Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
VCVSpotter wrote:777-9 N779XW filed MWH-BFI 3PM - 9:13PM as BOE1 (unlikely to be the actual times).
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE1
TropicalSky wrote:N779XW has already performed multiple 6 hr long flights in the past.6hrs would be the longest flight so farVCVSpotter wrote:777-9 N779XW filed MWH-BFI 3PM - 9:13PM as BOE1 (unlikely to be the actual times).
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE1
EK7777 wrote:TropicalSky wrote:N779XW has already performed multiple 6 hr long flights in the past.6hrs would be the longest flight so farVCVSpotter wrote:777-9 N779XW filed MWH-BFI 3PM - 9:13PM as BOE1 (unlikely to be the actual times).
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE1
ikolkyo wrote:A nice video compilation of 779 departures out of BFI, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfCPeg08I_4
ikolkyo wrote:A nice video compilation of 779 departures out of BFI, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfCPeg08I_4
VCVSpotter wrote:777-9 N779XY filed BFI-BFI 2:45PM - 1:06AM as BOE3 (times are likely not accurate). This is N779XY's 2nd flight.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE3
TropicalSky wrote:STC of Emirates not convinced on Boeing out of woods on meeting certification and delivery of B779
https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 34.article
RobK wrote:Spetsnaz55 wrote:VCVSpotter wrote:
Does anybody know the line number for A6-EZQ?
1642 if I'm not mistaken
Has there been a reallocation then as my parchment shows a different reg for that ln?
TropicalSky wrote:what is BOE003/N779XY testing today? notice they've been at a constant speed of 170 without indications of stalls
Opus99 wrote:TropicalSky wrote:what is BOE003/N779XY testing today? notice they've been at a constant speed of 170 without indications of stalls
Would this be part of propulsion performance testing?
Opus99 wrote:TropicalSky wrote:what is BOE003/N779XY testing today? notice they've been at a constant speed of 170 without indications of stalls
Would this be part of propulsion performance testing?
Spetsnaz55 wrote:All 3 are in the air
lightsaber wrote:Spetsnaz55 wrote:All 3 are in the air
That is great news. It implies the fleet will start acquiring about 70 hours, but not immediately. It takes a few weeks to induct an aircraft into the flight test program and ensure the team is up to speed.
A fourth aircraft will join the 777x test fleet soon:
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-4th-777x-demonstrator/
After that aircraft has been flying for about 2 weeks, we'll start seeing faster progress toward certification. The flights that interest me the most, the long haul efficiency proving flights with barrels and barrels of water to simulate payload, are at least 4 months away (probably more).
Normally by now, I hear rumors of the 777x and/or GE9x fuel burn. I think people are a bit afraid of their jobs now and aren't letting information slip. This means the fuel burn isn't horrid (if it were really bad, we would hear).
Lightsaber
Spetsnaz55 wrote:lightsaber wrote:Spetsnaz55 wrote:All 3 are in the air
That is great news. It implies the fleet will start acquiring about 70 hours, but not immediately. It takes a few weeks to induct an aircraft into the flight test program and ensure the team is up to speed.
A fourth aircraft will join the 777x test fleet soon:
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-4th-777x-demonstrator/
After that aircraft has been flying for about 2 weeks, we'll start seeing faster progress toward certification. The flights that interest me the most, the long haul efficiency proving flights with barrels and barrels of water to simulate payload, are at least 4 months away (probably more).
Normally by now, I hear rumors of the 777x and/or GE9x fuel burn. I think people are a bit afraid of their jobs now and aren't letting information slip. This means the fuel burn isn't horrid (if it were really bad, we would hear).
Lightsaber
That 4th plane is at minimum a month away from first flight. It just came out of final assembly for the 2nd time a few days ago. Im hoping for Boeing to do hot weather testing this month or next in Dubai but I think that will be next year now
lightsaber wrote:.
A fourth aircraft will join the 777x test fleet soon:
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-4th-777x-demonstrator/
After that aircraft has been flying for about 2 weeks, we'll start seeing faster progress toward certification.
Lightsaber
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:lightsaber wrote:.
A fourth aircraft will join the 777x test fleet soon:
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-4th-777x-demonstrator/
After that aircraft has been flying for about 2 weeks, we'll start seeing faster progress toward certification.
Lightsaber
Not really. Service entry is Q1 in '22.
There will be no rush on the Boeing side. Also, FAA will want to ensure no Max-type hidden features like Mcas or anything else. Higher scrutiny and multiple repeat tests of things.
Certification will be the steadying pace, not fast.
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:lightsaber wrote:.
A fourth aircraft will join the 777x test fleet soon:
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-4th-777x-demonstrator/
After that aircraft has been flying for about 2 weeks, we'll start seeing faster progress toward certification.
Lightsaber
Not really. Service entry is Q1 in '22.
There will be no rush on the Boeing side. Also, FAA will want to ensure no Max-type hidden features like Mcas or anything else. Higher scrutiny and multiple repeat tests of things.
Certification will be the steadying pace, not fast.
keesje wrote:FlightGlobal is brave enough (kudos) to put on the table what most of the industry/ their advertisers don't want to hear or know. The FAA changed product rule miss-use on 777x, in parallel to the 737MAX.
https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 74.article
Easy to sideline if we ignore the major contributor is a 40 year industry dinosaur, Boeing customer and also by far biggest 777/777x customer.
Opus99 wrote:keesje wrote:FlightGlobal is brave enough (kudos) to put on the table what most of the industry/ their advertisers don't want to hear or know. The FAA changed product rule miss-use on 777x, in parallel to the 737MAX.
https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 74.article
Easy to sideline if we ignore the major contributor is a 40 year industry dinosaur, Boeing customer and also by far biggest 777/777x customer.
