Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23694
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:31 pm

par13del wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It's interesting how personal Calhoun makes it. He personally wants to learn more, he personally wants a specification he believes in.

IMO it's a good thing he wants personal involvement. DM didn't seem to need or want this kind of hands on involvement.

...confirmation that he was asleep in the board meetings or just not paying attention?

A board member is more or less an observer or at best a consultant.

Yes, they hire/fire the corporate officers but that's about their only useful role.

As executive he has a LOT more say over what happens next.
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
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:35 pm

2175301 wrote:
I had an "interesting" discussion with my friend who is associated with the NMA project. They rarely ever tell me anything specific. Most discussions are about theoretical approaches that things that have been studied. This discussion had a few specifics:
1) That they believe that they have the right sized aircraft and the right shape (for which a lot of engineering has been done). They indicated that their was a close 2nd in aircraft size/shape that would likely be looked at again in the "redesign."

2) That they believe they have the right technologies and manufacturing process to build a competitive aircraft except for a very recent change.

3) That the 737Max issue, studies, current and projected regulator response, and likely future pilot interface and response standards makes it unlikely that even the most up to date Boeing cockpit design (787/777) will be certifiable in a new designed from scratch aircraft.

Thus the NMA in whatever form will have to have a completely new generation of cockpit and control concepts. That is what is driving the "nominally": start from scratch statements. In reality, it most likely will be how to modify the best 2 aircraft designs that came out of the previous work to see how you would implement various possible new cockpit and control possibilities.

Their personal opinion is that at least 80% of all the previous R&D done on the NMA will be applicable to the newer version; however, the detailed engineering for what was the current size aircraft may not be useful if the decission is to pursue the other aircraft size/shape.

They do not see at this time any other radical new concepts in aircraft design other than cockpit and control concepts, and how they are implemented. Discussions are to limit the "moonshots" to one area, and to prove (and work out the bugs) in the manufacturing advances

Have a great day,


I do not buy it. The 787 is fully FBW, which means that only the man to machine interface could be the problem, but in the end Bombardier just got a new cockpit design certified with the CSeries and in the Biz jet sector plenty new solution have been certified. And the problem with the MAX is limited to the MAX as the flight control systems of a FBW design must be different anyway and would not encounter the problems the MAX faces.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10216
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
par13del wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It's interesting how personal Calhoun makes it. He personally wants to learn more, he personally wants a specification he believes in.

IMO it's a good thing he wants personal involvement. DM didn't seem to need or want this kind of hands on involvement.

...confirmation that he was asleep in the board meetings or just not paying attention?

A board member is more or less an observer or at best a consultant.

Yes, they hire/fire the corporate officers but that's about their only useful role.

As executive he has a LOT more say over what happens next.

Yeah but based on the number of years Boeing were talking about the MOM / NMA, I feel certain that some of those discussions did rise to board level, especially the financial case that was being made for production changes, vendor participation and engine request.

His coming across like he does not know anything about NMA / MOM just rings hollow to me, could be wrong but....
 
ewt340
Posts: 1199
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:37 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
This is exactly it what I mean!

It is simply awesome!
Quite frankly, it represents the future for me. A new type of small aircraft... :yes:

Image

I can see 1.200 airframes potential sales until 2040, shared with Boeing maybe?

Different scenarios, and flexibility use

American Airlines "transcon" 6 /hours mission
Lufthansa 8 hours / transatlantic mission
Chinese market / 1hour mission
They can't go wrong...

keesje wrote:
Of course Airbus could do an NMA, they have resources, technology.


Not only, they are also in comfort in their market positions. This is way too much of an asset to launch something that is not necessarily risky for them :yes:

keesje wrote:
But I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction.

They should, frankly :thumbsup:

I hope they do it in at least two years.

keesje wrote:
I guess most foresee new versions of existing aircraft. A220-500...

:checkmark:

I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction...

But, we know they should do it, right?

keesje wrote:
A322NEO, A320Plus,

I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction and fortunately, especially for the A322neoX who is an ugliest 757 proxy concept

With the A320neo, and A321neo LR's derivative, Airbus is on top!

Climbing too high in the tree can cause a fatal fall. We've already seen this with Boeing, haven't we?


keesje wrote:
A350ULR.


:shakehead:
The A330s, 777's, 787's and A350 flooded the market. What does this A350ULR mean? We see the slowdown with production cut from the A330s, 777's and the 787 at a rate of 10 by a month announced...


keesje wrote:
But we are drifting away. Boeing is on the line. The discussion is if Boeing problems exaggerated, or worse than we want to believe. Inbetween weasel words I see him launching a state of the art 737 Replacement. He might need serious partners for that at this stage. Serious = Raytheon Technologies, GE, NG, GenDyn, US and Brasilian governments, Chinese government bodies (they don't want MAX and have to spend $200B in the US by 2021).


All your good arguments, cannot necessarily save Boeing from a lack of product.

Replacing 1: 1 with a new technology leaves a deficiency to be able to compete.

Remember my comment above when responding to Scbriml. It's a bullet in the foot, Keesje ...

keesje wrote:
You think so?


No matter. 737 MAX customers are waiting ...


So, what If:



Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:41 pm

2175301 wrote:
Revelation wrote:

"Deleted for Readability: See Above"

Team A is really lucky that they will probably be able to "grandfather" their current cockpit tech for a long time to come while Boeing has to go through the battle of specifying, designing, implementing, testing and certifying the next gen stuff.


Actually, Bombardier may have already done that with what is now the A220 cockpit. In my opinion, Boeing likely could use something very similar and the regulators would likely allow that (at least in the near term).

I find it more interesting that Boeing is talking about potential longer term issues and seems to be hinting at more advanced concepts. We will have to see... how far they wish to push it. Also, what kinds of backups are needed if the main flight computers appear to be malfunctioning, and how they are activated (red switch under a protective cover?). My personal opinion is that as long as you are going there: A capability for remote takeover of the aircraft if allowed by inflight personnel (or perhaps not prevented by inflight personnel with a series of alarms on the control panel at the start of the process and adequate time to prevent the remote takeover), at least future provisions for single pilot operation.

Another possible option that is at this stage plausible is Boeing to perhaps buy Rockwell Collins to be able to use their technology and control & license it in ways they would potentially like too.

This will be interesting to watch,

Have a great day,


Yay - the big red button and Remote control and most likely using NMA structure. It sounds like my guess may not have been that far off.

Great information BTW - Thank you!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:43 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

It sounds as though the fire has been turned down to a simmer.


I cannot understand your pessimism

Anyway, a simmered dish is better than a burning fire :stirthepot:


then let me add this:

"A watched pot never boils" :-))))

and who wants some warmed up meat as "steak" ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
morrisond
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:44 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
I am really feeling a logically laid out, light, and not over-winged, 2x2x2, 1x3x2


KlimaBXsst wrote:


Key is to keep it light


KlimaBXsst wrote:

I WONDER how Boeing might do that though?


Turbo encabulators :wink:

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Transparent Aluminum to reduce Window weight.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:49 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
This is exactly it what I mean!

It is simply awesome!
Quite frankly, it represents the future for me. A new type of small aircraft... :yes:

Image

I can see 1.200 airframes potential sales until 2040, shared with Boeing maybe?

