Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Opus99
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:37 pm

zeke wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I guess Boeing is hoping Airbus will take some time to prove their design meets the special condition? I mean I’ve seen Boeing’s input does not change the special condition but my thing is won’t Airbus have known this from jump also?


I fail to see how you can turn this into an AvB thread when literally it’s Airbus seeking certification of an existing airframe, this has nothing to do with Boeing.

Relax, I’m misjudging the situation. I’m bouncing off what I’m reading everywhere. It has nothing to do with Boeing, I’m not disagree with you go and tell the press that
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25616
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:44 pm

JonesNL wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
It seems that like the 779X fuselage blowout its the media and the opposing fanboys sensationalising it, no doubt we'll see it pop up on simple flying and verovenia next week as the most important news this century.

Like clockwork, there is already an article on Verovenia...

Yes, and pointing this out only generates more clicks for such sites.

FluidFlow wrote:
Revelation wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Boeing raised two concerns, both got dismissed.

I think the word you are looking for is "agreed", not "dismissed". Check your PDFs, that's the word you will find in the "EASA comment disposition" column. In essence the comments were deemed redundant rather than incorrect.

You are right. As English is not my mother tongue I sometimes lack the vocabulary. EASA already addressed the concerns from Boeing in their assessment so the comments from Boeing were already implemented into the certification criteria.

Your written English skills are so good I didn't even think it could be an issue of language skills. I still think it's important to note that EASA was in agreement with Boeing's concerns, even if they found them to be already covered via the chosen certification criteria.

zeke wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I guess Boeing is hoping Airbus will take some time to prove their design meets the special condition? I mean I’ve seen Boeing’s input does not change the special condition but my thing is won’t Airbus have known this from jump also?

I fail to see how you can turn this into an AvB thread when literally it’s Airbus seeking certification of an existing airframe, this has nothing to do with Boeing.

The only murky bit I see is the comment came from a person whose title is "Director, Global Regulatory Strategy, The Boeing Company". It is a fairly innocuous sounding technocratic title, but it'd a bit less murky if the word "Strategy" wasn't in their title. Yet, as I wrote earlier, this is all a tempest in a teapot.
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
scbriml
Posts: 19644
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Wed Mar 03, 2021 5:30 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I’m just saying Boeing might see an opportunity here to push forward their own jet on the idea that the XLR might be late


But wouldn't that require Boeing to actually build something rather than talking endlessly about it? :duck:

Revelation wrote:
A tempest in a teapot.


Or even a storm in a teacup as we say this side of the pond. :wink2:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Cdydatzigs
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Wed Mar 03, 2021 5:49 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
The media just seems bored and makes up big troubles out of something that is not, or not yet, as we have no answer from Airbus as of if the certification criteria can be met.


Just because a story isn't flattering, doesn't mean it isn't newsworthy. If this A321XLR issue had come up in 2017 it would not be mainstream news. But because it is a potential "design flaw" the media picks up on it because of the 737 MAX debacle. So if you have anyone to thank for why the media has a bigger magnifying glass on the industry as a whole these days? It's Boeing.
 
889091
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:53 pm

In reality, how much of an impact will have on Airbus? With Covid19 and new mutations springing up everywhere, would a slight delay in EIS matter?

Had this happened 2 years ago, pre Covid19, maybe. But now....
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:24 pm

889091 wrote:
In reality, how much of an impact will have on Airbus? With Covid19 and new mutations springing up everywhere, would a slight delay in EIS matter?

Had this happened 2 years ago, pre Covid19, maybe. But now....


Airplanes are sold with contractual commitments to specific months or quarters. Similarly supplier contracts have delivery dates. Delays cost money for Airbus since parts inventory comes in, which costs money and revenue doesn’t come in when airplanes go into storage prior to delivery. The A321XLR is far enough away that a delay at this point isn’t as costly. If significant engineering rework is required, it could affect production of the parts. Lead times on structural parts can exceed 1 year.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11412
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:39 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
889091 wrote:
In reality, how much of an impact will have on Airbus? With Covid19 and new mutations springing up everywhere, would a slight delay in EIS matter?

Had this happened 2 years ago, pre Covid19, maybe. But now....


Airplanes are sold with contractual commitments to specific months or quarters. Similarly supplier contracts have delivery dates. Delays cost money for Airbus since parts inventory comes in, which costs money and revenue doesn’t come in when airplanes go into storage prior to delivery. The A321XLR is far enough away that a delay at this point isn’t as costly. If significant engineering rework is required, it could affect production of the parts. Lead times on structural parts can exceed 1 year.

Also contracts have delivery times in them, and if Airbus is late they have to pay penalties to the customer. Sure the airline may secretly be happy that they don’t have to take delivery when specified (due to covid, rough finances, whatever) but if they never signal to Airbus that they want to delay and continue making all required payments then the delay is Airbus’s fault.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2138
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:29 am

Opus99 wrote:
https://twitter.com/tpalazzo/status/1366776250354839556?s=21

Yup it’s getting out there now


Take this post with a grain of salt folks as I may be missing something here but I'm gonna say it anyways . . .