Then they should recertify every grandfathered aircraft if that be the case. They should recertify it from scratch like a brand new aircraft. I don’t see how that changes where the EIS is targeted for. Like I’ve said even if it takes 18 months from now that’s still 2022. Even if it takes 2 years. The coronavirus bought the aircraft time. What I don’t know is. How it changes the now expected EIS. Unless you’re trying to say the aircraft is not safe or?
Opus99 wrote:Then they should recertify every grandfathered aircraft if that be the case. They should recertify it from scratch like a brand new aircraft. I don’t see how that changes where the EIS is targeted for. Like I’ve said even if it takes 18 months from now that’s still 2022. Even if it takes 2 years. The coronavirus bought the aircraft time. What I don’t know is. How it changes the now expected EIS. Unless you’re trying to say the aircraft is not safe or?
StTim wrote:Opus99 wrote:keesje wrote:FlightGlobal is brave enough (kudos) to put on the table what most of the industry/ their advertisers don't want to hear or know. The FAA changed product rule miss-use on 777x, in parallel to the 737MAX.
https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 74.article
Easy to sideline if we ignore the major contributor is a 40 year industry dinosaur, Boeing customer and also by far biggest 777/777x customer.
Then they should recertify every grandfathered aircraft if that be the case. They should recertify it from scratch like a brand new aircraft. I don’t see how that changes where the EIS is targeted for. Like I’ve said even if it takes 18 months from now that’s still 2022. Even if it takes 2 years. The coronavirus bought the aircraft time. What I don’t know is. How it changes the now expected EIS. Unless you’re trying to say the aircraft is not safe or?
The question is - are other framers also successfully applying similar pressure to their lead regulator, and not hiding important changes from them.
Revelation wrote:Opus99 wrote:Then they should recertify every grandfathered aircraft if that be the case. They should recertify it from scratch like a brand new aircraft. I don’t see how that changes where the EIS is targeted for. Like I’ve said even if it takes 18 months from now that’s still 2022. Even if it takes 2 years. The coronavirus bought the aircraft time. What I don’t know is. How it changes the now expected EIS. Unless you’re trying to say the aircraft is not safe or?
Maybe now we have a better idea why it's taking Airbus four years to move some bulkheads and add some strengthening to the A321.
frmrCapCadet wrote:The MAX was a fly-by-cable plane now with a little fly- by-wire and a lot of a kludge to make it act like a fly by wire. The 777, far newer than the 320 or the 330 was and is fly by wire from the beginning. It does not have the underlying problems of the MAX. Posters asserting there is an equivalence are simply showing unacceptable bias.
FlightGlobal wrote:Clark is a weary veteran of many new airliner programmes – be they cleansheet or derivative designs. He was at Gulf Air when the Lockheed TriStar was being introduced in the mid-1970s and has been part of the creative knowhow that helped produce many of today’s widebody icons such as the Airbus A350 and A380, and the 777-300ER. But even with all his battle-hardened experience on the frontline of airliner development, Clark was clearly spooked by what he saw coming out of the Max investigation.
While stressing that he has no reason to believe there is anything untoward with 777X systems or design, Clark is concerned that – in light of the Max findings – there could be embedded software “that we do not know about, or is dissimilar to what is already on the 777-300ER”. He therefore demands “a full and transparent explanation” once the aircraft is ready to be presented for certification.
StTim wrote:Opus99 wrote:Then they should recertify every grandfathered aircraft if that be the case. They should recertify it from scratch like a brand new aircraft. I don’t see how that changes where the EIS is targeted for. Like I’ve said even if it takes 18 months from now that’s still 2022. Even if it takes 2 years. The coronavirus bought the aircraft time. What I don’t know is. How it changes the now expected EIS. Unless you’re trying to say the aircraft is not safe or?
The question is - are other framers also successfully applying similar pressure to their lead regulator, and not hiding important changes from them.
PW100 wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:The MAX was a fly-by-cable plane now with a little fly- by-wire and a lot of a kludge to make it act like a fly by wire. The 777, far newer than the 320 or the 330 was and is fly by wire from the beginning. It does not have the underlying problems of the MAX. Posters asserting there is an equivalence are simply showing unacceptable bias.
So this 40 year industry veteran STC seems to show an "unacceptable bias" then . . . . :FlightGlobal wrote:Clark is a weary veteran of many new airliner programmes – be they cleansheet or derivative designs. He was at Gulf Air when the Lockheed TriStar was being introduced in the mid-1970s and has been part of the creative knowhow that helped produce many of today’s widebody icons such as the Airbus A350 and A380, and the 777-300ER. But even with all his battle-hardened experience on the frontline of airliner development, Clark was clearly spooked by what he saw coming out of the Max investigation.
While stressing that he has no reason to believe there is anything untoward with 777X systems or design, Clark is concerned that – in light of the Max findings – there could be embedded software “that we do not know about, or is dissimilar to what is already on the 777-300ER”. He therefore demands “a full and transparent explanation” once the aircraft is ready to be presented for certification.
Mind you, it is my understanding that Boeing is having hard times with the 777X certification process as the initially agreed upon certification plan is becoming more like a moving target, changing requirements almost on a monthly basis now . . .
Revelation wrote:The scope of the changes in 77X are similar to the scope of changes in 737NG so while they aren't typical I would say they are not unusual.
The amended type certificate procedure is a part of the FARs, I don't see the issue with Boeing using it.
I do see the issue with Boeing using Congress to pressure FAA management to delegate more stuff to it and using Jedi mind tricks to avoid expensive training requirements, but that could be a problem regardless of clean sheet vs amended type certificate.
787 should be a vivid example of how clean sheet procedures aren't necessarily a path to producing the safest aircraft.