Different scenarios, and flexibility use

American Airlines "transcon" 6 /hours mission
Lufthansa 8 hours / transatlantic mission
Chinese market / 1hour mission
They can't go wrong...

keesje wrote:
Of course Airbus could do an NMA, they have resources, technology.


Not only, they are also in comfort in their market positions. This is way too much of an asset to launch something that is not necessarily risky for them :yes:

keesje wrote:
But I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction.

They should, frankly :thumbsup:

I hope they do it in at least two years.

keesje wrote:
I guess most foresee new versions of existing aircraft. A220-500...

:checkmark:

I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction...

But, we know they should do it, right?

keesje wrote:
A322NEO, A320Plus,

I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction and fortunately, especially for the A322neoX who is an ugliest 757 proxy concept

With the A320neo, and A321neo LR's derivative, Airbus is on top!

Climbing too high in the tree can cause a fatal fall. We've already seen this with Boeing, haven't we?


keesje wrote:
A350ULR.


:shakehead:
The A330s, 777's, 787's and A350 flooded the market. What does this A350ULR mean? We see the slowdown with production cut from the A330s, 777's and the 787 at a rate of 10 by a month announced...


keesje wrote:
But we are drifting away. Boeing is on the line. The discussion is if Boeing problems exaggerated, or worse than we want to believe. Inbetween weasel words I see him launching a state of the art 737 Replacement. He might need serious partners for that at this stage. Serious = Raytheon Technologies, GE, NG, GenDyn, US and Brasilian governments, Chinese government bodies (they don't want MAX and have to spend $200B in the US by 2021).


All your good arguments, cannot necessarily save Boeing from a lack of product.

Replacing 1: 1 with a new technology leaves a deficiency to be able to compete.

Remember my comment above when responding to Scbriml. It's a bullet in the foot, Keesje ...

keesje wrote:
You think so?


No matter. 737 MAX customers are waiting ...


So, what If:



Image


That's only about 4 rows isn't it? Wouldn't they try for 5 or 6 at least? I would guess what ever it ends up being Boeing will target 20-30 seats above that as Big NMA. Bascially like 738 vs 320.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:51 pm

WIederling wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

It sounds as though the fire has been turned down to a simmer.


I cannot understand your pessimism

Anyway, a simmered dish is better than a burning fire :stirthepot:


then let me add this:

"A watched pot never boils" :-))))

and who wants some warmed up meat as "steak" ?


So what would you call a Rewing stretched A321 then?
 
User avatar
Carlos01
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:52 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:56 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
From concept to EIS can take 10 years. It's difficult to see FSA entering service before 2030 if Boeing starts from scratch.


I've said it before, but I'd be extremely disappointed with Boeing's BOD if they have not been working on the MAX replacement since March 2019. If they have any kind of organised risk management at all, the MAX is something that is (without any mitigation) way beyond anyone's risk appetite. At the same time the NMA's destiny must have been on the table already a few times.

Whatever the new bird will be labelled as, I'm expecting EIS is being planned by 2026 latest. If they make that date is another story of course, with variables like no tomorrow left and right.



You make a mistake this quote is not mine. Sorry :duck:


Apologies mate, obviously that was from brother @PepeTheFrog . I wasn't able to edit my post any longer, sorry about that.

One has to be a flippin' programmer nowadays just to post on a forum... :roll: :lol:
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:58 pm

So Interesting - thank you Revelation and 2175301

Revelation wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I had an "interesting" discussion with my friend who is associated with the NMA project. They rarely ever tell me anything specific. Most discussions are about theoretical approaches that things that have been studied. This discussion had a few specifics:
1) That they believe that they have the right sized aircraft and the right shape (for which a lot of engineering has been done). They indicated that their was a close 2nd in aircraft size/shape that would likely be looked at again in the "redesign."

2) That they believe they have the right technologies and manufacturing process to build a competitive aircraft except for a very recent change.

3) That the 737Max issue, studies, current and projected regulator response, and likely future pilot interface and response standards makes it unlikely that even the most up to date Boeing cockpit design (787/777) will be certifiable in a new designed from scratch aircraft.

[b]Thus the NMA in whatever form will have to have a completely new generation of cockpit and control concepts.
That is what is driving the "nominally": start from scratch statements. In reality, it most likely will be how to modify the best 2 aircraft designs that came out of the previous work to see how you would implement various possible new cockpit and control possibilities. [/b]

Their personal opinion is that at least 80% of all the previous R&D done on the NMA will be applicable to the newer version; however, the detailed engineering for what was the current size aircraft may not be useful if the decission is to pursue the other aircraft size/shape.

They do not see at this time any other radical new concepts in aircraft design other than cockpit and control concepts, and how they are implemented. Discussions are to limit the "moonshots" to one area, and to prove (and work out the bugs) in the manufacturing advances

Have a great day,

Fascinating post, especially the part I highlighted.

It seems that we now know what the long pole in the tent will be, figuring out what the regulator will require from a next gen cockpit then designing and implementing such.

I hate to say but getting clarity on the requirements given that the regulators probably feel they can ask for the stars and the moon can be a huge challenge. A thousand experts, ten thousand opinions. So hard to get people to focus on what can be done with current tech in a workable time frame.

Team A is really lucky that they will probably be able to "grandfather" their current cockpit tech for a long time to come while Boeing has to go through the battle of specifying, designing, implementing, testing and certifying the next gen stuff.

My guess is the "best choice" is the 7W ovioid we know as NMA, and the "second best choice" is the 6W tube taking them from 737-8 size through 757-300 size we know of as FSA. I'm sure there's a sizeable contingent that sees that as the best way forward.

Given that the cockpit stuff is now the long pole, they have a lot of time to sort out the size and shape arguments.


This hits right onto what Calhoun said. He is seeing that the cockpit control tech envisioned for the NMA (update of the current 777x /787 tech) just can't now be certified nor sensible for liability reasons. The 737 has vestiges of the control approach of the DC-3, ie "the Pilot in Charge" is flying the plane. But the tech of a modern plane with the PIC having to now be a software / controls engineer as much as a pilot challenges this approach. Airbus control methodology always had the Pilot less in charge, nearly always being limited / translated by the controller in its implementation. This is closer but still not completely clear of the new certification requirements.

This is a huge deal and highlights why Calhoun indicates the NMA is being completely rethought. This change on cockpit tech is at the foundation of a new model.

Boeing is faced with a new model family / new industrial plan / new QA approach with the NMA / NSA. Training will be required anyway from a 737, might as well go for the new cockpit commonality for how planes will be built for the next 50 years. Will cost more initially, but will have huge benefits for decades to come.

Airbus will then be faced with doing this change also at some future point. Yes Team A can grandfather the A320 for some new variants, which is a current advantage, but any new variant will be of this old family, there will be a penalty long term when it introduces its new NB model sometime in the future.
 
2175301
Posts: 1730
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:08 pm

seahawk wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I had an "interesting" discussion with my friend who is associated with the NMA project. They rarely ever tell me anything specific. Most discussions are about theoretical approaches that things that have been studied. This discussion had a few specifics:
1) That they believe that they have the right sized aircraft and the right shape (for which a lot of engineering has been done). They indicated that their was a close 2nd in aircraft size/shape that would likely be looked at again in the "redesign."

2) That they believe they have the right technologies and manufacturing process to build a competitive aircraft except for a very recent change.