Been a "Boeing Nut" forever, but all I'm gonna say here is - hello kettle!?

Did Boeing not have fuselage tanks designed for the 777-200LR? (grant it, never came to fruition) Are they not on BBJs as we speak?

Again, not afraid to eat crow but this was my "shoot from the hip" reaction to Boeings criticism.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
sxf24
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:41 am

PC12Fan wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://twitter.com/tpalazzo/status/1366776250354839556?s=21

Yup it’s getting out there now


Take this post with a grain of salt folks as I may be missing something here but I'm gonna say it anyways . . .

Been a "Boeing Nut" forever, but all I'm gonna say here is - hello kettle!?

Did Boeing not have fuselage tanks designed for the 777-200LR? (grant it, never came to fruition) Are they not on BBJs as we speak?

Again, not afraid to eat crow but this was my "shoot from the hip" reaction to Boeings criticism.


No. Boeing only offers structurally independent tanks.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11412
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:04 am

PC12Fan wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://twitter.com/tpalazzo/status/1366776250354839556?s=21

Yup it’s getting out there now


Take this post with a grain of salt folks as I may be missing something here but I'm gonna say it anyways . . .

Been a "Boeing Nut" forever, but all I'm gonna say here is - hello kettle!?

Did Boeing not have fuselage tanks designed for the 777-200LR? (grant it, never came to fruition) Are they not on BBJs as we speak?

Again, not afraid to eat crow but this was my "shoot from the hip" reaction to Boeings criticism.

I believe those tanks are akin to the ACTs available (and certified!) for the A321 family, not the XLR’s RCT which is a permanent tank built into the aircraft.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:01 am

wjcandee wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
I don't think anyone except perhaps some enthusiasts and engineers cares.

Until someone like Scary Mary calls it the "Next Hindenburg"

True, but then again, who listens to Schiavo other than maw and paw who fly once per year, and don't have a clue what aircraft they're on?


alyusuph wrote:
Boeing had an opportunity to innovate the 757 for a new version, they squandered the chance.

Boeing spent multiple years canvassing the planet for an airline --even one, pax or cargo-- who would keep the 757 open long enough for a PIP or revamp.

........nobody ........wanted ........that.

Why is this so difficult for some people to accept?



PC12Fan wrote:
Did Boeing not have fuselage tanks designed for the 777-200LR?

No, Boeing's aux tanks are all removable and independently meet current spec



PC12Fan wrote:
(grant it, never came to fruition)

Incorrect; two airlines (AI and EY) operated 77Ls with the fuel tank provisions in place.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2129
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:42 am

LAX772LR wrote:
alyusuph wrote:
Boeing had an opportunity to innovate the 757 for a new version, they squandered the chance.

Boeing spent multiple years canvassing the planet for an airline --even one, pax or cargo-- who would keep the 757 open long enough for a PIP or revamp.

........nobody ........wanted ........that.

Why is this so difficult for some people to accept?

Because people have wet dreams about a 757NG/MAX/NEO/whatever-it-would-have-been-called. And now, we have another thread where it's basically said Boeing should bring back the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/717...
 
WIederling
Posts: 9932
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:45 am

Boeing's intervention seems to be perfectly timed:

Design is done, first metal cut. Best window for disruption.

Nothing learned.
and to not pass this via best friend FAA is a sign of desperation.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11412
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:01 pm

WIederling wrote:
Boeing's intervention seems to be perfectly timed:

Design is done, first metal cut. Best window for disruption.

Nothing learned.
and to not pass this via best friend FAA is a sign of desperation.

Boeing didn’t intervene.

They were responding to a call for comments on a special condition proposal from the EASA. This process, and it’s timeline, was all decided by...EASA. Asking for comments from the industry on special conditions is SOP for both EASA and the FAA.

If you think that Boeing and the FAA are too close wouldn’t you want Boeing to directly comment to EASA vs through the FAA?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10118
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:42 pm

It does not matter who came up with it. it is a valid concern and it is good that it has been raised.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25616
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:39 pm

seahawk wrote:
It does not matter who came up with it. it is a valid concern and it is good that it has been raised.

It does matter, if you have a narrative to cultivate and perpetuate.

Events must be forced to fit the preconceived notion.
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
 
JibberJim
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:56 pm

Polot wrote:
Asking for comments from the industry on special conditions is SOP for both EASA and the FAA.


And pretty much the only people with sufficient expertise to respond other than other regulators will be the competitors of the people asking for the special conditions, it will not be malicious, it's not in any manufacturers interest and it is very much in all of their interests to engage.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:00 pm

JibberJim wrote:
Polot wrote:
Asking for comments from the industry on special conditions is SOP for both EASA and the FAA.


And pretty much the only people with sufficient expertise to respond other than other regulators will be the competitors of the people asking for the special conditions, it will not be malicious, it's not in any manufacturers interest and it is very much in all of their interests to engage.


Good point. Collaboration results in a safer industry. It is a good thing to have regulators, manufacturers and airlines working together. Everyone wants safer airplanes.

