User avatar
Erebus
Topic Author
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:40 am

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

Ill timed release for Boeing coming at a time when there's intense scrutiny over its certification practices regarding the MAX. 777X and the potential NMA will see reduced physical and airborne tests. Will other regulatory authorities fall in line with the FAA on this or will they demand those extra tests to be completed before granting certification in those jurisdictions? It won't do much good if the FAA is the only one to do it.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:49 am

The third from last paragraph is incorrect, or doesn’t make sense. There most certainly is a full flight deck engineering simulator (“cockpit replica” as the article calls it) for the 777X and the FAA and EASA have flown in it plenty of times and seen any issues. The 787, 737 Max, 737NG, KC-46, 747-8 and 777 have all had the same. The NMA will have one too.

Most of them are still in use too.

If Reuters is suggesting the 777X only has Airplane Zero and not a “cockpit replica” like the 777, that is outright false.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:18 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
The third from last paragraph is incorrect, or doesn’t make sense. There most certainly is a full flight deck engineering simulator (“cockpit replica” as the article calls it) for the 777X and the FAA and EASA have flown in it plenty of times and seen any issues. The 787, 737 Max, 737NG, KC-46, 747-8 and 777 have all had the same. The NMA will have one too.

Most of them are still in use too.

If Reuters is suggesting the 777X only has Airplane Zero and not a “cockpit replica” like the 777, that is outright false.

This is one of the agenda items taxing airworthiness authorities (minus FAA), at an upcoming meeting in Canada.

For example, using physical testing and experience with 787 CFRP wing construction, scaled up for the 777X wing, should comprehensive physical testing be required for the 777X, as it's a new wing? Or just modelled? Or a combination? How much scaling (up/down) before full physical testing is required? Can truncated testing be used as the basis for further growth? What time limitations should apply?

Safety. Is it safe?

Trade. Chinese and Japanese delegates argue airworthiness certification favours A & B, and proposals to reduce physical testing where structures and systems are based on a current model, even if a different family, age or size, ups the anti.
 
kalvado
Posts: 1812
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:45 am

A few years ago one of big problems of 787 was a failure to catch an excessive stress in mechanical simulation. Which doesn't add too much confidence to such plans.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11640
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:00 pm

Brilliant ! Keep em' coming, way to go ! What next ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
Sokes
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:41 pm

From above's link:
"In February 2018, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg touted the company’s “streamlining certifications” effort at an industry conference, saying it was “an item we want to keep on the leading edge.”
While Boeing declined to elaborate on what Muilenburg meant by “streamlining,” people familiar with the matter said it includes lobbying for more limited direct FAA oversight and expanding the use of digital analysis over costlier physical testing to show regulatory compliance."

If the BoeingGuy is right, one has to keep in mind that the newspaper agency article contains mistakes. Having said that:
While history suggests that capitalism is a blessing to mankind, it also suggests that capitalism requires government oversight. Best example: When banking went out of control, F.D.Roosevelt put it on a short leash again (Glass-Steagall act 1933-1999).
What does this teach us about the topic at hand?

I feel sorry for the Boeing employee's motivation in today's situation. In case it helps: Regulation (e.g. labor market) in Germany is also not as good any more as it used to be in the 1980s.
I think there is a high correlation between the quality of government oversight and...luck.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3946
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:31 pm

on the opposite side, are some of the tests grandfathered into a test program when in fact they are either no longer relevant or redundant... reminds me of an old procedure that ent "receive data from Engineering and return for completion" when asked what was the criteria for completion, we discovered that the problem (a missing signature) was resolved 20 years earlier and no one thought to change the procedure. Also at one time there was a requirement on testing fuse pins that required destructive testing of 7 pins in a manufacturing batch... problem was the batch size was 10 and aircraft needed 4... we discovered 3 of the tests were carried over from a different material and no longer valid. So are there similar things in the aircraft test and certification process?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:08 pm

kanban wrote:
on the opposite side, are some of the tests grandfathered into a test program when in fact they are either no longer relevant or redundant... reminds me of an old procedure that ent "receive data from Engineering and return for completion" when asked what was the criteria for completion, we discovered that the problem (a missing signature) was resolved 20 years earlier and no one thought to change the procedure. Also at one time there was a requirement on testing fuse pins that required destructive testing of 7 pins in a manufacturing batch... problem was the batch size was 10 and aircraft needed 4... we discovered 3 of the tests were carried over from a different material and no longer valid. So are there similar things in the aircraft test and certification process?

Would be nice to have your post pinned, unfortunately, all we are thinking about now is the MAX situation, realities such as this will not be included in our debate.
When we consider that the two most popular narrow body a/c flying the skies are both over 30 years old, it is probably a safe bet that some certification requirements have changed or been made obsolete, but.....
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:35 pm

One can also use regulations to eliminate or minimize competition, protect a favored company, create a financial black hole, etc etc etc
Two sides to every story.
 
qm001
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:25 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:29 pm

Frankly I think that the timing of this article is designed for maximum damage to Boeing. Poor timing, or a leak in the FAA, either way, not pretty.

Factually there are some errors, and issues, yes, however, I can honestly see that this is the direction the OEM wants to go in. We are, however, just not there yet, and I for one, will not get on another "grandfathered" aircraft on the basis of the OEM says its fine! I want and feel that there should be rigorous physical testing on every part of the aircraft. There are just too many potential issues that can be all to easily overlooked by an over eager OEM and/or regulator.
I wish there was still a flying boat service on the African Lakes!
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3946
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:42 pm

qm001 wrote:
Frankly I think that the timing of this article is designed for maximum damage to Boeing. Poor timing, or a leak in the FAA, either way, not pretty.