3) That the 737Max issue, studies, current and projected regulator response, and likely future pilot interface and response standards makes it unlikely that even the most up to date Boeing cockpit design (787/777) will be certifiable in a new designed from scratch aircraft.

Thus the NMA in whatever form will have to have a completely new generation of cockpit and control concepts. That is what is driving the "nominally": start from scratch statements. In reality, it most likely will be how to modify the best 2 aircraft designs that came out of the previous work to see how you would implement various possible new cockpit and control possibilities.

Their personal opinion is that at least 80% of all the previous R&D done on the NMA will be applicable to the newer version; however, the detailed engineering for what was the current size aircraft may not be useful if the decission is to pursue the other aircraft size/shape.

They do not see at this time any other radical new concepts in aircraft design other than cockpit and control concepts, and how they are implemented. Discussions are to limit the "moonshots" to one area, and to prove (and work out the bugs) in the manufacturing advances

Have a great day,


I do not buy it. The 787 is fully FBW, which means that only the man to machine interface could be the problem, but in the end Bombardier just got a new cockpit design certified with the CSeries and in the Biz jet sector plenty new solution have been certified. And the problem with the MAX is limited to the MAX as the flight control systems of a FBW design must be different anyway and would not encounter the problems the MAX faces.


The JATR and NTSB reports both discussed incorrect assumptions about pilot response time, pilot workload, not considering cumulative effects, etc. There are recommendations for the international regulators to consider such human factors into future certification standards. In the 737Max thread are several reports of studies that indicate that a number of pilots do not instantly recall memory items.

I have seen no indications that the 787/777 FBW systems and testing did not make similar assumptions, and that pilots do not have high workload issues at times.

Why would it be surprising for the regulators to say we need to do better in the future - that realistic response times must be considered, workloads minimized, and cumulative effects when there is an issue with the aircraft. Why would it be surprising that and perhaps that these relatively "modern" systems would not pass testing at these higher standards. A reality is that the 787 cockpit and flight control system design is at least 15 years old (and perhaps 20). We have documented evidence that Boeing was using a 3-4 second pilot response time at a later date with the 737Max; and documentation that this is not considered appropriate today (JATR & NTSB). I believe its a fair assumption that the 787 system testing used similar short response times when it was developed, nor that such testing included cumulative effects of various alarms and indications for each specific failure.

It would also not surprise me that the Boeing Engineers who have the best information available on what the Regulators are thinking due to their working together on the 737Max to conclude that those older "modern" systems would likely not pass what will be the current certification standards for a clean sheet design aircraft (although it might with the right tweaks - even then, is it worth it - or better off to start with something new).

In no way am I suggesting that the 787/777 system is bad... It just seems apparent that it's time to move onto something better that minimizes accidents from some of the identified issues from the pilot response and workload issues from the 737Max crashes. I also suspect that the A320 - A380 current control systems will also fall short of the newer standards. The existing systems will of course allowed to be grandfathered into revisions of the base designs.

Have a great day,
 
DenverTed
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:08 pm

keesje wrote:
Of course Airbus could do an NMA, they have resources, technology.
But I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction.

Image


I see there are double 4" armrests. At 162", this could also be configured 2-2-2 with 18" seats and aisles with 2" armrests for short route flying.
I could see lengths at 50m (164') or 55m (180'), but 60m seems a little ill proportioned.
Or perhaps a 45m version with a fixed 36m wing and winglets at sub100t MTOW with 3K nm range.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:51 pm

DenverTed wrote:

Image



Looks like a great mouse trap unless airlines are too risk adverse as they are with the A321, to utilize the #2 boarding door for fear of women agents bad jet-bridge driving skills and the inevitable impeding collisions with the #1.

(;
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:05 pm

morrisond wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
This is exactly it what I mean!

It is simply awesome!
Quite frankly, it represents the future for me. A new type of small aircraft... :yes:

Image

I can see 1.200 airframes potential sales until 2040, shared with Boeing maybe?

Different scenarios, and flexibility use

American Airlines "transcon" 6 /hours mission
Lufthansa 8 hours / transatlantic mission
Chinese market / 1hour mission
They can't go wrong...



Not only, they are also in comfort in their market positions. This is way too much of an asset to launch something that is not necessarily risky for them :yes:


They should, frankly :thumbsup:

I hope they do it in at least two years.


:checkmark:

I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction...

But, we know they should do it, right?


I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction and fortunately, especially for the A322neoX who is an ugliest 757 proxy concept

With the A320neo, and A321neo LR's derivative, Airbus is on top!

Climbing too high in the tree can cause a fatal fall. We've already seen this with Boeing, haven't we?




:shakehead:
The A330s, 777's, 787's and A350 flooded the market. What does this A350ULR mean? We see the slowdown with production cut from the A330s, 777's and the 787 at a rate of 10 by a month announced...




All your good arguments, cannot necessarily save Boeing from a lack of product.

Replacing 1: 1 with a new technology leaves a deficiency to be able to compete.

Remember my comment above when responding to Scbriml. It's a bullet in the foot, Keesje ...



No matter. 737 MAX customers are waiting ...


So, what If:



Image


That's only about 4 rows isn't it? Wouldn't they try for 5 or 6 at least? I would guess what ever it ends up being Boeing will target 20-30 seats above that as Big NMA. Bascially like 738 vs 320.


Absolutely.

No doubt, Boeing is assessing the impact of a stretched A321neo (A322X) This should include a comparison with the strengths and weaknesses of this narrowbody to establish the NMA!
Last edited by Checklist787 on Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
ewt340
Posts: 1199
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:11 pm

morrisond wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
This is exactly it what I mean!

It is simply awesome!
Quite frankly, it represents the future for me. A new type of small aircraft... :yes:

Image

I can see 1.200 airframes potential sales until 2040, shared with Boeing maybe?

Different scenarios, and flexibility use

American Airlines "transcon" 6 /hours mission
Lufthansa 8 hours / transatlantic mission
Chinese market / 1hour mission
They can't go wrong...



Not only, they are also in comfort in their market positions. This is way too much of an asset to launch something that is not necessarily risky for them :yes:


They should, frankly :thumbsup:

I hope they do it in at least two years.


:checkmark:

I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction...

But, we know they should do it, right?


I have heard/ seen no intentions in that direction and fortunately, especially for the A322neoX who is an ugliest 757 proxy concept

With the A320neo, and A321neo LR's derivative, Airbus is on top!

Climbing too high in the tree can cause a fatal fall. We've already seen this with Boeing, haven't we?




:shakehead:
The A330s, 777's, 787's and A350 flooded the market. What does this A350ULR mean? We see the slowdown with production cut from the A330s, 777's and the 787 at a rate of 10 by a month announced...




All your good arguments, cannot necessarily save Boeing from a lack of product.

Replacing 1: 1 with a new technology leaves a deficiency to be able to compete.

Remember my comment above when responding to Scbriml. It's a bullet in the foot, Keesje ...



No matter. 737 MAX customers are waiting ...


So, what If:



Image


That's only about 4 rows isn't it? Wouldn't they try for 5 or 6 at least? I would guess what ever it ends up being Boeing will target 20-30 seats above that as Big NMA. Bascially like 738 vs 320.


I think the point of A322 is to increase the capacity to match B757-200's capacity.

