurd to be delivering a non-EICAS airplane in 2019.

If we hadn’t had two slimeball CEOs running the company into the ground to line their own pockets with money, things might be very different now.


Nice honest answer

I can sympathise with and trust Boeing people when they don't just blindly defend everything Boeing do


I detest the way Boeing has been managed for the past 25 years. Phil was incompetent; Harry and McSlimeball are greedy bastards who have run the company into the ground for their personal benefit. I think Dennis is a huge improvement.

However, I’ve also pushed back a lot on factually incorrect attacks like the one the OP continues with. I call a spade a spade. I don’t deny some tragic mistakes were made, but so much of what’s posted here about MCAS is emotional based BS.

I appreciate your respectful contributions to this discussion.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20953
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:26 pm

keesje wrote:
The constant trying to build credibility based on unclear credentials, vague experience is starting to look weakish.

We have some people slathering colloquial terms such as "grandfathering" onto everything a layman could slather them on to.

We have others who ask for professional terminology and examples applied with respect to the relevant regulations and we get nothing back in return.

I think it's clear who lacks credentials and who appears "weakish".
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
 
TObound
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:32 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:

I don’t deny that Boeing has a lot of work to do on reputation, but your comment about grandfathering everything in sight is amateurish.

Have you read the multiple postings explaining how the cert basis works? Are you really familiar with how it works?

Or are you just making an (incorrect) statement based on emotion because you read it on the Internet?


I work in an airworthiness clearance capacity. We just finished a course on the subject matter. The 737 MAX was used as an example of how not to certify something. And when to consider that BOCs are simply being abused at that point.

Admittedly easier to do in hindsight. And admittedly being military it's a lot easier for me to pushback than a DER whose fortunes are on the line one way or another.

On the topic at hand, I'll say what one my mentors told me early on in my career. If you have to wave your rank or qualifications around, you won't have and don't deserve respect. Make the points based on facts and your expertise will shine through.

I find it incredible how tone deaf Boeing, the FAA and American aviation professionals have been on this debacle. If Boeing wants to regain and retain its reputation outside the US, I think it's incumbent on everyone from the CEO to line engineers like yourself to be a little more measured and respectful in every forum, including ones like these.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:43 pm

TObound wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

I don’t deny that Boeing has a lot of work to do on reputation, but your comment about grandfathering everything in sight is amateurish.

Have you read the multiple postings explaining how the cert basis works? Are you really familiar with how it works?

Or are you just making an (incorrect) statement based on emotion because you read it on the Internet?


I work in an airworthiness clearance capacity. We just finished a course on the subject matter. The 737 MAX was used as an example of how not to certify something. And when to consider that BOCs are simply being abused at that point.

Admittedly easier to do in hindsight. And admittedly being military it's a lot easier for me to pushback than a DER whose fortunes are on the line one way or another.

On the topic at hand, I'll say what one my mentors told me early on in my career. If you have to wave your rank or qualifications around, you won't have and don't deserve respect. Make the points based on facts and your expertise will shine through.

I find it incredible how tone deaf Boeing, the FAA and American aviation professionals have been on this debacle. If Boeing wants to regain and retain its reputation outside the US, I think it's incumbent on everyone from the CEO to line engineers like yourself to be a little more measured and respectful in every forum, including ones like these.


The current situation supports what was stated in your class. What are your thoughts on the 777X cert basis?

The only reason I’ve hinted at credentials is because a few people who have no idea what they are talking about still insist on denying stated fact. So I’ve pushed back. The OP has yet to state anything with any factual basis behind it. Some guy on another thread who has been on A.net for two months in effect told me I didn’t know what I was talking about for why MCAS was developed. I’ve been in expert briefings on the issue. He read it on the Internet.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1814
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:15 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
TObound wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

I don’t deny that Boeing has a lot of work to do on reputation, but your comment about grandfathering everything in sight is amateurish.

Have you read the multiple postings explaining how the cert basis works? Are you really familiar with how it works?

Or are you just making an (incorrect) statement based on emotion because you read it on the Internet?


I work in an airworthiness clearance capacity. We just finished a course on the subject matter. The 737 MAX was used as an example of how not to certify something. And when to consider that BOCs are simply being abused at that point.

