• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1658
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:58 am

This static test frame had been undergoing tests since 2018. Its most important thing is to validate the FEM model of the aircraft. Thousands of strain gauges around the aircraft, deflections measured, every load cylinder tested, then various load conditions tested. To prove the FEM, it needs to be within say 1% of test data, if wider added margin needs to be applied to cover the inaccuracy.

Some of the ultimate loads tests could have occurred, for example, the hull pressurization to 150% is likely to have happened prior to this final test. It is known that it was on its last test when this occurred, because is sure to be damaged in this test. Once damaged, nearly all testing is risky as every part could be compromised, causing a low failure in the follow on test.

So yes, once the rupture occurred the test stopped, the anchoring of the tail area to the foundation resists the wing uplift thru the rear fuse, which is broken.


https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bc ... 11-18.page

https://lessonslearned.faa.gov/Northwes ... pop_up.htm

https://www.aa.washington.edu/files/mae ... 3-2014.pdf
 
gcb5196
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:45 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:04 am

trpmb6 wrote:
My goodness. This thread makes me want to quit engaging the airliners community. It's almost as bad as the non-av threads.

Where to begin. I have been involved in many tests like this one. This is hardly newsworthy. If only you had seen the things I've seen.

What do you expect us engineers to do? We design aircraft to meet a specific set of regulations and we push the design as far as possible to be the most efficient aircraft. You guys want cheaper tickets, more range using less fuel. Only way to do that is take the weight out. This is what you get. Mind you no aircraft in service would ever see this flight condition.

Boeing likely tested the frame to this condition to A) see what she could handle and B) help with production MRB, fleet repairs etc. We often will overload structure in a test for a couple reasons.. helps us justify repairs and defects etc. We actually will introduce failures into the structure to see what residual strength remains.

One thing folks also don't understand is we sometimes discover that to get a certain load level in one part of the fuselage you have to overload another area because of how our test cradles are set up. When in real life everything is a nice distributed load, the only way to test it without exorbitant costs is using cradles and wiffletrees that introduce point loads into the frame. This can lead to failures.

Fact is, this is a great test result. Sure they missed it by 1% but yall are extremely naive if you think that is catastrophic. Considering all the factors involved. Consider just some of the simplest points, someone developed the loads. Some margin of error there. Tolerance build up in the manufacturing process. Could be everything came in on the thin side. Maybe the stiffnesses in their FEMs was slightly off. The way the load is introduced to the test, as mentioned earlier, overloads local areas. We overload to account for thermal and environmental conditions. Remember CFRP wing with aluminum fuselage. Need to overload that to account for thermal mismatch.

That is why we test.

As for transparency, when I originally read the release about the failure it was clear to me they were discussing the cargo door surround structure. That's exactly what the pictures show. Don't blame Boeing, blame the folks who either misunderstood or simply don't know how this works.

Kudos to the Boeing engineers working this, they executed an excellent test. Hats off to you.

To the rest of you armchair engineers, I won't criticize you for how you do your job, don't criticize us until you go and get the degree and do the job we do. We keep you safe, a little respect would be nice.

Parting gift: almost certain the FAA would have had representatives present for the test. So any talk of a coverup is simply fearmongering/conspiracy peddling nonesense.


Well said and thank you. Okay, from the FARs, "Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety)." FAR 25.301. What is the factor of safety? "Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure." FAR 25.303. So, the limit load is the maximum load to be expected in service and the safety factor is 1.5 times that. This and many other tests are designed to see that safety factor. The idea that this failure at 149% means that during turbulence the plane is somehow unsafe is absurd. Read the FARs. Maximum loads expected in service is 100%, that's turbulence, higher than normal g's, a higher gust of wind, a hard landing, bird crap on the window, maybe the sun hitting the fuselage at a weird angle. I don't know what the maximum expected loads are, but someone does and they have worked so far. The extra 50% is on top of all that, in addition to, 1.5 times. 1 is normal up to and including the O.S! moments, the .5 is so they can all live to tell about it. All transport category aircraft are certified at that. If you aren't comfortable with that then I don't suggest flying on any aircraft.
Also, to further my point, this is one test frame that this is performed on. There are variations in manufacturing and materials. This one frame stands in for and behalf of every plane that comes after it. The 1.5 safety factor covers most of those variations including fatigue. One plane may be stronger and one inherently weaker. Every plane that takes to the sky is not tested to ultimate failure because of that safety factor. It is factored in all the planes from every transport category aircraft manufacturer. If you are uneasy about flying on a Boeing 777X because it passed it's limit load test exceptionally well but barely failed the ultimate load test I wouldn't recommend flying on any other aircraft. If it had failed at 99% I would be concerned, the fact that it failed so close to the 1.5 safety margin means it's safe, just not certifiably safe, yet. And in praise to the engineers, it was almost perfect. Same kudos to engineers at all manufacturers who get it almost there, don't want to be seen as a fanboy. By the way if given the opportunity to fly on an A380 I would, wing spar cracks and all.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:24 am

gcb5196 wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
My goodness. This thread makes me want to quit engaging the airliners community. It's almost as bad as the non-av threads.

Where to begin. I have been involved in many tests like this one. This is hardly newsworthy. If only you had seen the things I've seen.

What do you expect us engineers to do? We design aircraft to meet a specific set of regulations and we push the design as far as possible to be the most efficient aircraft. You guys want cheaper tickets, more range using less fuel. Only way to do that is take the weight out. This is what you get. Mind you no aircraft in service would ever see this flight condition.

Boeing likely tested the frame to this condition to A) see what she could handle and B) help with production MRB, fleet repairs etc. We often will overload structure in a test for a couple reasons.. helps us justify repairs and defects etc. We actually will introduce failures into the structure to see what residual strength remains.

One thing folks also don't understand is we sometimes discover that to get a certain load level in one part of the fuselage you have to overload another area because of how our test cradles are set up. When in real life everything is a nice distributed load, the only way to test it without exorbitant costs is using cradles and wiffletrees that introduce point loads into the frame. This can lead to failures.

Fact is, this is a great test result. Sure they missed it by 1% but yall are extremely naive if you think that is catastrophic. Considering all the factors involved. Consider just some of the simplest points, someone developed the loads. Some margin of error there. Tolerance build up in the manufacturing process. Could be everything came in on the thin side. Maybe the stiffnesses in their FEMs was slightly off. The way the load is introduced to the test, as mentioned earlier, overloads local areas. We overload to account for thermal and environmental conditions. Remember CFRP wing with aluminum fuselage. Need to overload that to account for thermal mismatch.

That is why we test.

As for transparency, when I originally read the release about the failure it was clear to me they were discussing the cargo door surround structure. That's exactly what the pictures show. Don't blame Boeing, blame the folks who either misunderstood or simply don't know how this works.

Kudos to the Boeing engineers working this, they executed an excellent test. Hats off to you.

To the rest of you armchair engineers, I won't criticize you for how you do your job, don't criticize us until you go and get the degree and do the job we do. We keep you safe, a little respect would be nice.

Parting gift: almost certain the FAA would have had representatives present for the test. So any talk of a coverup is simply fearmongering/conspiracy peddling nonesense.


Well said and thank you. Okay, from the FARs, "Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety)." FAR 25.301. What is the factor of safety? "Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure." FAR 25.303. So, the limit load is the maximum load to be expected in service and the safety factor is 1.5 times that. This and many other tests are designed to see that safety factor. The idea that this failure at 149% means that during turbulence the plane is somehow unsafe is absurd. Read the FARs. Maximum loads expected in service is 100%, that's turbulence, higher than normal g's, a higher gust of wind, a hard landing, bird crap on the window, maybe the sun hitting the fuselage at a weird angle. I don't know what the maximum expected loads are, but someone does and they have worked so far. The extra 50% is on top of all that, in addition to, 1.5 times. 1 is normal up to and including the O.S! moments, the .5 is so they can all live to tell about it. All transport category aircraft are certified at that. If you aren't comfortable with that then I don't suggest flying on any aircraft.
Also, to further my point, this is one test frame that this is performed on. There are variations in manufacturing and materials. This one frame stands in for and behalf of every plane that comes after it. The 1.5 safety factor covers most of those variations including fatigue. One plane may be stronger and one inherently weaker. Every plane that takes to the sky is not tested to ultimate failure because of that safety factor. It is factored in all the planes from every transport category aircraft manufacturer. If you are uneasy about flying on a Boeing 777X because it passed it's limit load test exceptionally well but barely failed the ultimate load test I wouldn't recommend flying on any other aircraft. If it had failed at 99% I would be concerned, the fact that it failed so close to the 1.5 safety margin means it's safe, just not certifiably safe, yet. And in praise to the engineers, it was almost perfect. Same kudos to engineers at all manufacturers who get it almost there, don't want to be seen as a fanboy. By the way if given the opportunity to fly on an A380 I would, wing spar cracks and all.