The longer they stretched the plane, the more complex modifications they need and the less range they gonna get out of it. The target probably gonna be on 5,000nmi to match the NMA.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:17 pm

Carlos01 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:

I've said it before, but I'd be extremely disappointed with Boeing's BOD if they have not been working on the MAX replacement since March 2019. If they have any kind of organised risk management at all, the MAX is something that is (without any mitigation) way beyond anyone's risk appetite. At the same time the NMA's destiny must have been on the table already a few times.

Whatever the new bird will be labelled as, I'm expecting EIS is being planned by 2026 latest. If they make that date is another story of course, with variables like no tomorrow left and right.



You make a mistake this quote is not mine. Sorry :duck:


Apologies mate, obviously that was from brother @PepeTheFrog . I wasn't able to edit my post any longer, sorry about that.

One has to be a flippin' programmer nowadays just to post on a forum... :roll: :lol:


No problem mate. It happens... :)
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
Boeing1978
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:06 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:36 pm

Revelation wrote:

...My guess is the "best choice" is the 7W ovioid we know as NMA, and the "second best choice" is the 6W tube taking them from 737-8 size through 757-300 size we know of as FSA. I'm sure there's a sizeable contingent that sees that as the best way forward.


I like the "second best choice". Start with the larger 757-sized version(s), work out the kinks and optimize production.
At some point start offering the smaller 737-size versions. Boom. Get after it already. Time is money.
USA
 
WillyEckers
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:24 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:46 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
This hits right onto what Calhoun said. He is seeing that the cockpit control tech envisioned for the NMA (update of the current 777x /787 tech) just can't now be certified nor sensible for liability reasons. The 737 has vestiges of the control approach of the DC-3, ie "the Pilot in Charge" is flying the plane. But the tech of a modern plane with the PIC having to now be a software / controls engineer as much as a pilot challenges this approach. Airbus control methodology always had the Pilot less in charge, nearly always being limited / translated by the controller in its implementation. This is closer but still not completely clear of the new certification requirements.


I'm smelling BS here. For the longstanding "pilot in charge" philosophy, the MAX really didn't have that - there was a system on board that the pilots were incapable of over-riding.

Personally, I would be astonished if the current flight deck philosophy were no longer viable. B737 NG/B747/B757/B767/B777/B787/A320/A330/A350/A380 manage OK (just to list current aircraft). B737 MAX had issues, I wonder what that says? Feels like another verse in the "nail the dead pilots to the MCAS cross" song...
 
LMP737
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
.
A board member is more or less an observer or at best a consultant.

Yes, they hire/fire the corporate officers but that's about their only useful role.

As executive he has a LOT more say over what happens next.


And by listening to some of the things he has said he's either clueless or being less than honest.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:40 pm

Revelation wrote:
.
A board member is more or less an observer or at best a consultant.

Yes, they hire/fire the corporate officers but that's about their only useful role.

As executive he has a LOT more say over what happens next.


What does a guy who previously held a cosmetic position
offer as CEO ?
Front for some hive mind?
Murphy is an optimist
 
TObound
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:07 pm

Revelation wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I had an "interesting" discussion with my friend who is associated with the NMA project. They rarely ever tell me anything specific. Most discussions are about theoretical approaches that things that have been studied. This discussion had a few specifics:
1) That they believe that they have the right sized aircraft and the right shape (for which a lot of engineering has been done). They indicated that their was a close 2nd in aircraft size/shape that would likely be looked at again in the "redesign."

2) That they believe they have the right technologies and manufacturing process to build a competitive aircraft except for a very recent change.

3) That the 737Max issue, studies, current and projected regulator response, and likely future pilot interface and response standards makes it unlikely that even the most up to date Boeing cockpit design (787/777) will be certifiable in a new designed from scratch aircraft.

Thus the NMA in whatever form will have to have a completely new generation of cockpit and control concepts. That is what is driving the "nominally": start from scratch statements. In reality, it most likely will be how to modify the best 2 aircraft designs that came out of the previous work to see how you would implement various possible new cockpit and control possibilities.


Their personal opinion is that at least 80% of all the previous R&D done on the NMA will be applicable to the newer version; however, the detailed engineering for what was the current size aircraft may not be useful if the decission is to pursue the other aircraft size/shape.

They do not see at this time any other radical new concepts in aircraft design other than cockpit and control concepts, and how they are implemented. Discussions are to limit the "moonshots" to one area, and to prove (and work out the bugs) in the manufacturing advances

Have a great day,

Fascinating post, especially the part I highlighted.

It seems that we now know what the long pole in the tent will be, figuring out what the regulator will require from a next gen cockpit then designing and implementing such.

I hate to say but getting clarity on the requirements given that the regulators probably feel they can ask for the stars and the moon can be a huge challenge. A thousand experts, ten thousand opinions. So hard to get people to focus on what can be done with current tech in a workable time frame.

Team A is really lucky that they will probably be able to "grandfather" their current cockpit tech for a long time to come while Boeing has to go through the battle of specifying, designing, implementing, testing and certifying the next gen stuff.

My guess is the "best choice" is the 7W ovioid we know as NMA, and the "second best choice" is the 6W tube taking them from 737-8 size through 757-300 size we know of as FSA. I'm sure there's a sizeable contingent that sees that as the best way forward.

Given that the cockpit stuff is now the long pole, they have a lot of time to sort out the size and shape arguments.


I question if some of this hyperbole. There's been no real talk among regulators of mandating much beyond current state of the art. And I can't see where the 787/777X is far behind. I can see where the 737 is far behind though.

If the above is true that means even the A220 would not cut it. And I find that very hard to believe. Maybe there's some specific human factors and control laws on the 777/787 that the FAA wants tightened up (Asiana crash comes to mind). Not the whole cockpit.

As for Airbus, I've argued before that buying the A220, let's them build commonality on that cockpit. It's not a bad plan to have in their back pocket.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:46 pm

Clearly it something wrong with the MAX pilot/cockpit interface. I think it is new Boeing deflection/PR tactic to imply that since the MAX interface is flawed, then the same flaw must apply to all other types as well. Making it the problem of the industry and not Boeing MAX problem which it is.

Clearly it is nothing wrong with the 787 cockpit, and I have not heard any regulator raising concern about it.

I am sure that all next gen narrow body customers will demand straight 787 interface for commonality. nothing else makes sense
 
User avatar
WesternDC6B
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:05 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:11 am

WaywardMemphian wrote:
Broken Record time

3 to 4 years ago, instead of plotting to destroy Bombardier's C Series, they could have bought it for next to nothing. 2 to 3 billion would have been highway robbery, the 100, 300 and the addition of a 500 would have covered the MAX 8 and down. Boeing could have then used this tune and that insight to clean sheet at new single aisle including a proper 757 and 767 replacement with 5k nm range.

The entire board needs swept clean.


Could Boeing have passed up this possibility due to a “not invented here” mindset?

And, I agree about the board.
A big heart is commendable. An enlarged heart is a medical condition.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:51 am

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Recalling, Boeing did offer a 767-100 with about 180 seats. There were no takers.

I am really feeling a logically laid out, light, and not over-winged, 2x2x2, 1x3x2

737-800, 757, or 737-900 replacement might hit that 160-180 seat sweet spot Boeing was hoping for with the “way out of its element,” original 767-100 proposal.