Admittedly easier to do in hindsight. And admittedly being military it's a lot easier for me to pushback than a DER whose fortunes are on the line one way or another.

On the topic at hand, I'll say what one my mentors told me early on in my career. If you have to wave your rank or qualifications around, you won't have and don't deserve respect. Make the points based on facts and your expertise will shine through.

I find it incredible how tone deaf Boeing, the FAA and American aviation professionals have been on this debacle. If Boeing wants to regain and retain its reputation outside the US, I think it's incumbent on everyone from the CEO to line engineers like yourself to be a little more measured and respectful in every forum, including ones like these.


The current situation supports what was stated in your class. What are your thoughts on the 777X cert basis?

The only reason I’ve hinted at credentials is because a few people who have no idea what they are talking about still insist on denying stated fact. So I’ve pushed back. The OP has yet to state anything with any factual basis behind it. Some guy on another thread who has been on A.net for two months in effect told me I didn’t know what I was talking about for why MCAS was developed. I’ve been in expert briefings on the issue. He read it on the Internet.

Let me ask a harsh question from the slightly different angle:
There are 2 recent programs at Boeing which went ugly. 787 has no crashes per se, just a few close calls, and several frames written off as screwed up too badly. Problems were eventually extinguished with tons of cash. MAX did bite the dust twice. Any specific reason to believe 777x is any better?
Grandfathering can be good thing or bad thing in hindsight. My impression that MAX problems are not grandfathering or add-on systems, but big problems with workflow. Same as it was with 787. So, are you saying everything is different when in comes to X?
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:25 pm

kalvado wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
TObound wrote:

I work in an airworthiness clearance capacity. We just finished a course on the subject matter. The 737 MAX was used as an example of how not to certify something. And when to consider that BOCs are simply being abused at that point.

Admittedly easier to do in hindsight. And admittedly being military it's a lot easier for me to pushback than a DER whose fortunes are on the line one way or another.

On the topic at hand, I'll say what one my mentors told me early on in my career. If you have to wave your rank or qualifications around, you won't have and don't deserve respect. Make the points based on facts and your expertise will shine through.

I find it incredible how tone deaf Boeing, the FAA and American aviation professionals have been on this debacle. If Boeing wants to regain and retain its reputation outside the US, I think it's incumbent on everyone from the CEO to line engineers like yourself to be a little more measured and respectful in every forum, including ones like these.


The current situation supports what was stated in your class. What are your thoughts on the 777X cert basis?

The only reason I’ve hinted at credentials is because a few people who have no idea what they are talking about still insist on denying stated fact. So I’ve pushed back. The OP has yet to state anything with any factual basis behind it. Some guy on another thread who has been on A.net for two months in effect told me I didn’t know what I was talking about for why MCAS was developed. I’ve been in expert briefings on the issue. He read it on the Internet.

Let me ask a harsh question from the slightly different angle:
There are 2 recent programs at Boeing which went ugly. 787 has no crashes per se, just a few close calls, and several frames written off as screwed up too badly. Problems were eventually extinguished with tons of cash. MAX did bite the dust twice. Any specific reason to believe 777x is any better?
Grandfathering can be good thing or bad thing in hindsight. My impression that MAX problems are not grandfathering or add-on systems, but big problems with workflow. Same as it was with 787. So, are you saying everything is different when in comes to X?


Well the 787 wasn’t grandfathered at all. It was an all new type design. Boeing has the benefit of lessons learned for the 777X. Let’s hope they are heeded.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:28 pm

Asking for facts / proof can quickly turn into a cover up. A few months ago we were in a thread discussing the Lionair crash. People were digging up Lionair's operational track record. As soon anyone asked anything on MCAS, the Lionair aircraft wasn't airworthy We shouldn't speculate and wait for the official investigation report to be released late 2019. Boeing stock didn't even react and other topics took over.

Then came the Ethiopian crash. FAA / Boeing tried the same recipe, hiding behind "no proof", "don't speculate", 737 track record, inexperienced pilots.

CAAC and EASA did their job and then spotlights turned on FAA, Boeing, who could no longer bluff their way out.