The point is just, that the frame did not reach the 150%. All your rant does not change that.

If this was the last test in the row of tests, than yes, testing will cease and the engineers will have to decide, what strengthening will have to be done, to bring this frame to above the 150% or 1.5 safety factor.
Yes test flights can begin, you do not need the frame to have finished the static testing before that, but changes will have to be done to production frames and at least one production frame with the changes will have to do test flights.

Anyway, not every frame is tested to destruction in the static tests. Boeing did not do it with the 787, testing was ceased when the frame had passed the mark.
 
KFTG
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:39 am

Wait until the news media gets wind of the static wing test results! The circus continues.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:18 am

Why not communicate about it more open and active? If it is not a big thing (which I'd agree to sort of) it should be shared and explained. But not telling anybody and then have some sudden leak will create exactly the situation that now developed.
 
Opus99
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:25 am

mjoelnir wrote:
gcb5196 wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
My goodness. This thread makes me want to quit engaging the airliners community. It's almost as bad as the non-av threads.

Where to begin. I have been involved in many tests like this one. This is hardly newsworthy. If only you had seen the things I've seen.

What do you expect us engineers to do? We design aircraft to meet a specific set of regulations and we push the design as far as possible to be the most efficient aircraft. You guys want cheaper tickets, more range using less fuel. Only way to do that is take the weight out. This is what you get. Mind you no aircraft in service would ever see this flight condition.

Boeing likely tested the frame to this condition to A) see what she could handle and B) help with production MRB, fleet repairs etc. We often will overload structure in a test for a couple reasons.. helps us justify repairs and defects etc. We actually will introduce failures into the structure to see what residual strength remains.

One thing folks also don't understand is we sometimes discover that to get a certain load level in one part of the fuselage you have to overload another area because of how our test cradles are set up. When in real life everything is a nice distributed load, the only way to test it without exorbitant costs is using cradles and wiffletrees that introduce point loads into the frame. This can lead to failures.

Fact is, this is a great test result. Sure they missed it by 1% but yall are extremely naive if you think that is catastrophic. Considering all the factors involved. Consider just some of the simplest points, someone developed the loads. Some margin of error there. Tolerance build up in the manufacturing process. Could be everything came in on the thin side. Maybe the stiffnesses in their FEMs was slightly off. The way the load is introduced to the test, as mentioned earlier, overloads local areas. We overload to account for thermal and environmental conditions. Remember CFRP wing with aluminum fuselage. Need to overload that to account for thermal mismatch.

That is why we test.

As for transparency, when I originally read the release about the failure it was clear to me they were discussing the cargo door surround structure. That's exactly what the pictures show. Don't blame Boeing, blame the folks who either misunderstood or simply don't know how this works.

Kudos to the Boeing engineers working this, they executed an excellent test. Hats off to you.

To the rest of you armchair engineers, I won't criticize you for how you do your job, don't criticize us until you go and get the degree and do the job we do. We keep you safe, a little respect would be nice.

Parting gift: almost certain the FAA would have had representatives present for the test. So any talk of a coverup is simply fearmongering/conspiracy peddling nonesense.


Well said and thank you. Okay, from the FARs, "Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety)." FAR 25.301. What is the factor of safety? "Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure." FAR 25.303. So, the limit load is the maximum load to be expected in service and the safety factor is 1.5 times that. This and many other tests are designed to see that safety factor. The idea that this failure at 149% means that during turbulence the plane is somehow unsafe is absurd. Read the FARs. Maximum loads expected in service is 100%, that's turbulence, higher than normal g's, a higher gust of wind, a hard landing, bird crap on the window, maybe the sun hitting the fuselage at a weird angle. I don't know what the maximum expected loads are, but someone does and they have worked so far. The extra 50% is on top of all that, in addition to, 1.5 times. 1 is normal up to and including the O.S! moments, the .5 is so they can all live to tell about it. All transport category aircraft are certified at that. If you aren't comfortable with that then I don't suggest flying on any aircraft.
Also, to further my point, this is one test frame that this is performed on. There are variations in manufacturing and materials. This one frame stands in for and behalf of every plane that comes after it. The 1.5 safety factor covers most of those variations including fatigue. One plane may be stronger and one inherently weaker. Every plane that takes to the sky is not tested to ultimate failure because of that safety factor. It is factored in all the planes from every transport category aircraft manufacturer. If you are uneasy about flying on a Boeing 777X because it passed it's limit load test exceptionally well but barely failed the ultimate load test I wouldn't recommend flying on any other aircraft. If it had failed at 99% I would be concerned, the fact that it failed so close to the 1.5 safety margin means it's safe, just not certifiably safe, yet. And in praise to the engineers, it was almost perfect. Same kudos to engineers at all manufacturers who get it almost there, don't want to be seen as a fanboy. By the way if given the opportunity to fly on an A380 I would, wing spar cracks and all.


The point is just, that the frame did not reach the 150%. All your rant does not change that.

If this was the last test in the row of tests, than yes, testing will cease and the engineers will have to decide, what strengthening will have to be done, to bring this frame to above the 150% or 1.5 safety factor.
Yes test flights can begin, you do not need the frame to have finished the static testing before that, but changes will have to be done to production frames and at least one production frame with the changes will have to do test flights.

Anyway, not every frame is tested to destruction in the static tests. Boeing did not do it with the 787, testing was ceased when the frame had passed the mark.

Had it reached 150% would you have been comfortable? The only reason this is news is because Boeing is just newsworthy this year because of the max crashes. The A380 also broke at this point but that’s fine. As I understand it it was indeed the final test, so they have been doing pressure tests for some time
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:42 am

Opus99 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
gcb5196 wrote:

Well said and thank you. Okay, from the FARs, "Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety)." FAR 25.301. What is the factor of safety? "Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure." FAR 25.303. So, the limit load is the maximum load to be expected in service and the safety factor is 1.5 times that. This and many other tests are designed to see that safety factor. The idea that this failure at 149% means that during turbulence the plane is somehow unsafe is absurd. Read the FARs. Maximum loads expected in service is 100%, that's turbulence, higher than normal g's, a higher gust of wind, a hard landing, bird crap on the window, maybe the sun hitting the fuselage at a weird angle. I don't know what the maximum expected loads are, but someone does and they have worked so far. The extra 50% is on top of all that, in addition to, 1.5 times. 1 is normal up to and including the O.S! moments, the .5 is so they can all live to tell about it. All transport category aircraft are certified at that. If you aren't comfortable with that then I don't suggest flying on any aircraft.
Also, to further my point, this is one test frame that this is performed on. There are variations in manufacturing and materials. This one frame stands in for and behalf of every plane that comes after it. The 1.5 safety factor covers most of those variations including fatigue. One plane may be stronger and one inherently weaker. Every plane that takes to the sky is not tested to ultimate failure because of that safety factor. It is factored in all the planes from every transport category aircraft manufacturer. If you are uneasy about flying on a Boeing 777X because it passed it's limit load test exceptionally well but barely failed the ultimate load test I wouldn't recommend flying on any other aircraft. If it had failed at 99% I would be concerned, the fact that it failed so close to the 1.5 safety margin means it's safe, just not certifiably safe, yet. And in praise to the engineers, it was almost perfect. Same kudos to engineers at all manufacturers who get it almost there, don't want to be seen as a fanboy. By the way if given the opportunity to fly on an A380 I would, wing spar cracks and all.


The point is just, that the frame did not reach the 150%. All your rant does not change that.

If this was the last test in the row of tests, than yes, testing will cease and the engineers will have to decide, what strengthening will have to be done, to bring this frame to above the 150% or 1.5 safety factor.
Yes test flights can begin, you do not need the frame to have finished the static testing before that, but changes will have to be done to production frames and at least one production frame with the changes will have to do test flights.

Anyway, not every frame is tested to destruction in the static tests. Boeing did not do it with the 787, testing was ceased when the frame had passed the mark.

Had it reached 150% would you have been comfortable? The only reason this is news is because Boeing is just newsworthy this year because of the max crashes. The A380 also broke at this point but that’s fine. As I understand it it was indeed the final test, so they have been doing pressure tests for some time


Yes, if it would have reached 150 %, it would have fulfilled the requirements. The 150% is a hard line, if you do not reach it, you have to do something.

What is strange is the secrecy around the testing at Boeing. The failing of the wing test on the A380 was freely communicated by Airbus. Secrecy breeds mistrust. Those pictures should have been communicated openly by Boeing with the needed explanations.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:49 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The point is just, that the frame did not reach the 150%. All your rant does not change that.