Factually there are some errors, and issues, yes, however, I can honestly see that this is the direction the OEM wants to go in. We are, however, just not there yet, and I for one, will not get on another "grandfathered" aircraft on the basis of the OEM says its fine! I want and feel that there should be rigorous physical testing on every part of the aircraft. There are just too many potential issues that can be all to easily overlooked by an over eager OEM and/or regulator.


unfortunately rigorous testing of every part would not improve the results.. it would add unnecessary time and cost to the process. if the windshield design, material, and installation has proved safe over the production run of the 737 and withstood hail, birds and the objects... is there a need to retest it when the plane's cockpit window design and structure is basically unchanged since the KC135, 707, 727 days???? have hail or birds become more dangerous??? do we retest every rivet even though they are manufactured to a very tight specification, and have been used of over 50 years? if we divert are attention to retesting proven designs, processes and materials, we're likely to short side new changes/improvements in the interest of cost and schedule. Yes new items are tested I recall an airline decided to change its carpet, well the test requirement requires that when ignited, the carpet will self extinguish in (I think) 24 inches or less.. the new carpet was still flaming away at 120 inches, and never made it on the plane at great expense to the airline. so many things are initially tested to the specifications and the need to retest is minimized as long as we reverify that the process accomplished within specification. The FAA visits the OEM every 3 years to review the production certificate and verify the planes are built to the documented procedures and processes, The OEM has internal process auditors (besides QA) to verify in between FAA visits. The manufacturing plans require data collection that also ensures the procedures and specifications are followed and in tolerance.

Granted the Max issue actually stems from an engineering failure to design in system redundancy, that was not OK in my book. The training people also may have overlooked the new system because the change wasn't flagged... however repeating all the old tests would not have changed the outcome.

To say one won't fly on a "grandfathered " aircraft, means you will not be flying at all!!!! and shouldn't that apply to using automobiles and trains as well... all rely heavily on grandfathered tests and design..
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:35 pm

par13del wrote:
One can also use regulations to eliminate or minimize competition, protect a favored company, create a financial black hole, etc etc etc
Two sides to every story.

Which is the position taken by the JCAB and CAAC in current talks with EASA and CATC on a review of airworthiness. Grandfathering is a very convenient barrier to entry.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:50 pm

kanban wrote:
qm001 wrote:
Frankly I think that the timing of this article is designed for maximum damage to Boeing. Poor timing, or a leak in the FAA, either way, not pretty.

Factually there are some errors, and issues, yes, however, I can honestly see that this is the direction the OEM wants to go in. We are, however, just not there yet, and I for one, will not get on another "grandfathered" aircraft on the basis of the OEM says its fine! I want and feel that there should be rigorous physical testing on every part of the aircraft. There are just too many potential issues that can be all to easily overlooked by an over eager OEM and/or regulator.


unfortunately rigorous testing of every part would not improve the results.. it would add unnecessary time and cost to the process. if the windshield design, material, and installation has proved safe over the production run of the 737 and withstood hail, birds and the objects... is there a need to retest it when the plane's cockpit window design and structure is basically unchanged since the KC135, 707, 727 days???? have hail or birds become more dangerous??? do we retest every rivet even though they are manufactured to a very tight specification, and have been used of over 50 years? if we divert are attention to retesting proven designs, processes and materials, we're likely to short side new changes/improvements in the interest of cost and schedule. Yes new items are tested I recall an airline decided to change its carpet, well the test requirement requires that when ignited, the carpet will self extinguish in (I think) 24 inches or less.. the new carpet was still flaming away at 120 inches, and never made it on the plane at great expense to the airline. so many things are initially tested to the specifications and the need to retest is minimized as long as we reverify that the process accomplished within specification. The FAA visits the OEM every 3 years to review the production certificate and verify the planes are built to the documented procedures and processes, The OEM has internal process auditors (besides QA) to verify in between FAA visits. The manufacturing plans require data collection that also ensures the procedures and specifications are followed and in tolerance.

There is a need to re-test when for example scaling rules are used from model version 1 (100%) to model 2 (110%). Then for model 3, the argument becomes, no issues with 1 and 2. Base model is now 2, not 1, so scaling allows another 10% or more on 110%. And so on.

And the pressure to increase scaling values increases, so OEM emboldened to go from 10% to 15% and so on.

And then we add diversification. So 787 wing is CFRP, and supports three different weight fuselages, so now we can scale and migrate that to the CFRP 777X wing, for truncated physical and assessed testing.

And then a few years later, the 77X is offered, with the 779 as the basis for more truncated or even no physical testing.

Must be 737-100/200 engineers proud they built such an over engineered aircraft, but also thinking, there wasn't much margin in parts XYZ 50 years ago. Must be cutting it very, very fine now.
 
bennett123
Posts: 8861
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:05 pm

With the current situation with the MAX it seems crass timing from Boeing. Even if the idea is valid technically.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing seeking to reduce scope, duration of some physical tests for new aircraft

Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:12 pm

smartplane wrote:
Which is the position taken by the JCAB and CAAC in current talks with EASA and CATC on a review of airworthiness. Grandfathering is a very convenient barrier to entry.

Only because they play hypocrites and say that grandfathering by this OEM makes this current day a/c safe but another OEM cannot use those same principles, techniques and rules to make their new build a/c safe.
Safe is safe, only politics makes grandfathering a barrier to entry, if they allow those features to all what would be the result, more competition or less safety, or less collection of fees for the tax man?

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