Key is to keep it light and offer STRETCHABILITY and the ability to accommodate larger and larger big fan engines, without having to resort to Connie or TU-114 style landing gear.

I WONDER how Boeing might do that though?



Stitch wrote:

Image

Image
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:54 am

Stitch wrote:
The "7J7" comprised a number of different design studies, most of which used two UnDucted Fan (UDF) engines mounted to the rear of the fuselage as propulsion. It was a short twin-aisle airframe designed to replace the 727-200ADV seating around 150 people in either a 2+2+2 configuration with 18" seats and a 23" aisle or 2+3+2 with 17" seats and an 18" aisle. Boeing looked at both the P&W 528-DX and GE36 UDFs before settling for the GE36-B22A at 25,000 pounds thrust. Boeing also considered using a version of the IAE SuperFan being developed for the A340 slung under the wings. The "7J7" would have used advanced lithium-aluminum alloys along with CFRP and it would have had a fully glass cockpit with FBW controls.

The original "7J7" concept had the wings at the aft of the fuselage with no horizontal stabilizer and a forward canard. One version had the canard at the top of the fuselage with the SuperFan and the other had it below with the UDF.

The final version looked like a widebody DC-9 / MD-8x with UDF engines. The original did not have winglets, which were added later.


Guess it might be time to reexamine some ideas.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
TObound
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:05 am

WesternDC6B wrote:
WaywardMemphian wrote:
Broken Record time

3 to 4 years ago, instead of plotting to destroy Bombardier's C Series, they could have bought it for next to nothing. 2 to 3 billion would have been highway robbery, the 100, 300 and the addition of a 500 would have covered the MAX 8 and down. Boeing could have then used this tune and that insight to clean sheet at new single aisle including a proper 757 and 767 replacement with 5k nm range.

The entire board needs swept clean.


Could Boeing have passed up this possibility due to a “not invented here” mindset?

And, I agree about the board.


At the time, Boeing had no idea about how vulnerable the Max was. But they did have an idea of how much work and investment was required to make the CSeries competitive. That wasn't a great value proposition for an overlapping product. Knowing what they know today, it works probably have been a different decision. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23694
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:29 am

TObound wrote:
I question if some of this hyperbole. There's been no real talk among regulators of mandating much beyond current state of the art. And I can't see where the 787/777X is far behind. I can see where the 737 is far behind though.

If the above is true that means even the A220 would not cut it. And I find that very hard to believe. Maybe there's some specific human factors and control laws on the 777/787 that the FAA wants tightened up (Asiana crash comes to mind). Not the whole cockpit.

As for Airbus, I've argued before that buying the A220, let's them build commonality on that cockpit. It's not a bad plan to have in their back pocket.

A220 is a moot point, it's already certified. The genie doesn't need to go back into the bottle.

I won't speak for what the other poster wrote, but my post does contain some supposition, I think it is pretty good at using the right words to convey that. If you want to label it as hyperbole, that's up to you. Time will tell what ends up happening.
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
william
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 5:00 am

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The "7J7" comprised a number of different design studies, most of which used two UnDucted Fan (UDF) engines mounted to the rear of the fuselage as propulsion. It was a short twin-aisle airframe designed to replace the 727-200ADV seating around 150 people in either a 2+2+2 configuration with 18" seats and a 23" aisle or 2+3+2 with 17" seats and an 18" aisle. Boeing looked at both the P&W 528-DX and GE36 UDFs before settling for the GE36-B22A at 25,000 pounds thrust. Boeing also considered using a version of the IAE SuperFan being developed for the A340 slung under the wings. The "7J7" would have used advanced lithium-aluminum alloys along with CFRP and it would have had a fully glass cockpit with FBW controls.

The original "7J7" concept had the wings at the aft of the fuselage with no horizontal stabilizer and a forward canard. One version had the canard at the top of the fuselage with the SuperFan and the other had it below with the UDF.

The final version looked like a widebody DC-9 / MD-8x with UDF engines. The original did not have winglets, which were added later.


Guess it might be time to reexamine some ideas.


I had a detailed post about this, the 7j7 almost debuted with a GTF engine back in the early 90s.

https://www.revolvy.com/page/IAE-SuperFan
 
744SPX
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 5:13 am

2-2-2: the ultimate in economy class comfort. The only advantage GTF or Ultrafan has over open rotor is flexibility in engine installation location. Open rotor maintains double digit efficiency over turbofans in all scenarios at speeds up to .9 mach. NASA proved it with the ATP program. Cowled engines will always be inferior to open rotors/turboprops at subsonic speeds.
 
TObound
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 5:17 am

Revelation wrote:
TObound wrote:
I question if some of this hyperbole. There's been no real talk among regulators of mandating much beyond current state of the art. And I can't see where the 787/777X is far behind. I can see where the 737 is far behind though.

If the above is true that means even the A220 would not cut it. And I find that very hard to believe. Maybe there's some specific human factors and control laws on the 777/787 that the FAA wants tightened up (Asiana crash comes to mind). Not the whole cockpit.

As for Airbus, I've argued before that buying the A220, let's them build commonality on that cockpit. It's not a bad plan to have in their back pocket.

A220 is a moot point, it's already certified. The genie doesn't need to go back into the bottle.

I won't speak for what the other poster wrote, but my post does contain some supposition, I think it is pretty good at using the right words to convey that. If you want to label it as hyperbole, that's up to you. Time will tell what ends up happening.


Apologies. Wasn't suggesting you were being hyperbolic! Rather that the Boeing engineer was being such. The 787 wouldn't qualify today? Come on. I could see changes in control laws and some presentation of data maybe. But I struggle to understand why any of that would mean an uncertifiable cockpit. Full glass cockpit with FBW, means most of this is a software change. I suspect something is just lost in translation here.....
 
2175301
Posts: 1730
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:08 am

TObound wrote:
Revelation wrote:
TObound wrote:
I question if some of this hyperbole. There's been no real talk among regulators of mandating much beyond current state of the art. And I can't see where the 787/777X is far behind. I can see where the 737 is far behind though.

If the above is true that means even the A220 would not cut it. And I find that very hard to believe. Maybe there's some specific human factors and control laws on the 777/787 that the FAA wants tightened up (Asiana crash comes to mind). Not the whole cockpit.

As for Airbus, I've argued before that buying the A220, let's them build commonality on that cockpit. It's not a bad plan to have in their back pocket.

A220 is a moot point, it's already certified. The genie doesn't need to go back into the bottle.

I won't speak for what the other poster wrote, but my post does contain some supposition, I think it is pretty good at using the right words to convey that. If you want to label it as hyperbole, that's up to you. Time will tell what ends up happening.


Apologies. Wasn't suggesting you were being hyperbolic! Rather that the Boeing engineer was being such. The 787 wouldn't qualify today? Come on. I could see changes in control laws and some presentation of data maybe. But I struggle to understand why any of that would mean an uncertifiable cockpit. Full glass cockpit with FBW, means most of this is a software change. I suspect something is just lost in translation here.....


May I suggest that everyone read (or reread) both the JATR and NTSB reports related to the 737Max certification and pay attention to the recommendations for the manufactures and regulators to consider in regards to realistic response times, human performance, effect of multiple alarm indications, pilot workload, etc. Most of what Boeing did was to common industry standards; which are now considered inadequate. Certain areas that have been recommended to be addressed have never had any regulatory requirements. This is almost all about the interface between the pilots and the aircraft.