If this was the last test in the row of tests, than yes, testing will cease and the engineers will have to decide, what strengthening will have to be done, to bring this frame to above the 150% or 1.5 safety factor.
Yes test flights can begin, you do not need the frame to have finished the static testing before that, but changes will have to be done to production frames and at least one production frame with the changes will have to do test flights.

Anyway, not every frame is tested to destruction in the static tests. Boeing did not do it with the 787, testing was ceased when the frame had passed the mark.

Had it reached 150% would you have been comfortable? The only reason this is news is because Boeing is just newsworthy this year because of the max crashes. The A380 also broke at this point but that’s fine. As I understand it it was indeed the final test, so they have been doing pressure tests for some time


Yes, if it would have reached 150 %, it would have fulfilled the requirements. The 150% is a hard line, if you do not reach it, you have to do something.

What is strange is the secrecy around the testing at Boeing. The failing of the wing test on the A380 was freely communicated by Airbus. Secrecy breeds mistrust. Those pictures should have been communicated openly by Boeing with the needed explanations.

Where are photos/videos of the A380’s failed test? (It’s also a bit rich to be saying Airbus was freely communicating everything in regards to the A380 at the time)

Boeing never denied that they failed the test, in fact they out right admitted it.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3013
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:06 pm

Noshow wrote:
Why not communicate about it more open and active?


Because technically the information relating to the test is still a "trade secret". The information release to the FAA is necessary to satisfy regulation but even then, the FAA will not release the details to the public either.

The second reason is that they will not release the info until their analysis is complete, recovery plan is implemented and test report is done.

You can ask why did they release the latest photos if they do not have to? Only their PR department can answer that. Perhaps the test report is done but have not yet "officially" submitted to the FAA.

With the Airbus comparison what pictures did they release when when the A380 fell short of final static test?

To be sure this failure is one of the many signs that Boeing has changed much since I started working. Engineering wise it used to be very conservative. The designers usually keep some margins in their back pocket. I guess competition and the progress in computing power now pushes the design to the edge where margin for growth are now pre-planned to the umpteenth decimal place and not kept in the back pockets of the engineers.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
UnMAXed
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:55 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:10 pm

Grandfathering needs to end, the certification of the 777X is a great place to start.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:19 pm

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Had it reached 150% would you have been comfortable? The only reason this is news is because Boeing is just newsworthy this year because of the max crashes. The A380 also broke at this point but that’s fine. As I understand it it was indeed the final test, so they have been doing pressure tests for some time


Yes, if it would have reached 150 %, it would have fulfilled the requirements. The 150% is a hard line, if you do not reach it, you have to do something.

What is strange is the secrecy around the testing at Boeing. The failing of the wing test on the A380 was freely communicated by Airbus. Secrecy breeds mistrust. Those pictures should have been communicated openly by Boeing with the needed explanations.

Where are photos/videos of the A380’s failed test? (It’s also a bit rich to be saying Airbus was freely communicating everything in regards to the A380 at the time)

Boeing never denied that they failed the test, in fact they out right admitted it.


A video showing the wing breaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19m9LZOOZY

There are more videos and a few text, but I hardly have the time to find all of them. The information is from 2006 and before, so sometimes rather deep to dig down.
It was astonishing exactly how open Airbus operated at the time.

Good to be snarky, but perhaps it is better to have a look before one gets snarky?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8947
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:38 pm

Such videos tell you not much, the same with the pics of the 777. If you are within <5% of the design goal, you do not have a general problem, but you need the whole dataset to tell how big the problem actually is. (Which parts were the problem, how can you fix them and does the fix have an influence on other parts) Boeing will work through this.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:48 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Yes, if it would have reached 150 %, it would have fulfilled the requirements. The 150% is a hard line, if you do not reach it, you have to do something.

What is strange is the secrecy around the testing at Boeing. The failing of the wing test on the A380 was freely communicated by Airbus. Secrecy breeds mistrust. Those pictures should have been communicated openly by Boeing with the needed explanations.

Where are photos/videos of the A380’s failed test? (It’s also a bit rich to be saying Airbus was freely communicating everything in regards to the A380 at the time)

Boeing never denied that they failed the test, in fact they out right admitted it.


A video showing the wing breaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19m9LZOOZY

There are more videos and a few text, but I hardly have the time to find all of them. The information is from 2006 and before, so sometimes rather deep to dig down.
It was astonishing exactly how open Airbus operated at the time.

Good to be snarky, but perhaps it is better to have a look before one gets snarky?

And how long after the test was that video released?

And Airbus was open at the time when it suited them. They certainly were not telling the world how their wiring was mysteriously not hooking together properly for example. This was information learned after the fact after Airbus identified and fixed the problem while being vague on details of the delays.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:49 pm

kanban wrote:
one thing a lot of people fail to realize is the fatigue tests start at 1% and are gradually ramped up to destruction. The 150% is an arbitrary figure, had they reached it the next goal would have been 160% in 1% increments.


That the test goes to destruction is not in question, but 150% is definitely not arbitrary - nor optional.

The cases we are talking about are major static tests such as wing bend or fuselage pressure - in which case the *certification criterion* is to prove the aircraft withstands "limit load" times a safety factor. As limit load is the predicted highest load (100% load) and the safety factor is typically 1.5, most of these high-profile tests are intended to reach or exceed 150%. This is the "ultimate load", and such tests are sometimes called ultimate-load tests.

Edit: I see gcb5196 already covered this...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:00 pm

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The failing of the wing test on the A380 was freely communicated by Airbus. Secrecy breeds mistrust. Those pictures should have been communicated openly by Boeing with the needed explanations.

Where are photos/videos of the A380’s failed test? (It’s also a bit rich to be saying Airbus was freely communicating everything in regards to the A380 at the time)


There absolutely was video of the A380 wing bend test at the time...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:02 pm

seahawk wrote:
Such videos tell you not much, the same with the pics of the 777. If you are within <5% of the design goal, you do not have a general problem, but you need the whole dataset to tell how big the problem actually is. (Which parts were the problem, how can you fix them and does the fix have an influence on other parts) Boeing will work through this.


But the snarky post is completely off the mark, because on this very board at the time there was a big discussion about the wing bend test BECAUSE AIRBUS GAVE A PRESS RELEASE ABOUT IT REACHING 148% as well as releasing the video and then describing the proposed strengthening to pass the test by calculation.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:15 pm

Polot wrote:
They certainly were not telling the world how their wiring was mysteriously not hooking together properly for example. This was information learned after the fact after Airbus identified and fixed the problem while being vague on details of the delays.


Not how I remember it at all. There were a couple of months when it all went quiet concerning A380 EIS, rumours about issues started, hints of delays came and eventually Airbus announced a year+ slip saying it was due to customer configuration issues... which was quickly determined to be about wiring and CATIA version differences.

Then came all the fallout with changes of management, Power8 etc.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:27 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Polot wrote:
They certainly were not telling the world how their wiring was mysteriously not hooking together properly for example. This was information learned after the fact after Airbus identified and fixed the problem while being vague on details of the delays.


Not how I remember it at all. There were a couple of months when it all went quiet concerning A380 EIS, rumours about issues started, hints of delays came and eventually Airbus announced a year+ slip saying it was due to customer configuration issues... which was quickly determined to be about wiring and CATIA version differences.

Then came all the fallout with changes of management, Power8 etc.

The CATIA issues became publicly known in Fall 2006. That was about 18 months after first flight, and who knows how long after the problem was first discovered (which would have been during assembly of first frame).

My point wasn’t that Airbus was trying to hide it forever, but to note how Airbus waited until the problem was fixed to go into details. It’s been 2-3 months since the 777X test. Some people here are acting like Boeing should have immediately gave the public a detailed walkthrough of the test and what went wrong and how they are going to fix it. As I said in this thread (I think, or maybe another) last week people here are too impatient. They think they should know everything immediately and if they don’t they instantly turn to conspiracies.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:38 pm

Polot wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Polot wrote:
They certainly were not telling the world how their wiring was mysteriously not hooking together properly for example. This was information learned after the fact after Airbus identified and fixed the problem while being vague on details of the delays.


Not how I remember it at all. There were a couple of months when it all went quiet concerning A380 EIS, rumours about issues started, hints of delays came and eventually Airbus announced a year+ slip saying it was due to customer configuration issues... which was quickly determined to be about wiring and CATIA version differences.

Then came all the fallout with changes of management, Power8 etc.

The CATIA issues became publicly known in Fall 2006. That was about 18 months after first flight, and who knows how long after the problem was first discovered (which would have been during assembly of first frame).

My point wasn’t that Airbus was trying to hide it forever, but to note how Airbus waited until the problem was fixed to go into details. It’s been 2-3 months since the 777X test. Some people here are acting like Boeing should have immediately gave the public a detailed walkthrough of the test and what went wrong and how they are going to fix it. As I said in this thread (I think, or maybe another) last week people here are too impatient. They think they should know everything immediately and if they don’t they instantly turn to conspiracies.