Unbelievable engineering & certification decisions started to surface. A system error by organisations blindly defended days before on this forum.

Now after weeks of discussions, Boeing finally starts warning on 777X delays, because of the way the aircraft is certified.

If you can't recognize what most likely is behind this and need hard proof, you should ask yourself how hard that proof should be for you this time & what are lessons learned from the MAX. In parallel fully certified by the same OE and authorities and apparently a mix of those. Wrongly.

If you can't see the 777x is not a minor change from the 777-300ER, there is in my opinion a credibility issue. And it won't go away.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:42 pm

keesje wrote:
Asking for facts / proof can quickly turn into a cover up. A few months ago we were in a thread discussing the Lionair crash. People were digging up Lionair's operational track record. As soon anyone asked anything on MCAS, the Lionair aircraft wasn't airworthy We shouldn't speculate and wait for the official investigation report to be released late 2019. Boeing stock didn't even react and other topics took over.

Then came the Ethiopian crash. FAA / Boeing tried the same recipe, hiding behind "no proof", "don't speculate", 737 track record, inexperienced pilots.

CAAC and EASA did their job and then spotlights turned on FAA, Boeing, who could no longer bluff their way out.

Unbelievable engineering & certification decisions started to surface. A system error by organisations blindly defended days before on this forum.

Now after weeks of discussions, Boeing finally starts warning on 777X delays, because of the way the aircraft is certified.

If you can't recognize what most likely is behind this and need hard proof, you should ask yourself how hard that proof should be for you this time & what are lessons learned from the MAX. In parallel fully certified by the same OE and authorities and apparently a mix of those. Wrongly.

If you can't see the 777x is not a minor change from the 777-300ER, there is in my opinion a credibility issue. And it won't go away.


I’m pretty darn familiar with the 777X. One more time since you didn’t grasp it when I said it before. I didn’t say it was a minor change from the -300ER.

I said the 777-9 is a new 777 Minor Model. That is correct. You misinterpreted that. Then I posted and pointed out what Minor Model means.

Now once again, you completely ignore that and attempt to discredit me by blatantly mis-quoting something I said even after I again explained it to you.

I’d say it’s you that have the credibility issue. Go back and read the previous posts where you misquote me as saying the -9 is a minor change from the -300ER and when I explained what Minor Model means.

You selectively pick out and misquote the information you want to build your constant slander against Boeing and it’s employees. Nice way to show everyone how credible your points are.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21480
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

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

Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:46 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Actually the 777X FBW system is not designed so it handles like the previous 777s. The 777X FBW system will function more like the 787. It has the same architecture and updated control laws as the 787.


That's why I said that it "can" be but I didn't know if it "will be." So thanks for the information.

Although wasn't the 787 FBW based on the 777's?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
formeraa
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:27 am

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

Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:16 pm

ELBOB wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
But, most of all, the FAA need to bring back in-house the vast majority of authorisations it signed over to Boeing.


The problem is that the FAA, and other regulators, no longer have the budget & experienced manpower to do so. That's why they have outsourced certification testing to the manufacturers. Do people realise that Cessna has full type-certificate certification authority, too, under the ODA scheme? Of course not because Cessna seem to be an engineering-orientated organisation that does the cert work properly and doesn't raise headlines*

I think the model of national regulators duplicating each other's certification work, and making a mess of it, is broken. Perhaps they should focus on national issues like pilot licensing and hand certification over to an ICAO group.


* though they had the CofA for the Conquest suspended in 1979, that was well before the delegation scheme was implemented


While true, there were alot more accidents (even of new aircraft models) back in the day. So, it's not just budget for these agencies. It is about stringent testing, pilot training, and making sure the aircraft manufacturers are telling the truth.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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

Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:58 pm

DocLightning wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
Actually the 777X FBW system is not designed so it handles like the previous 777s. The 777X FBW system will function more like the 787. It has the same architecture and updated control laws as the 787.


That's why I said that it "can" be but I didn't know if it "will be." So thanks for the information.

Although wasn't the 787 FBW based on the 777's?


Yes, in general the 787 flies similar to the 777, but has some enhanced features.
 