The regulators are indeed talking about these issues and how to address them (the fact that these discussions are not open to the public does not mean they are not happening). They may not have proposed the actual new requirements yet... But, Boeing may have considerable foreknowledge as they are the only manufacture in the loop with the regulators at this time on these issues that I am aware of (as some of them affect 737 Max re-certification).

Now the A220 cockpit may well be considered the current "state of the art." It eliminates a series of checklist, and has some automated actions (just hit an emergency descent button - and the computers do the rest and relatively fast). That's an example of workload reduction that is possible, and that my understanding is that the 787 lacks.

Now whatever the final answer is... I have never seen regulators require anything that was not current "state of the art" or some modification of that which is obtained by using other existing known technology (based on my personal experience with my state DNR, the EPA, and the NRC). Thus, I expect that the A220 cockpit or some modest variation of it would likely be acceptable at this time.

However, do you think that the CEO of Boeing is making statements that they have to rethink basics of how Boeing controls an aircraft if they could just use a 787 based system (which I understand was their intent for the NMA). Or does he already know that will at best be a challenge to get past the regulators, if not unlikely or impossible with what they know.

So read the JATR and NTSB recommendations to the manufactures and regulators for future certifications... and ask yourself can you really accomplish that with most existing systems. Can you with the 787 and A3XX control systems and cockpit layout reduce workload and eliminate many distractions, and can you simplify pilot response? Looking forward as well how do you build a system with a future provision for remote piloting in at least certain emergencies.

Now I don't know for sure what my friend has been told is in fact factual. Everything they have told me in the past has checked out in the end (and their position within Boeing is where they are knowledgeable on most things related to the NMA) They also have never told me if the NMA was an ovid 2 isle or a more round single isle, weather they had decided carbon fiber or metal, and many other things. They did talk with me about many of the things Boeing tested and looked at as part of the NMA project (leaving me guessing); but, I suspect I can detect hints and biases.

Since the first word I had of this issue was on this thread - and attributed to the CEO.... I tend to believe that the information I was provided was accurate (that there is at least significant concern that the 787/777 based cockpit systems would not meet the expected standards for clean sheet aircraft). There is no reason for a CEO to talk about new control concepts and controls if they could reasonably use the existing systems.

Aviation Safety had changed many things that were considered by many to work well.... until forced to do better.

It appears to me that the regulators are taking the JATR and NTSB reports, and other pilot performance studies seriously - and asking for "Better" to improve overall aviation safety in the future.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:10 am

2175301 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I had an "interesting" discussion with my friend who is associated with the NMA project. They rarely ever tell me anything specific. Most discussions are about theoretical approaches that things that have been studied. This discussion had a few specifics:
1) That they believe that they have the right sized aircraft and the right shape (for which a lot of engineering has been done). They indicated that their was a close 2nd in aircraft size/shape that would likely be looked at again in the "redesign."

2) That they believe they have the right technologies and manufacturing process to build a competitive aircraft except for a very recent change.

3) That the 737Max issue, studies, current and projected regulator response, and likely future pilot interface and response standards makes it unlikely that even the most up to date Boeing cockpit design (787/777) will be certifiable in a new designed from scratch aircraft.

Thus the NMA in whatever form will have to have a completely new generation of cockpit and control concepts. That is what is driving the "nominally": start from scratch statements. In reality, it most likely will be how to modify the best 2 aircraft designs that came out of the previous work to see how you would implement various possible new cockpit and control possibilities.

Their personal opinion is that at least 80% of all the previous R&D done on the NMA will be applicable to the newer version; however, the detailed engineering for what was the current size aircraft may not be useful if the decission is to pursue the other aircraft size/shape.

They do not see at this time any other radical new concepts in aircraft design other than cockpit and control concepts, and how they are implemented. Discussions are to limit the "moonshots" to one area, and to prove (and work out the bugs) in the manufacturing advances

Have a great day,


I do not buy it. The 787 is fully FBW, which means that only the man to machine interface could be the problem, but in the end Bombardier just got a new cockpit design certified with the CSeries and in the Biz jet sector plenty new solution have been certified. And the problem with the MAX is limited to the MAX as the flight control systems of a FBW design must be different anyway and would not encounter the problems the MAX faces.


The JATR and NTSB reports both discussed incorrect assumptions about pilot response time, pilot workload, not considering cumulative effects, etc. There are recommendations for the international regulators to consider such human factors into future certification standards. In the 737Max thread are several reports of studies that indicate that a number of pilots do not instantly recall memory items.

I have seen no indications that the 787/777 FBW systems and testing did not make similar assumptions, and that pilots do not have high workload issues at times.

Why would it be surprising for the regulators to say we need to do better in the future - that realistic response times must be considered, workloads minimized, and cumulative effects when there is an issue with the aircraft. Why would it be surprising that and perhaps that these relatively "modern" systems would not pass testing at these higher standards. A reality is that the 787 cockpit and flight control system design is at least 15 years old (and perhaps 20). We have documented evidence that Boeing was using a 3-4 second pilot response time at a later date with the 737Max; and documentation that this is not considered appropriate today (JATR & NTSB). I believe its a fair assumption that the 787 system testing used similar short response times when it was developed, nor that such testing included cumulative effects of various alarms and indications for each specific failure.

It would also not surprise me that the Boeing Engineers who have the best information available on what the Regulators are thinking due to their working together on the 737Max to conclude that those older "modern" systems would likely not pass what will be the current certification standards for a clean sheet design aircraft (although it might with the right tweaks - even then, is it worth it - or better off to start with something new).

In no way am I suggesting that the 787/777 system is bad... It just seems apparent that it's time to move onto something better that minimizes accidents from some of the identified issues from the pilot response and workload issues from the 737Max crashes. I also suspect that the A320 - A380 current control systems will also fall short of the newer standards. The existing systems will of course allowed to be grandfathered into revisions of the base designs.

Have a great day,


It still makes no sense unless it is a very specific Boeing problem, as this would mean that no new aircraft could be certified and all other OEMs would also need to stop their current projects, as they would have even less knowledge on future requirements than Boeing. In addition all problems mentioned are very MAX specific. Like the reaction time. A reaction time for a system fault, based solely on the system operating, shorter than the designed operation time for a regular system input was never certifiable. In addition a regulator needs to publish new requirements a sufficiently long time before enforcing them, so that OEMs can react to them. There is no way they can change the regulations without a long process to find a new standard and without publishing this standard a few years in advance.

So imho it is probably a Boeing specific problem that is based on their risk assessment strategy and not on changing regulations. It is possible that Boeing´s interpretation of current regulation does no longer fly with the regulator. Boeing needs to stop acting like the victim.
 
2175301
Posts: 1730
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:24 am

seahawk wrote:
2175301 wrote:
seahawk wrote:

I do not buy it. The 787 is fully FBW, which means that only the man to machine interface could be the problem, but in the end Bombardier just got a new cockpit design certified with the CSeries and in the Biz jet sector plenty new solution have been certified. And the problem with the MAX is limited to the MAX as the flight control systems of a FBW design must be different anyway and would not encounter the problems the MAX faces.