Yes changing the discussion to Catia. We were talking about the wing bending test. Airbus released the information, about that including videos and technical information shortly after the test. They also released technical information about what would be done to strengthen the wing.

Now you try to cloud the waters with the wiring issue. Yes it took a while before Airbus released the information about the Catia issue. But that the frames needed to be rewired, was than know for a while.
The Catia issue was that things drawn and filed in the older version (version 4) were not correct when opened in the newer version (version 5) or vice versa. Something that should not have happened. And I assume it took a while to find the problem.

It is always astonishing, how when one talks about things Boeing does, there comes the: Airbus does it too or is even worse comment. Mostly not true and nothing to do with the discussion.
Last edited by mjoelnir on Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
estorilm
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:50 pm

morrisond wrote:
Yes they are expected to fail - I think the bigger part of the story will be Boeing downplaying the story.

Pictures https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... uffer_tw_m

It's not expected to fail. :roll: :roll: :roll:

It's an incredibly valuable fuselage assembly that not has to undergo expensive and time-consuming repairs, possibly impacting its ability to perform the test again (since they are no longer testing an original structure as assembled on the line). Plus - regardless of it being 1% or 50%, it FAILED the certification test, which means they need to set up the entire thing and perform it again.

So no, definitely not "expected" and not good. I'm not saying it's the end of the world, but it's bad.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:01 pm

estorilm wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Yes they are expected to fail - I think the bigger part of the story will be Boeing downplaying the story.

Pictures https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... uffer_tw_m

It's not expected to fail. :roll: :roll: :roll:

It's an incredibly valuable fuselage assembly that not has to undergo expensive and time-consuming repairs, possibly impacting its ability to perform the test again (since they are no longer testing an original structure as assembled on the line). Plus - regardless of it being 1% or 50%, it FAILED the certification test, which means they need to set up the entire thing and perform it again.

So no, definitely not "expected" and not good. I'm not saying it's the end of the world, but it's bad.


Actually, if this was the last test, they do not have to set it up again. The regulators usually accept, that with a test failing that near to the limit, the result is accepted, the numbers extrapolated, and the design is changed without needing an additional test.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:50 pm

Polot wrote:
And Airbus was open at the time when it suited them. They certainly were not telling the world how their wiring was mysteriously not hooking together properly for example. This was information learned after the fact after Airbus identified and fixed the problem while being vague on details of the delays.


I'd say they were very open. Even their new elected CEO (Mr. Humbert) stepped down over this.

Aircraft development is a complex venture. Things can go wrong, there can be surprises whenever you try something new. No shame.
If you are strong enough to be open about it the "damage" will be limited and you might even win credibility below the line.
 
Opus99
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:05 pm

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Had it reached 150% would you have been comfortable? The only reason this is news is because Boeing is just newsworthy this year because of the max crashes. The A380 also broke at this point but that’s fine. As I understand it it was indeed the final test, so they have been doing pressure tests for some time


Yes, if it would have reached 150 %, it would have fulfilled the requirements. The 150% is a hard line, if you do not reach it, you have to do something.

What is strange is the secrecy around the testing at Boeing. The failing of the wing test on the A380 was freely communicated by Airbus. Secrecy breeds mistrust. Those pictures should have been communicated openly by Boeing with the needed explanations.

Where are photos/videos of the A380’s failed test? (It’s also a bit rich to be saying Airbus was freely communicating everything in regards to the A380 at the time)

Boeing never denied that they failed the test, in fact they out right admitted it.

That’s the thing, I don’t think airbus did
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:26 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
A video showing the wing breaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19m9LZOOZY

There are more videos and a few text, but I hardly have the time to find all of them. The information is from 2006 and before, so sometimes rather deep to dig down.
It was astonishing exactly how open Airbus operated at the time.

Good to be snarky, but perhaps it is better to have a look before one gets snarky?


FlightGlobal reported about Airbus' failed test on February 16, 2006, a week after it happened: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ad-204716/

The video you posted was from March 27, 2007. What did you try to prove, that Airbus was more open than Boeing? I don't think so. Media reported at the time that Airbus spokeswoman Barbara Kracht was downplaying the failed test and I don't remember anyone requested video like everyone is requesting it now. Today everyone wants a link, everyone needs a proof and now. No questions asked. All our royal highnesses are entitled to know everything and now. What a load of BS. The world functioned just fine 30 years ago without all this social media drama.

Boeing said that test was stopped "at approximately 99 percent of the final test loads". What exactly did they hide from you? And what gives you the right to request a video of the failed test? Are you the FAA, the EASA representative? Are you a private single owner of Boeing? I don't understand. Should Boeing open a special communication line for its bashers?

Listen, we all get it that you don't like Boeing. I still remember your posts about B787 battery. I think everyone here understands your position which you keep regurgitating. It's getting annoying. All you are doing is chasing away people who have some real knowledge and expertise. Can you leave some space for them? I would rather read posts from trpmb6.
Flying at the cruising altitude is (mostly) boring. I wish all flights were nothing but endless take offs and landings every 10 minutes or so.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4148
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:31 pm

I am an aviation enthusiast that understands very little about an airframe’s engineering. But I know a little bit from reading threats here on a.net, otherwise I am part of the general population except I am probably within the top 2 or 3% of people who fly well over 100,000 miles a year (and have done since 1991) - my profession as a brand and branding consultant has landed me in board rooms of huge multi-Billion dollar companies and part of a “cross functional” team of people working harmoniously on behalf of many clients where we are helping to steward a corporate brand (Boeing) or product brand (Johnnie Walker Scotch or United Airlines or 737MAX) and a project parameters can range all the way to the total recreation of a corporate or product brand to simply stewarding a brand and staying the course. (FYI: a cross functional team is a group of people that are cherry picked experts from the all specific parts required of consistently create an holistic approach to managing a brand’s core essence and the messaging (verbal & visual), together managing brand perception and develops a strategic and executional program for the brand. Together we execute the communications and carefully craft (targeting) the messaging of that platform to each of the different audiences that are critical to the client; general population, Wall St (financial), customers (Airlines), internal (company employees), industry insiders or “opinion elites” (influential people who can do serious good or bad or evil critics), and Gov agencies, etc.
I would sell my soul to be part of that Boeing team because nothing is more stimulating, exciting and educational- I’d be working alongside brilliant people: from Boeing senior executives, PR experts, (internal and hired consultants), advertising, digital, brand strategy experts and probably engineers or R&D, etc. (my role would be ultimately to bring life to the platforms and targeted messaging through creative execution)

As I see this through that lens, that “team” would be working on both managing the perceptions of the parent brand (Boeing) and product brands (737MAX) and potentially the 777X.

“Mitigate and Strengthen” - this one would be very difficult and therefore hard but fun.

What we are mostly getting is the “general population” messaging. No, it would not be a good idea to be entirely transparent with the general population to reveal everything. The general population wouldn’t understand the technical parts, Eg; “G force” numbers, cabin pressure exceedingly high, the true amount of rigor put into such a test. However Gov agencies, airline engineers would get far more full disclosure, opinion elites would get enough to satisfy most of their lust for transparency, but judiciously. PR would help decide how to mange this news while Boeing is under tremendous scrutiny because of the MAX debacle. The general population will focus solely on the 2 MAX crashes and not the historically amazing performance of the 737 (or the factor in fact that many millions of people everyday arrive safely at their destinations on every type of aircraft from any manufacturer, on any airline- billions of people a year) but they will remember the batteries catching fire on the first few 787’s! However just ONE PICTURE like the one here of the enormous crack on the 777X test frame will stick like glue (context is meaningless) and the fact that over 1,600 have been flying billions of people and freight since 1995 with a stellar safety record doesn’t really register with the general flying public, Ex: “people I know well who are all very smart, but who have little aviation interest”- many will focus on things like this crack or the MH370 mystery or a 737MAX for eternity.
So, while what reads to “us” as Boeing’s downplay is the right thing to do for the billions of potential “regular people” around the world reading an article. Especially at a time when “hard facts” can be brushed off as “fake news”

Bad stuff happens to every famous enitity, either because of true negligence or accidental. I can’t look at Mariah Carey without thinking of her trashing her hotel room at the SoHo Grand in NYC!
Ask the folks at Tylenol about how many people today still mention the 1982 tragic deaths from product tampering that was not their fault.

I will happily get on a 737MAX once she’s cleared to fly or any other aircraft from Boeing, Airbus, Embraer or A220!
Last edited by VC10er on Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:38 pm

Steps up to Bully Pulpit
Clears Throat.
Declares:
UnMAXed wrote:
Grandfathering needs to end, the certification of the 777X is a great place to start.