TObound
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:06 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:

The current situation supports what was stated in your class. What are your thoughts on the 777X cert basis?


Everything I've read on the 777X has me more confident than the MAX. Also, I think there's a lot more natural caution when wings and cockpits are changed.


BoeingGuy wrote:
The only reason I’ve hinted at credentials is because a few people who have no idea what they are talking about still insist on denying stated fact. So I’ve pushed back. The OP has yet to state anything with any factual basis behind it. Some guy on another thread who has been on A.net for two months in effect told me I didn’t know what I was talking about for why MCAS was developed. I’ve been in expert briefings on the issue. He read it on the Internet.


I'll be honest. I think sometimes professionals lose the forest for the trees. And I strongly suspect there's an element of this in the MAX case. You sign off changes all the time. You talk about different cert codes and basis all the time. And it's easy to get complacent or not realize that the change being considered is as impactful as it is. The MAX really looks like a case bordering on normalization of deviance hiding behind regulatory gobbledy-gook. Cert code this. Cert basis that. Oh look the compliance matrix is all signed off. Should be good right?

Everybody needs to ask themselves how this airplane got signed off. And not just the US. The rest of the world needs to ask if reciprocity is really helping if the results are nobody waving the bullshit flag on cases like this.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20953
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:10 pm

keesje wrote:
Now after weeks of discussions, Boeing finally starts warning on 777X delays, because of the way the aircraft is certified.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/06/05/stabi ... um=twitter from today quotes Boeing's CFO speaking to a room filled with financial analysts:

Boeing’s newest jetliner, the 777X, has not been affected by the need to re-certify the 737 MAX, Smith said.

The first two 777X flight test aircraft are on the ramp at Boeing’s Everett plant, and the next two are in final assembly there. GE’s massive GE9X engine has required retesting, which has slowed progress. However, it is not an issue with the 777X program’s production system, Smith assured the conference attendees.

“We still expect to fly this year with a 2020 entry into service,” he said.

No warning here.

FUD narrative derailed.

keesje wrote:
If you can't see the 777x is not a minor change from the 777-300ER, there is in my opinion a credibility issue. And it won't go away.

If you can't understand the difference between a Minor Model and a minor change, in my opinion you have a credibility issue.

And guess what, the MAX issue will go away. The fix will get approved and the planes will fly again. A year from now it will be old news.
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
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:19 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Asking for facts / proof can quickly turn into a cover up. A few months ago we were in a thread discussing the Lionair crash. People were digging up Lionair's operational track record. As soon anyone asked anything on MCAS, the Lionair aircraft wasn't airworthy We shouldn't speculate and wait for the official investigation report to be released late 2019. Boeing stock didn't even react and other topics took over.

Then came the Ethiopian crash. FAA / Boeing tried the same recipe, hiding behind "no proof", "don't speculate", 737 track record, inexperienced pilots.

CAAC and EASA did their job and then spotlights turned on FAA, Boeing, who could no longer bluff their way out.

Unbelievable engineering & certification decisions started to surface. A system error by organisations blindly defended days before on this forum.

Now after weeks of discussions, Boeing finally starts warning on 777X delays, because of the way the aircraft is certified.

If you can't recognize what most likely is behind this and need hard proof, you should ask yourself how hard that proof should be for you this time & what are lessons learned from the MAX. In parallel fully certified by the same OE and authorities and apparently a mix of those. Wrongly.

If you can't see the 777x is not a minor change from the 777-300ER, there is in my opinion a credibility issue. And it won't go away.


I’m pretty darn familiar with the 777X. One more time since you didn’t grasp it when I said it before. I didn’t say it was a minor change from the -300ER.

I said the 777-9 is a new 777 Minor Model. That is correct. You misinterpreted that. Then I posted and pointed out what Minor Model means.

Now once again, you completely ignore that and attempt to discredit me by blatantly mis-quoting something I said even after I again explained it to you.

I’d say it’s you that have the credibility issue. Go back and read the previous posts where you misquote me as saying the -9 is a minor change from the -300ER and when I explained what Minor Model means.

You selectively pick out and misquote the information you want to build your constant slander against Boeing and it’s employees. Nice way to show everyone how credible your points are.