The JATR and NTSB reports both discussed incorrect assumptions about pilot response time, pilot workload, not considering cumulative effects, etc. There are recommendations for the international regulators to consider such human factors into future certification standards. In the 737Max thread are several reports of studies that indicate that a number of pilots do not instantly recall memory items.

I have seen no indications that the 787/777 FBW systems and testing did not make similar assumptions, and that pilots do not have high workload issues at times.

Why would it be surprising for the regulators to say we need to do better in the future - that realistic response times must be considered, workloads minimized, and cumulative effects when there is an issue with the aircraft. Why would it be surprising that and perhaps that these relatively "modern" systems would not pass testing at these higher standards. A reality is that the 787 cockpit and flight control system design is at least 15 years old (and perhaps 20). We have documented evidence that Boeing was using a 3-4 second pilot response time at a later date with the 737Max; and documentation that this is not considered appropriate today (JATR & NTSB). I believe its a fair assumption that the 787 system testing used similar short response times when it was developed, nor that such testing included cumulative effects of various alarms and indications for each specific failure.

It would also not surprise me that the Boeing Engineers who have the best information available on what the Regulators are thinking due to their working together on the 737Max to conclude that those older "modern" systems would likely not pass what will be the current certification standards for a clean sheet design aircraft (although it might with the right tweaks - even then, is it worth it - or better off to start with something new).

In no way am I suggesting that the 787/777 system is bad... It just seems apparent that it's time to move onto something better that minimizes accidents from some of the identified issues from the pilot response and workload issues from the 737Max crashes. I also suspect that the A320 - A380 current control systems will also fall short of the newer standards. The existing systems will of course allowed to be grandfathered into revisions of the base designs.

Have a great day,


It still makes no sense unless it is a very specific Boeing problem, as this would mean that no new aircraft could be certified and all other OEMs would also need to stop their current projects, as they would have even less knowledge on future requirements than Boeing. In addition all problems mentioned are very MAX specific. Like the reaction time. A reaction time for a system fault, based solely on the system operating, shorter than the designed operation time for a regular system input was never certifiable. In addition a regulator needs to publish new requirements a sufficiently long time before enforcing them, so that OEMs can react to them. There is no way they can change the regulations without a long process to find a new standard and without publishing this standard a few years in advance.

So imho it is probably a Boeing specific problem that is based on their risk assessment strategy and not on changing regulations. It is possible that Boeing´s interpretation of current regulation does no longer fly with the regulator. Boeing needs to stop acting like the victim.


I respectfully disagree; and we both posted at the same time so please read my post just prior to yours. Please read the JATR and NTSB reports and dig in on the recommendations for future aircraft testing and certification. Those affect everyone. This is not just an issue of a bad MCAS design. It affects everything and all future clean sheet designs (and parts affect all derivatives using grandfathered systems).

As for existing projects. It will probably depend on where they are at in the process (design mainly completed and well into testing will likely be largely grandfathered). A thought, one of the issues with realistic human response times (time to diagnose and respond) is that may be too slow for certain situations. Certification may require an level of automation that takes corrective actions before the pilot can effectively respond for certain issues (note I said may).

Keep in mind here that the overall goal is to improve future aviation safety. A poorly designed MCAS system was not the only hole in that block of cheese.

Have a great day,
 
Ertro
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:50 am

2175301 wrote:
Please read the JATR and NTSB reports and dig in on the recommendations for future aircraft testing and certification. ...


There is quite a leap measured as number of hops first from NTSB/JATR reports to FAA/EASA regulation making bodies and then to FAA/EASA regulations interpretation bodies and then back to Boeing MAX engineers and then to some anonymous outsider Boeing Engineers and then to some anonymous Airliners.net poster. It is just incredible that information can to travel that many number of hops in a time as short as it did is just incredible. And all of this without any first hand observations that can be made.

This is something so huge it could cause a global gap when nobody from a huge number of airplane manufacturing companies can certify new planes for maybe 5 years before all of the parts in the equation settles into their new spots. For something even 100 times smaller I would like to hear something else than anonymous a.net post.

If this is true then it must mean that MAX never flies again or at least MAX experiences the same gap in limbo maybe at least 5 years when the no planes can be certified when new regulations are first properly made through all committees and processes and after that manufacturers can implement them which has about the same result of MAX never flying again.
Last edited by Ertro on Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:54 am

I respectfully disagree, but the regulator must not enforce standards that are not found in the current regulations, whatever new findings indicate. The process is to up-date the requirements/regulations (which is a long process that allows the OEMs to add input, includes a standardisation process between the different national regulators and ends with a new regulation being decided upon and coming into force a sufficient long time after being published in the final version) and then enforce the new regulations. So the finding of the reports might lead to new regulations, but everything keeping Boeing from getting a plane certified must be based on current regulations.
It is equally wrong that you could use grandfathering for a new certification. The completely new product needs to meet all regulations in force when the certification was requested.

Sorry but for me it looks like a Boeing problem and is probably down to their risk assessment analysis for cockpit designs or in the way Boeing interprets the current regulations.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:36 am

packsonflight wrote:
Clearly it is nothing wrong with the 787 cockpit, and I have not heard any regulator raising concern about it.


Issues are exposed via major incidents or crashes. NTSB is much better at shining a light ( obviously )
all lesser cases FAA will keep mum about ( just another pilot error.).

IMU 737 is a layered interface with idiosycrasies. You can learn it by rote, takes time
but it is less accessible to logic. The various layers are not a common character.
Bit of a Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde thing. to a much lesser degree the 777 has similar issues.
( see the NTSB report on the Korean 777 Crash )

A good interface shows logic, "in character" behavior.
exceptions and inversions are a no go.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:38 am

seahawk wrote:
I respectfully disagree, but the regulator must not enforce standards that are not found in the current regulations, whatever new findings indicate. The process is to up-date the requirements/regulations


lots of those current regulations have not found application on the 737(MAX). they were waived! too expensive.
Murphy is an optimist
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:44 am

2175301 wrote:
May I suggest that everyone read (or reread) both the JATR and NTSB reports related to the 737Max certification and pay attention to the recommendations for the manufactures and regulators to consider in regards to realistic response times, human performance, effect of multiple alarm indications, pilot workload, etc. Most of what Boeing did was to common industry standards; which are now considered inadequate. Certain areas that have been recommended to be addressed have never had any regulatory requirements. This is almost all about the interface between the pilots and the aircraft.

You are aware that these agencies are not "the regulators"? Accident reports may recommend changes, but the regulators don't have to implement all of them. And so they rarely do.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:32 am

744SPX wrote:
2-2-2: the ultimate in economy class comfort. The only advantage GTF or Ultrafan has over open rotor is flexibility in engine installation location. Open rotor maintains double digit efficiency over turbofans in all scenarios at speeds up to .9 mach. NASA proved it with the ATP program. Cowled engines will always be inferior to open rotors/turboprops at subsonic speeds.



I say there's a place 2x3x2 simply because of single child households where two parent, one child unit are seated together. In the case of the 7J7 layout premium economy could be the 2x2x2.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:49 am

WaywardMemphian wrote:
744SPX wrote:
2-2-2: the ultimate in economy class comfort. The only advantage GTF or Ultrafan has over open rotor is flexibility in engine installation location. Open rotor maintains double digit efficiency over turbofans in all scenarios at speeds up to .9 mach. NASA proved it with the ATP program. Cowled engines will always be inferior to open rotors/turboprops at subsonic speeds.