Drops Mic.

Ummmmm Dude... Thank you for the grandstanding.... you do realize they were conducting a test that would simulate 150% of expected max load (which resulted in destruction)? Surely they would not have had to do that if they were just 'grandfathering' the whole new wing?
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3013
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:44 pm

VC10er wrote:
my profession as a brand and branding consultant has landed me in board rooms of huge multi-Billion dollar companies and part of a “cross functional” team of people working harmoniously on behalf of many clients where we are helping to steward a corporate brand (Boeing) or product brand (Johnnie Walker Scotch or United Airlines or 737MAX) and a project parameters can range all the way to the total recreation of a corporate or product brand to simply stewarding a brand and staying the course.


Different perspectives are always appreciated. Specially when they are thoughtfully presented.

Which leads me to this question: Why would the focus group/PR team release the photo of the buckled fuselage? Surely they would have known the firestorm it would have created.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:09 pm

bikerthai wrote:
VC10er wrote:
my profession as a brand and branding consultant has landed me in board rooms of huge multi-Billion dollar companies and part of a “cross functional” team of people working harmoniously on behalf of many clients where we are helping to steward a corporate brand (Boeing) or product brand (Johnnie Walker Scotch or United Airlines or 737MAX) and a project parameters can range all the way to the total recreation of a corporate or product brand to simply stewarding a brand and staying the course.


Different perspectives are always appreciated. Specially when they are thoughtfully presented.

Which leads me to this question: Why would the focus group/PR team release the photo of the buckled fuselage? Surely they would have known the firestorm it would have created.

bt


They didn't have to release a picture but they maybe should have corrected the story that the Seattle times reported and they let stand that it was just a door failure. But not clarifying anything they made it worse than it should be.

Instead of saying "“In the final load testing of the 777X static test airplane, our team conducted a test that involves bending the wings of the airplane up to a level far beyond anything expected in commercial service. A testing issue occurred during the final minutes of the test, at approximately 99 percent of the final test loads, and involved a depressurization of the aft fuselage. The test team followed all safety protocols."

Add that along with the Seattle Times story and just a door failure made sense.

However if they had said "“In the final load testing of the 777X static test airplane, our team conducted a test that involves bending the wings of the airplane up to a level far beyond anything expected in commercial service. A testing issue occurred during the final minutes of the test, at approximately 99 percent of the final test loads, and involved a failure of the aft fuselage around the cargo door. The test team followed all safety protocols."

We would have nothing to discuss now - they would have spoken to the Seattle Times and had them correct there story at the time and this would be a non-event.
 
User avatar
smittythepirate
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:08 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:18 pm

Was it an official picture that was released? I have my doubts as it was blurry and poor quality. My guess is an employee snapped a picture of it and then gave it to the Seattle times, as it doesn't really benefit Boeing to show damage on their newer plane.
www.jbweather.com
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:52 pm

smittythepirate wrote:
Was it an official picture that was released? I have my doubts as it was blurry and poor quality. My guess is an employee snapped a picture of it and then gave it to the Seattle times, as it doesn't really benefit Boeing to show damage on their newer plane.


Dominic Gates said they obtained the picture but not where and for sure Boeing wouldn't have released this. This is what he says: "Boeing has kept the details secret, but photos obtained by the Seattle Times show that the extent of the damage was greater than previously disclosed and earlier reports were wrong about crucial details." Link: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ress-test/
Flying at the cruising altitude is (mostly) boring. I wish all flights were nothing but endless take offs and landings every 10 minutes or so.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3932
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:24 pm

If you have time, reading this thread will give some of us a bit of deja vu . . .

A380 Wing Snaps Before Reaching Load Limit


And here's the video . . . :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19m9LZOOZY
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:39 pm

UnMAXed wrote:
Grandfathering needs to end, the certification of the 777X is a great place to start.


Discussions about "grandfathering" or more accurately, the change product rule, simply need to stop. The problem isn't grandfathering of aerostructures. We resize, reanalyze and retest all components when new loads and significant configuration change happens. Literally what this thread is about actually. The fact that Boeing tested this new configuration should show to the public why the myth about grandfathering should go away. They don't just slap new wings on an old 777 frame and say VOILA! We don't have to analyze or touch the fuselage because it's still a 777!! No! We look at it all again!
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:54 pm

morrisond wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
VC10er wrote:
my profession as a brand and branding consultant has landed me in board rooms of huge multi-Billion dollar companies and part of a “cross functional” team of people working harmoniously on behalf of many clients where we are helping to steward a corporate brand (Boeing) or product brand (Johnnie Walker Scotch or United Airlines or 737MAX) and a project parameters can range all the way to the total recreation of a corporate or product brand to simply stewarding a brand and staying the course.


Different perspectives are always appreciated. Specially when they are thoughtfully presented.

Which leads me to this question: Why would the focus group/PR team release the photo of the buckled fuselage? Surely they would have known the firestorm it would have created.

bt


They didn't have to release a picture but they maybe should have corrected the story that the Seattle times reported and they let stand that it was just a door failure. But not clarifying anything they made it worse than it should be.

Instead of saying "“In the final load testing of the 777X static test airplane, our team conducted a test that involves bending the wings of the airplane up to a level far beyond anything expected in commercial service. A testing issue occurred during the final minutes of the test, at approximately 99 percent of the final test loads, and involved a depressurization of the aft fuselage. The test team followed all safety protocols."

Add that along with the Seattle Times story and just a door failure made sense.

However if they had said "“In the final load testing of the 777X static test airplane, our team conducted a test that involves bending the wings of the airplane up to a level far beyond anything expected in commercial service. A testing issue occurred during the final minutes of the test, at approximately 99 percent of the final test loads, and involved a failure of the aft fuselage around the cargo door. The test team followed all safety protocols."

We would have nothing to discuss now - they would have spoken to the Seattle Times and had them correct there story at the time and this would be a non-event.


Let me respond here and possibly shed some light. It's entirely possible that the door itself failed first, leading to a load redistribution that caused a second failure in the aft fuselage in the door surround. In which case, the fix would simply be to fix the door. So in that sense, in Boeing's mind, that would be a sensible thing to disclose. Cargo doors, due to their large size, are typically load carrying doors. So a failure in the door would be quite significant and would lead to the exact failure you see in the picture.

I'm not saying that is what happened. Though I suspect that it is. Just saying that could explain the terminology used.
 
787X30
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:16 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:21 pm

Polot wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Polot wrote:
They certainly were not telling the world how their wiring was mysteriously not hooking together properly for example. This was information learned after the fact after Airbus identified and fixed the problem while being vague on details of the delays.


Not how I remember it at all. There were a couple of months when it all went quiet concerning A380 EIS, rumours about issues started, hints of delays came and eventually Airbus announced a year+ slip saying it was due to customer configuration issues... which was quickly determined to be about wiring and CATIA version differences.

Then came all the fallout with changes of management, Power8 etc.

... It’s been 2-3 months since the 777X test. Some people here are acting like Boeing should have immediately gave the public a detailed walkthrough of the test ...


Thankfully, some responsible people at Boeing, too, are acting this way - those leaking the footage.

Notably, it would be part of the message had Airbus been successful in controlling the schedule of communication v-a-v the A380 wing issue (which I for one don't remember): Trustful employees.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21935
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:22 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Not how I remember it at all. There were a couple of months when it all went quiet concerning A380 EIS, rumours about issues started, hints of delays came and eventually Airbus announced a year+ slip saying it was due to customer configuration issues... which was quickly determined to be about wiring and CATIA version differences.

Then came all the fallout with changes of management, Power8 etc.

The CATIA issues became publicly known in Fall 2006. That was about 18 months after first flight, and who knows how long after the problem was first discovered (which would have been during assembly of first frame).

My point wasn’t that Airbus was trying to hide it forever, but to note how Airbus waited until the problem was fixed to go into details. It’s been 2-3 months since the 777X test. Some people here are acting like Boeing should have immediately gave the public a detailed walkthrough of the test and what went wrong and how they are going to fix it. As I said in this thread (I think, or maybe another) last week people here are too impatient. They think they should know everything immediately and if they don’t they instantly turn to conspiracies.


Yes changing the discussion to Catia. We were talking about the wing bending test. Airbus released the information, about that including videos and technical information shortly after the test. They also released technical information about what would be done to strengthen the wing.

Now you try to cloud the waters with the wiring issue. Yes it took a while before Airbus released the information about the Catia issue. But that the frames needed to be rewired, was than know for a while.
The Catia issue was that things drawn and filed in the older version (version 4) were not correct when opened in the newer version (version 5) or vice versa. Something that should not have happened. And I assume it took a while to find the problem.

It is always astonishing, how when one talks about things Boeing does, there comes the: Airbus does it too or is even worse comment. Mostly not true and nothing to do with the discussion.