BoeingGuy, you are arguing against a moving target of deceit. This is a guy so embedded in his Airbus fanboydom that he entered into a shameful now deleted tirade against the mods. One of the deletions was my response to his attack so it may have been missed by the community, but of which I repost the relevant part ..

And when it comes to credibility on anything regarding Boeing, yours is zero. We can all recall your comments on this site that the B777X is just a warmed over version of the B77W. When it was expedient, you cynically changed your tune, and yet despite the excellent KNOWLEDGEABLE AND FACT-BASED posts of others here, you now resort to the persecution complex of the out-played fanboy.


It's hilarious to see him charge you with saying the 779 is a small change from the 77W, when that's been his thesis all along. Hilarious and pitiful at the same time.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:33 pm

TObound wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

The current situation supports what was stated in your class. What are your thoughts on the 777X cert basis?


Everything I've read on the 777X has me more confident than the MAX. Also, I think there's a lot more natural caution when wings and cockpits are changed.


BoeingGuy wrote:
The only reason I’ve hinted at credentials is because a few people who have no idea what they are talking about still insist on denying stated fact. So I’ve pushed back. The OP has yet to state anything with any factual basis behind it. Some guy on another thread who has been on A.net for two months in effect told me I didn’t know what I was talking about for why MCAS was developed. I’ve been in expert briefings on the issue. He read it on the Internet.


I'll be honest. I think sometimes professionals lose the forest for the trees. And I strongly suspect there's an element of this in the MAX case. You sign off changes all the time. You talk about different cert codes and basis all the time. And it's easy to get complacent or not realize that the change being considered is as impactful as it is. The MAX really looks like a case bordering on normalization of deviance hiding behind regulatory gobbledy-gook. Cert code this. Cert basis that. Oh look the compliance matrix is all signed off. Should be good right?

Everybody needs to ask themselves how this airplane got signed off. And not just the US. The rest of the world needs to ask if reciprocity is really helping if the results are nobody waving the bullshit flag on cases like this.


All valid points. I’m not personally an AR so don’t sign anything off.

I’ve stated before. There were some assumption about flight crew response baked into the safety analysis. Did it prove to be wrong? Apparently, with tragic results. Were mistakes made? Yes.

What I have been pushing back on are ridiculous notions that Boeing neglects safety to improve profits. Or that the FAA and Boeing are in bed, etc.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8363
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Has grandfathering been taken too far?

Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:51 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
TObound wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

The current situation supports what was stated in your class. What are your thoughts on the 777X cert basis?


Everything I've read on the 777X has me more confident than the MAX. Also, I think there's a lot more natural caution when wings and cockpits are changed.


BoeingGuy wrote:
The only reason I’ve hinted at credentials is because a few people who have no idea what they are talking about still insist on denying stated fact. So I’ve pushed back. The OP has yet to state anything with any factual basis behind it. Some guy on another thread who has been on A.net for two months in effect told me I didn’t know what I was talking about for why MCAS was developed. I’ve been in expert briefings on the issue. He read it on the Internet.


I'll be honest. I think sometimes professionals lose the forest for the trees. And I strongly suspect there's an element of this in the MAX case. You sign off changes all the time. You talk about different cert codes and basis all the time. And it's easy to get complacent or not realize that the change being considered is as impactful as it is. The MAX really looks like a case bordering on normalization of deviance hiding behind regulatory gobbledy-gook. Cert code this. Cert basis that. Oh look the compliance matrix is all signed off. Should be good right?

Everybody needs to ask themselves how this airplane got signed off. And not just the US. The rest of the world needs to ask if reciprocity is really helping if the results are nobody waving the bullshit flag on cases like this.


All valid points. I’m not personally an AR so don’t sign anything off.

I’ve stated before. There were some assumption about flight crew response baked into the safety analysis. Did it prove to be wrong? Apparently, with tragic results. Were mistakes made? Yes.

What I have been pushing back on are ridiculous notions that Boeing neglects safety to improve profits. Or that the FAA and Boeing are in bed, etc.


You see mistakes, I see a complete break down of checks and balances regarding a safety relevant design.
  • 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