I say there's a place 2x3x2 simply because of single child households where two parent, one child unit are seated together. In the case of the 7J7 layout premium economy could be the 2x2x2.


3x3 is fine for that :wink2:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:13 pm

keesje wrote:
WaywardMemphian wrote:
744SPX wrote:
2-2-2: the ultimate in economy class comfort. The only advantage GTF or Ultrafan has over open rotor is flexibility in engine installation location. Open rotor maintains double digit efficiency over turbofans in all scenarios at speeds up to .9 mach. NASA proved it with the ATP program. Cowled engines will always be inferior to open rotors/turboprops at subsonic speeds.



I say there's a place 2x3x2 simply because of single child households where two parent, one child unit are seated together. In the case of the 7J7 layout premium economy could be the 2x2x2.


3x3 is fine for that :wink2:


I hate 3x3 and avoid it if at all possible. I'd rather fly 145s, 200s 170s, 700s, 175s,190s and 900s than a mainline 737 or 319s,20s and 21s. This alone made me a fanboy of the C Series and the prospect of an A225 replacing the 319s, 320s and 737s at Delta and others makes me giddy. 3x3 was the worse thing to come to passenger air traffic. I'd take a 2x4x2 web over a 3x3x3 every day of the week.

https://youtu.be/Pv1dWcD328s
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:24 pm

WIederling wrote:
packsonflight wrote:
Clearly it is nothing wrong with the 787 cockpit, and I have not heard any regulator raising concern about it.


Issues are exposed via major incidents or crashes. NTSB is much better at shining a light ( obviously )
all lesser cases FAA will keep mum about ( just another pilot error.).

IMU 737 is a layered interface with idiosycrasies. You can learn it by rote, takes time
but it is less accessible to logic. The various layers are not a common character.
Bit of a Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde thing. to a much lesser degree the 777 has similar issues.
( see the NTSB report on the Korean 777 Crash )

A good interface shows logic, "in character" behavior.
exceptions and inversions are a no go.



"similar" how far? You compare the 737 with the 777 you? :roll:
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:47 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
A good interface shows logic, "in character" behavior.
exceptions and inversions are a no go.



"similar" how far? You compare the 737 with the 777 you? :roll:


see
Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... AR1401.pdf

Item 4: Recommendations. the part that is directed at Boeing.
( as expected ignored by FAA. there is no error on Boeing craft beyond pilot error. :-)
similarly "unintuitive" to things on the 737 ( see the TK crash at AMS )
Murphy is an optimist
 
TObound
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:55 pm

2175301 wrote:
TObound wrote:
Revelation wrote:
A220 is a moot point, it's already certified. The genie doesn't need to go back into the bottle.

I won't speak for what the other poster wrote, but my post does contain some supposition, I think it is pretty good at using the right words to convey that. If you want to label it as hyperbole, that's up to you. Time will tell what ends up happening.


Apologies. Wasn't suggesting you were being hyperbolic! Rather that the Boeing engineer was being such. The 787 wouldn't qualify today? Come on. I could see changes in control laws and some presentation of data maybe. But I struggle to understand why any of that would mean an uncertifiable cockpit. Full glass cockpit with FBW, means most of this is a software change. I suspect something is just lost in translation here.....


May I suggest that everyone read (or reread) both the JATR and NTSB reports related to the 737Max certification and pay attention to the recommendations for the manufactures and regulators to consider in regards to realistic response times, human performance, effect of multiple alarm indications, pilot workload, etc. Most of what Boeing did was to common industry standards; which are now considered inadequate. Certain areas that have been recommended to be addressed have never had any regulatory requirements. This is almost all about the interface between the pilots and the aircraft.

The regulators are indeed talking about these issues and how to address them (the fact that these discussions are not open to the public does not mean they are not happening). They may not have proposed the actual new requirements yet... But, Boeing may have considerable foreknowledge as they are the only manufacture in the loop with the regulators at this time on these issues that I am aware of (as some of them affect 737 Max re-certification).



I appreciate your post and the candour your friend has provided. Without giving away too much, my day job involves exposure to regulators and making findings of compliance. I've not seen substantial discussion on lots of new regulations on cockpit design being imposed. I agree that the FAA could be interested in creating some rules that bring most modern cockpits closer to what the 220 has. But that's not exactly some huge stretch. Most of that is just killing exemptions the 737 had. And those exemptions would not apply to a new type anyway.

I would assume that any airliner being built from scratch today would have all those features and automation. If they have to go back to the drawing board on the cockpit, I really wonder what the hell they intended to implement on the NMA?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10216
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:04 pm

TObound wrote:
I would assume that any airliner being built from scratch today would have all those features and automation. If they have to go back to the drawing board on the cockpit, I really wonder what the hell they intended to implement on the NMA?

Well if we go by Boeing, after the 737 they built the 777 and the 787 from scratch.
Now the accident in SFO revealed some issues with that cockpit automation, hopefully we do not have to have a crash landing of the 787 to determine whether that set up is any better than the 777.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:16 pm

WIederling wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
A good interface shows logic, "in character" behavior.
exceptions and inversions are a no go.



"similar" how far? You compare the 737 with the 777 you? :roll:


see
Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... AR1401.pdf

Item 4: Recommendations. the part that is directed at Boeing.
( as expected ignored by FAA. there is no error on Boeing craft beyond pilot error. :-)
similarly "unintuitive" to things on the 737 ( see the TK crash at AMS )


You then also must look at AF447 - the NTSB is still calling out Airbus in it's most recent report as a cockpit and control system that must be improved.

2175301 pointed out many times that derivatives of existing designs will likely be passed through but if you do a cleansheet then you will have to start from scratch.

If Boeing does an 7W NMA then Airbus will likely have to respond with something similar which most likely means running the Gauntlet as a clean sheet. I'm guessing they really hope Boeing does a 6W and then they can just respond with a stretched/rewing of the A320 series but then the whole which control system argument is safer will be turned on it's head with Boeing having the more modern safer system.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:20 pm

WIederling wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
A good interface shows logic, "in character" behavior.
exceptions and inversions are a no go.



"similar" how far? You compare the 737 with the 777 you? :roll:


see
Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... AR1401.pdf

Item 4: Recommendations. the part that is directed at Boeing.
( as expected ignored by FAA. there is no error on Boeing craft beyond pilot error. :-)
similarly "unintuitive" to things on the 737 ( see the TK crash at AMS )


The 777 is definitely infallible.

The pilot did not have much training time. It went from quadri engine to twin engine and should have put a little more throttles. There are too many 777s in service and there have been no other cases, neither similar nor different ...

I am not convinced :)
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
incitatus
Posts: 3369
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:32 pm

keesje wrote:

3x3 is fine for that :wink2:


I agree. 2x2x2 is an exercise in futility. It will never survive actual layout studies from operators. Floor space in an aircraft is at a premium and aisles do not generate revenue.

I am even skeptical of a 30-in wide aisle in a narrow-body. It will be an opportunity for airlines to place economy seats at an angle and decrease pitch without sacrificing knee room - bringing the aisle width back to "normal".
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:40 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
I am not convinced :)

that is not required :-))

And I'd like Morrisond to provide some reference link for his statement.
Murphy is an optimist

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