My recollection matches that of SomebodyInTLS, it was known at the time the first frame was assembled because the wiring bundles were too short due to the CATIA mismatch.

The issue of the CATIA mismatch was known even earlier than that. There was a plan to develop software to allow CATIA v5 to import the v4 files but the development of that software failed without any action being taken once the failure occurred.

Perhaps you should refresh your memory: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1355693&p=19389551#p19389551
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21935
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:42 pm

PW100 wrote:
If you have time, reading this thread will give some of us a bit of deja vu . . .

A380 Wing Snaps Before Reaching Load Limit

And here's the video . . . :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19m9LZOOZY

According to the thread A380 failed at an earlier point than did 77X:

Airbus: A380 Wing Ruptures In Test, Deliveries On Track

(DOW JONES NEWSWIRES) LONDON -- Toulouse-based Airbus said Thursday that a wing for its new A380 model suffered a "rupture" during a static ground test but this won't affect certification or initial deliveries of the double-decker aircraft.

The wing failed at about 1.45 times the design load-limit and was about 3% within the 1.5 times target the company was aiming for, a spokeswoman said. She said that some "fine tuning" or "optimization" may be required for production aircraft but this depends on test results.

"We have successfully completed the whole static test period," the spokeswoman added.

Initial deliveries of the A380 plane, which can carry around 555 passengers, have already been delayed by up to six months. The company still expects to deliver the first aircraft to launch customer Singapore Airlines in November, the spokeswoman said...

I wonder why this story doesn't just come to an end.

The 77X test result was perfectly acceptable, just like the A380 result was perfectly acceptable.
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
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1658
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:03 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Not how I remember it at all. There were a couple of months when it all went quiet concerning A380 EIS, rumours about issues started, hints of delays came and eventually Airbus announced a year+ slip saying it was due to customer configuration issues... which was quickly determined to be about wiring and CATIA version differences.

Then came all the fallout with changes of management, Power8 etc.

The CATIA issues became publicly known in Fall 2006. That was about 18 months after first flight, and who knows how long after the problem was first discovered (which would have been during assembly of first frame).

My point wasn’t that Airbus was trying to hide it forever, but to note how Airbus waited until the problem was fixed to go into details. It’s been 2-3 months since the 777X test. Some people here are acting like Boeing should have immediately gave the public a detailed walkthrough of the test and what went wrong and how they are going to fix it. As I said in this thread (I think, or maybe another) last week people here are too impatient. They think they should know everything immediately and if they don’t they instantly turn to conspiracies.


Yes changing the discussion to Catia. We were talking about the wing bending test. Airbus released the information, about that including videos and technical information shortly after the test. They also released technical information about what would be done to strengthen the wing.

Now you try to cloud the waters with the wiring issue. Yes it took a while before Airbus released the information about the Catia issue. But that the frames needed to be rewired, was than know for a while.
The Catia issue was that things drawn and filed in the older version (version 4) were not correct when opened in the newer version (version 5) or vice versa. Something that should not have happened. And I assume it took a while to find the problem.

It is always astonishing, how when one talks about things Boeing does, there comes the: Airbus does it too or is even worse comment. Mostly not true and nothing to do with the discussion.


This is over on a tangent anyway, what happened to the A380 not the topic of this thread the 777x testing.

Everything went so wonderfully with the A380, we all agree.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3013
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:09 pm

787X30 wrote:
Thankfully, some responsible people at Boeing, too, are acting this way - those leaking the footage.


:shakehead:

Unfortunately for now, we do not know how the Seattle Times got the photo. If it was from a Boeing Employee (without prior approval), then it would have been a violation of the non-disclosure agreement each employee must adhere to - thus the employee can no be considered reliable or responsible as an employee.

If it was a whistle blower, then there are channels through which this information could go through (without going through Boeing Management or the Seattle Times).

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
mham001
Posts: 5639
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:55 pm

PW100 wrote:
If you have time, reading this thread will give some of us a bit of deja vu . . .

A380 Wing Snaps Before Reaching Load Limit


Interestingly, in the first two pages I read, there was not one poster screaming FAILURE! and demanding the whole test be redone.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1104
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:55 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
UnMAXed wrote:
Grandfathering needs to end, the certification of the 777X is a great place to start.


Discussions about "grandfathering" or more accurately, the change product rule, simply need to stop. The problem isn't grandfathering of aerostructures. We resize, reanalyze and retest all components when new loads and significant configuration change happens. Literally what this thread is about actually. The fact that Boeing tested this new configuration should show to the public why the myth about grandfathering should go away. They don't just slap new wings on an old 777 frame and say VOILA! We don't have to analyze or touch the fuselage because it's still a 777!! No! We look at it all again!

So 'we look at it all again' is the same as we certify as if a completely new aircraft? No reliance on grandfathering / change model rules?

If the X is treated / tested / certified as a new aircraft in terms of testing, and there are no time and cost benefits derived from grandfathering, change model rules and their ilk, why does Boeing run a multi-million dollar team of lobby warriors to defend? Since 2008, Boeing focus has been on more, not less.

EASA acknowledge there are OEM time and cost benefits derived from grandfathering.

JCAB, CAAC and NCAAB have lobbied the FAA, EASA and WTO for more than a decade to remove derivative model OEM advantages, seen as trade barriers by new OEM's, and protection for existing.

Clearly there are OEM advantages from truncated or exempt testing, resulting in less time to market and lower costs. The arguments surround the quantum of change permitted, before the complete aircraft must be certified as 'new', including the magnitude of extrapolation permitted and admission / relevance of different model experience.

Opinion on here is naturally divided, with perhaps a shift post-MAX. Some consider the X hasn't changed enough to be a completely new model, like the Boeing development and engineering teams in documentation submitted to the FAA and EASA, while others consider it has reached that threshold, as per Boeing sales team presentations to customers.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1658
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:34 pm

smartplane wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
UnMAXed wrote:
Grandfathering needs to end, the certification of the 777X is a great place to start.


Discussions about "grandfathering" or more accurately, the change product rule, simply need to stop. The problem isn't grandfathering of aerostructures. We resize, reanalyze and retest all components when new loads and significant configuration change happens. Literally what this thread is about actually. The fact that Boeing tested this new configuration should show to the public why the myth about grandfathering should go away. They don't just slap new wings on an old 777 frame and say VOILA! We don't have to analyze or touch the fuselage because it's still a 777!! No! We look at it all again!

So 'we look at it all again' is the same as we certify as if a completely new aircraft? No reliance on grandfathering / change model rules?

If the X is treated / tested / certified as a new aircraft in terms of testing, and there are no time and cost benefits derived from grandfathering, change model rules and their ilk, why does Boeing run a multi-million dollar team of lobby warriors to defend? Since 2008, Boeing focus has been on more, not less.

EASA acknowledge there are OEM time and cost benefits derived from grandfathering.

JCAB, CAAC and NCAAB have lobbied the FAA, EASA and WTO for more than a decade to remove derivative model OEM advantages, seen as trade barriers by new OEM's, and protection for existing.

Clearly there are OEM advantages from truncated or exempt testing, resulting in less time to market and lower costs. The arguments surround the quantum of change permitted, before the complete aircraft must be certified as 'new', including the magnitude of extrapolation permitted and admission / relevance of different model experience.

Opinion on here is naturally divided, with perhaps a shift post-MAX. Some consider the X hasn't changed enough to be a completely new model, like the Boeing development and engineering teams in documentation submitted to the FAA and EASA, while others consider it has reached that threshold, as per Boeing sales team presentations to customers.


So you are indicating that if a new wing is desired on the A321 or a simple stretch of the A330 means every existing part and piece needs to go thru as a new clean sheet!!! Well that regulation would ensure models would remain UNCHANGED and every 40 years or so a new clean sheet series would be introduced.

In building engineering all existing elements need not be looked at provided their loading has not increased, if increased it needs to be shown by calculation to be within allowable loads (in accordance with CURRENT codes). All new work is per the latest code. Life Safety upgrades to current code are triggered by a set of thresholds. Usually, existing products can be used and sold based on the original approvals. However, as happened in the US where all nightclubs must have fire sprinkler systems and exiting per current code in all existing buildings. Either cease its occupancy by said date or have this installed and operational.

AD's can be issued to correct any perceived problem, allowing existing models to be improved or altered per that dreaded 'grandfathering'. The safety agencies can and should note any changes in the FAR as to whether alterations after a given date need to meet this changed requirement. This is the correct approach to cover issues like lightning protection, fuel tank inerting, structure g loads etc.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3013
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:46 pm

Can someone provide a clear definition of "Grandfathering" with respect to certification?

I thought that grandfather only relates to the requirements imposed upon the frame. So if the original 777 was certify to a set of requirements then grandfathering means that the new 777X needs to meet the same requirements (not any additional changes to the regulation since the original certification).

So were there any major changes that occurred from then to now? Are these changes significant enough to make this a big issue?

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:53 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
smartplane wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:

Discussions about "grandfathering" or more accurately, the change product rule, simply need to stop. The problem isn't grandfathering of aerostructures. We resize, reanalyze and retest all components when new loads and significant configuration change happens. Literally what this thread is about actually. The fact that Boeing tested this new configuration should show to the public why the myth about grandfathering should go away. They don't just slap new wings on an old 777 frame and say VOILA! We don't have to analyze or touch the fuselage because it's still a 777!! No! We look at it all again!

So 'we look at it all again' is the same as we certify as if a completely new aircraft? No reliance on grandfathering / change model rules?

If the X is treated / tested / certified as a new aircraft in terms of testing, and there are no time and cost benefits derived from grandfathering, change model rules and their ilk, why does Boeing run a multi-million dollar team of lobby warriors to defend? Since 2008, Boeing focus has been on more, not less.

EASA acknowledge there are OEM time and cost benefits derived from grandfathering.

JCAB, CAAC and NCAAB have lobbied the FAA, EASA and WTO for more than a decade to remove derivative model OEM advantages, seen as trade barriers by new OEM's, and protection for existing.

Clearly there are OEM advantages from truncated or exempt testing, resulting in less time to market and lower costs. The arguments surround the quantum of change permitted, before the complete aircraft must be certified as 'new', including the magnitude of extrapolation permitted and admission / relevance of different model experience.

Opinion on here is naturally divided, with perhaps a shift post-MAX. Some consider the X hasn't changed enough to be a completely new model, like the Boeing development and engineering teams in documentation submitted to the FAA and EASA, while others consider it has reached that threshold, as per Boeing sales team presentations to customers.


So you are indicating that if a new wing is desired on the A321 or a simple stretch of the A330 means every existing part and piece needs to go thru as a new clean sheet!!! Well that regulation would ensure models would remain UNCHANGED and every 40 years or so a new clean sheet series would be introduced.

In building engineering all existing elements need not be looked at provided their loading has not increased, if increased it needs to be shown by calculation to be within allowable loads (in accordance with CURRENT codes). All new work is per the latest code. Life Safety upgrades to current code are triggered by a set of thresholds. Usually, existing products can be used and sold based on the original approvals. However, as happened in the US where all nightclubs must have fire sprinkler systems and exiting per current code in all existing buildings. Either cease its occupancy by said date or have this installed and operational.

AD's can be issued to correct any perceived problem, allowing existing models to be improved or altered per that dreaded 'grandfathering'. The safety agencies can and should note any changes in the FAR as to whether alterations after a given date need to meet this changed requirement. This is the correct approach to cover issues like lightning protection, fuel tank inerting, structure g loads etc.


If the A320 keeps it's existing systems and avionics and literally only changes the wing then I think it could be done as a derivative.

However from many reports there are so many new things on the 777X - it seems like the only left over parts are the shape of the nose the outer mold line of the fuselage.

I think literally almost everything else has changed.

New systems, 787 style Avionics - new interior fuselage structure, new wingbox, new gear, new tail, new engines.

It probably would have been a lot cheaper to just extend the 787 to 80M and put the 777X wing on it (or a slightly smaller version) and left the systems basically as is.

It turns out they now have the production capacity on the 787 lines to handle another derivative.

Personally I think the 777X should be retested from Scratch - but as I said when 777X was launched they should have just done an 787 XL (Extra Long) as above it would have been easier.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:24 am

bikerthai wrote:
If it was a whistle blower, then there are channels through which this information could go through (without going through Boeing Management or the Seattle Times).


To qualify as a legally protected whistleblower, you have to have a reasonable belief that you have knowledge of a violation of law or other serious duty.

Boeing was performing their required testing with the required authorities present, and there has been no information released to indicate either party is failing in their duties. I don't see any case to make that the release of the photo was an act of whistle blowing, regardless of how fascinated I was to see it.

bikerthai wrote:
Can someone provide a clear definition of "Grandfathering" with respect to certification?


Grandfathering is not a term formally used in certification, but it should be interpreted as referring to an amended type certificate instead of a new type certificate, per 14 CFR Part 21. Under an amended type certificate, components or systems that are not changed and are not affected by a change to other components or systems are allowed to be kept, which is colloquially known as grandfathering.

Affected by a change is significant: you can't put a new wing on a fuselage, and only certify the changes to the wing without determining how it affects the fuselage. You can't redesign fuselage frames, and only certify the frames, but ignore the rest of the fuselage. Grandfathering is not taken lightly.

The manufacturer requests an amended type certificate, but the FAA has final say in whether a new certificate is needed, although I'm not sure there's any real distinction. With the 777X, the changes are very extensive, so the certification process is, as well, including full airframe tests like we're discussing in this thread.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:52 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
If it was a whistle blower, then there are channels through which this information could go through (without going through Boeing Management or the Seattle Times).


To qualify as a legally protected whistleblower, you have to have a reasonable belief that you have knowledge of a violation of law or other serious duty.

Boeing was performing their required testing with the required authorities present, and there has been no information released to indicate either party is failing in their duties. I don't see any case to make that the release of the photo was an act of whistle blowing, regardless of how fascinated I was to see it.

bikerthai wrote:
Can someone provide a clear definition of "Grandfathering" with respect to certification?


Grandfathering is not a term formally used in certification, but it should be interpreted as referring to an amended type certificate instead of a new type certificate, per 14 CFR Part 21. Under an amended type certificate, components or systems that are not changed and are not affected by a change to other components or systems are allowed to be kept, which is colloquially known as grandfathering.

Affected by a change is significant: you can't put a new wing on a fuselage, and only certify the changes to the wing without determining how it affects the fuselage. You can't redesign fuselage frames, and only certify the frames, but ignore the rest of the fuselage. Grandfathering is not taken lightly.

The manufacturer requests an amended type certificate, but the FAA has final say in whether a new certificate is needed, although I'm not sure there's any real distinction. With the 777X, the changes are very extensive, so the certification process is, as well, including full airframe tests like we're discussing in this thread.



Well said. Quite frankly, the folks who complain about grandfathering simply aren't aware of what it really means to "grandfather" an aircraft , or more accurately all the subsystems of the aircraft.

Someone used a building code description earlier. I think that is a good analogy. You wouldn't require a building to be completely demolished and rebuilt if you simply update the wiring, the plumbing and the hvac system. Maybe you added french doors and so have to reinforce the new cutout with a larger header. Perhaps you remove a wall and install an engineered laminate beam and reinforce the columns supporting that beam to the foundation.

All of that is no big deal.

Honestly, we need grandfathering or else you'd never certify anything. Should we have to retest every aluminum 2024 clad sheet for new properties? Should probably do every piece of sheet that rolls off the line I'd you're really that worried. Full blown material testing programs for every new derivative folks! That's what you're asking for. Better go redo every test we've ever done or itll fall out of the sky.

Above it was asked if you could grandfather under the old regulations and the changed structure only needed to meet the old regs. Not true. This is the change product rule. Anything that changes must step up to the new regulations.
 
Sokes
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:51 am

bikerthai wrote:
To be sure this failure is one of the many signs that Boeing has changed much since I started working. Engineering wise it used to be very conservative. The designers usually keep some margins in their back pocket. I guess competition and the progress in computing power now pushes the design to the edge where margin for growth are now pre-planned to the umpteenth decimal place and not kept in the back pockets of the engineers.

bt


Well, thanks god.
AFAIK the B737 isn't so safe in a belly landing. I think also the doors wouldn't be certified again.
So what's wrong with it? How many people died because of it?
Imagine a car has to be designed with the same safety requirements.

Image

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee

How many times do planes fall from the sky because of structural failure? Planes today are over-designed. What an environmental pollution.

Moreover that point about robotic riveting discontinued sounds very convincing. Possibly it's over-designed and a mistake in the process happened.
Should aircraft manufacturers never again change manufacturing processes because it may lead to failure in tests?
Any failure in any test is not to be criticized. That's why testing is done.

Why not this way?:
Thank you Boeing. Your test made sure the fault in your new process was found before any serious incident happened.

"Engineers design pickle forks to last the lifetime of the plane, more than 90,000 landings and takeoffs, a term known as "flight cycles" in the aviation industry, without developing cracks. There could be dire results if the pickle fork system on the jet fails in flight.
During a recent inspection, workers found a severely cracked pickle fork on a Boeing 737NG. The plane is relatively young, having logged approximately 35,000 flight cycles when the damage was found."
https://komonews.com/news/local/exclusi ... -equipment

A test is only as good as underlying assumptions.
A380 wings, B737NG pickle forks

I suggest to reduce the safety margin for initial certification. Production ramp up should be slower and more frequent checks should be done the first years.
If a plane should really disintegrate mid air one can make thorough checks on all old planes if there are any cracks.
I think it's acceptable if of 1000 planes of a certain type produced one disintegrates mid air. If you find driving cars too dangerous you're welcome to disagree. But then, as in the case of the pickle forks, regular inspections are done anyway to prevent such things happening.

So what's more important, 150% design load or regular inspection?

How comes the pickle forks cracks were found only now? B737NG isn't exactly young. But then 35.000 flight cycles isn't little either. Did Boeing operators get nervous and made some extra checks or was it found during a standard check?

Questions to engineers:
Suppose one designs for 140% of maximum expected load:
Would you expect material fatigue to become a problem towards the end of life of the plane? How much of OEW could be shaved that way?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:06 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
If it was a whistle blower, then there are channels through which this information could go through (without going through Boeing Management or the Seattle Times).


To qualify as a legally protected whistleblower, you have to have a reasonable belief that you have knowledge of a violation of law or other serious duty.

Boeing was performing their required testing with the required authorities present, and there has been no information released to indicate either party is failing in their duties. I don't see any case to make that the release of the photo was an act of whistle blowing, regardless of how fascinated I was to see it.

bikerthai wrote:
Can someone provide a clear definition of "Grandfathering" with respect to certification?


Grandfathering is not a term formally used in certification, but it should be interpreted as referring to an amended type certificate instead of a new type certificate, per 14 CFR Part 21. Under an amended type certificate, components or systems that are not changed and are not affected by a change to other components or systems are allowed to be kept, which is colloquially known as grandfathering.

Affected by a change is significant: you can't put a new wing on a fuselage, and only certify the changes to the wing without determining how it affects the fuselage. You can't redesign fuselage frames, and only certify the frames, but ignore the rest of the fuselage. Grandfathering is not taken lightly.

The manufacturer requests an amended type certificate, but the FAA has final say in whether a new certificate is needed, although I'm not sure there's any real distinction. With the 777X, the changes are very extensive, so the certification process is, as well, including full airframe tests like we're discussing in this thread.



Well said. Quite frankly, the folks who complain about grandfathering simply aren't aware of what it really means to "grandfather" an aircraft , or more accurately all the subsystems of the aircraft.

Someone used a building code description earlier. I think that is a good analogy. You wouldn't require a building to be completely demolished and rebuilt if you simply update the wiring, the plumbing and the hvac system. Maybe you added french doors and so have to reinforce the new cutout with a larger header. Perhaps you remove a wall and install an engineered laminate beam and reinforce the columns supporting that beam to the foundation.

All of that is no big deal.

Honestly, we need grandfathering or else you'd never certify anything. Should we have to retest every aluminum 2024 clad sheet for new properties? Should probably do every piece of sheet that rolls off the line I'd you're really that worried. Full blown material testing programs for every new derivative folks! That's what you're asking for. Better go redo every test we've ever done or itll fall out of the sky.

Above it was asked if you could grandfather under the old regulations and the changed structure only needed to meet the old regs. Not true. This is the change product rule. Anything that changes must step up to the new regulations.



I think you have kind of nailed the crux of the matter. For example if you take the already certified 787 control system in it's entirety and use it for 777X should you have to re-certify the the whole control system or just it's interaction with the frame?

I would say no - just it's interaction with the frame. Much like if it was an APU from an alternative frame.

That's where grandfathering makes sense.

I live around Toronto and we have this quirk in our Building code that as long as you leave basically one wall standing on an house you can call it a Reno when 99% of the house is new - including all it's systems. It allows you to get around some very pesky new by-laws.

Just doing an amendment to the 777 Type certificate makes more sense to me thinking of it this way - but in reality I doubt it's really saving them that much time or money - mainly it may have just been a way to get the Boeing Board to fund it. I would have to guess the scope of the changes has expanded over time so it's basically a whole new airplane. Much like "Reno's" are done in Toronto.

Everything important will get tested - it's just a question of optics.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:21 pm

“Grandfathering” is just a term that some people throw around here to try and disparage an OEM while trying to give off the appearance of being objective and just concerned about safety.

Let’s think for a minute, how is any part of this test an example of the failures/dangers of “grandfathering”?

Boeing still had to do the test...so I guess “grandfathering” didn’t help them there. Having incorrect calculations/assumptions leading to a failure is not “grandfathering”- regulatory authorities are not the ones who design the aircraft. That is the OEM’s job and there are always “mistakes” (i.e., incorrect assumptions/modeling) made even in brand new designs, things like fluid (aero) and stress dynamics are still very complicated to accurately model. That is why there is the actual physical testing portion of certification.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:26 pm

morrisond wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:

To qualify as a legally protected whistleblower, you have to have a reasonable belief that you have knowledge of a violation of law or other serious duty.

Boeing was performing their required testing with the required authorities present, and there has been no information released to indicate either party is failing in their duties. I don't see any case to make that the release of the photo was an act of whistle blowing, regardless of how fascinated I was to see it.



Grandfathering is not a term formally used in certification, but it should be interpreted as referring to an amended type certificate instead of a new type certificate, per 14 CFR Part 21. Under an amended type certificate, components or systems that are not changed and are not affected by a change to other components or systems are allowed to be kept, which is colloquially known as grandfathering.

Affected by a change is significant: you can't put a new wing on a fuselage, and only certify the changes to the wing without determining how it affects the fuselage. You can't redesign fuselage frames, and only certify the frames, but ignore the rest of the fuselage. Grandfathering is not taken lightly.

The manufacturer requests an amended type certificate, but the FAA has final say in whether a new certificate is needed, although I'm not sure there's any real distinction. With the 777X, the changes are very extensive, so the certification process is, as well, including full airframe tests like we're discussing in this thread.



Well said. Quite frankly, the folks who complain about grandfathering simply aren't aware of what it really means to "grandfather" an aircraft , or more accurately all the subsystems of the aircraft.

Someone used a building code description earlier. I think that is a good analogy. You wouldn't require a building to be completely demolished and rebuilt if you simply update the wiring, the plumbing and the hvac system. Maybe you added french doors and so have to reinforce the new cutout with a larger header. Perhaps you remove a wall and install an engineered laminate beam and reinforce the columns supporting that beam to the foundation.

All of that is no big deal.

Honestly, we need grandfathering or else you'd never certify anything. Should we have to retest every aluminum 2024 clad sheet for new properties? Should probably do every piece of sheet that rolls off the line I'd you're really that worried. Full blown material testing programs for every new derivative folks! That's what you're asking for. Better go redo every test we've ever done or itll fall out of the sky.

Above it was asked if you could grandfather under the old regulations and the changed structure only needed to meet the old regs. Not true. This is the change product rule. Anything that changes must step up to the new regulations.



I think you have kind of nailed the crux of the matter. For example if you take the already certified 787 control system in it's entirety and use it for 777X should you have to re-certify the the whole control system or just it's interaction with the frame?

I would say no - just it's interaction with the frame. Much like if it was an APU from an alternative frame.


That's where grandfathering makes sense.

I live around Toronto and we have this quirk in our Building code that as long as you leave basically one wall standing on an house you can call it a Reno when 99% of the house is new - including all it's systems. It allows you to get around some very pesky new by-laws.

Just doing an amendment to the 777 Type certificate makes more sense to me thinking of it this way - but in reality I doubt it's really saving them that much time or money - mainly it may have just been a way to get the Boeing Board to fund it. I would have to guess the scope of the changes has expanded over time so it's basically a whole new airplane. Much like "Reno's" are done in Toronto.

Everything important will get tested - it's just a question of optics.


You missed a crucial part of what is grandfathering, it works under the same type certificate.
You just can't take one bit of design certified existing under a TC and use it under another TC without complete certification process.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21935
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure

Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:54 pm

Polot wrote:
“Grandfathering” is just a term that some people throw around here to try and disparage an OEM while trying to give off the appearance of being objective and just concerned about safety.

Let’s think for a minute, how is any part of this test an example of the failures/dangers of “grandfathering”?

Boeing still had to do the test...so I guess “grandfathering” didn’t help them there. Having incorrect calculations/assumptions leading to a failure is not “grandfathering”- regulatory authorities are not the ones who design the aircraft. That is the OEM’s job and there are always “mistakes” (i.e., incorrect assumptions/modeling) made even in brand new designs, things like fluid (aero) and stress dynamics are still very complicated to accurately model. That is why there is the actual physical testing portion of certification.

Some people who act all concerned if not indignant about "grandfathering" put up posts describing various new engine options, wings and stretches of their favorite vendor's aircraft without once bringing up their concern about grandfathering, which is about as hypocritical as one can be.
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
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

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