To the uneducated, it may appear to be A vs B slugfest, but in reality it is A and B working together with the regulators.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25616
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:52 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
JibberJim wrote:
Polot wrote:
Asking for comments from the industry on special conditions is SOP for both EASA and the FAA.

And pretty much the only people with sufficient expertise to respond other than other regulators will be the competitors of the people asking for the special conditions, it will not be malicious, it's not in any manufacturers interest and it is very much in all of their interests to engage.

Good point. Collaboration results in a safer industry. It is a good thing to have regulators, manufacturers and airlines working together. Everyone wants safer airplanes.

To the uneducated, it may appear to be A vs B slugfest, but in reality it is A and B working together with the regulators.

If you think about it, it might be better if A and B are not working together, but if they are actively competing. That would give them incentive to find the weak points in their competitor's design. Much better from a safety aspect than if they were colluding, no?
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
 
nikeherc
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:59 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
JibberJim wrote:
Polot wrote:
Asking for comments from the industry on special conditions is SOP for both EASA and the FAA.


And pretty much the only people with sufficient expertise to respond other than other regulators will be the competitors of the people asking for the special conditions, it will not be malicious, it's not in any manufacturers interest and it is very much in all of their interests to engage.


Good point. Collaboration results in a safer industry. It is a good thing to have regulators, manufacturers and airlines working together. Everyone wants safer airplanes.

To the uneducated, it may appear to be A vs B slugfest, but in reality it is A and B working together with the regulators.


It is true that the industry works together when safety is on the table. When the Electra was having its whirl mode problems, both Douglas and Boeing provided assistance to the investigation. They didn’t do this out of some sense of gaining competitive advantage, but in the interest of safety. Corporations seek to do things in a cost effective manner, but safety is still the foundation on which the aviation industry is based.
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
tomcat
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:38 pm

Revelation wrote:
If you think about it, it might be better if A and B are not working together, but if they are actively competing. That would give them incentive to find the weak points in their competitor's design. Much better from a safety aspect than if they were colluding, no?


Maybe your answer was geared towards the collaboration suggestion in the previous post but finding the potentially weak point in their competitor's design is pretty much what is happening. The interest of the end users being that any weak point is found before a new aircraft is entering into service. I don't see much collusion between A and B in what's happening.
 
SRJ94AB
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:54 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:00 pm

My gut feeling is Boeing’s comments are more for their own PR than to jab at airbus. They could have commented to EASA at any time but the fact they chose to add a public comment on a EASA document is one way of showing the world “we take safety seriously” Not exactly a surprising strategy in trying to get their reputation back.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11412
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:16 pm

SRJ94AB wrote:
My gut feeling is Boeing’s comments are more for their own PR than to jab at airbus. They could have commented to EASA at any time but the fact they chose to add a public comment on a EASA document is one way of showing the world “we take safety seriously” Not exactly a surprising strategy in trying to get their reputation back.

The public commenting period is really the only appropriate time for Boeing to comment. I’m not sure why some users here seem think that Boeing has much insight and influence over EASA certification of Airbus products and conversations between those two entities. Everything they (Boeing) would know ahead of time (conversations/Airbus’s proposed engineering solutions) would be the result of leaks to them which obviously Boeing is not going to reveal.


Boeing’s response is only getting some attention because journalists want to sex up the news and turn this into some AvB thing to attract attention and clicks, and some of you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10612
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:39 pm

SRJ94AB wrote:
My gut feeling is Boeing’s comments are more for their own PR than to jab at airbus. They could have commented to EASA at any time but the fact they chose to add a public comment on a EASA document is one way of showing the world “we take safety seriously” Not exactly a surprising strategy in trying to get their reputation back.

So after the MAX saga, you actually think Boeing or anyone else thought EASA would give any safety recommendation from Boeing a second thought, if reputation is what they are / were trying to retrieve that will only come in time from their customers.
 
SRJ94AB
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:54 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:01 pm

Polot wrote:
SRJ94AB wrote:
My gut feeling is Boeing’s comments are more for their own PR than to jab at airbus. They could have commented to EASA at any time but the fact they chose to add a public comment on a EASA document is one way of showing the world “we take safety seriously” Not exactly a surprising strategy in trying to get their reputation back.

The public commenting period is really the only appropriate time for Boeing to comment. I’m not sure why some users here seem think that Boeing has much insight and influence over EASA certification of Airbus products and conversations between those two entities. Everything they (Boeing) would know ahead of time (conversations/Airbus’s proposed engineering solutions) would be the result of leaks to them which obviously Boeing is not going to reveal.


Boeing’s response is only getting some attention because journalists want to sex up the news and turn this into some AvB thing to attract attention and clicks, and some of you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.


Comment publicly yes. But I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t other ways they could raise concerns given how closely the regulators and Boeing/Airbus all work together. Boeing will be working very closely with EASA and the FAA to make the changes needed on the 737max 777x programs so I’m sure if they were concerned about designs happening on the other side of the pond they would have ways of communicating that to EASA/FAA in private.
 
SRJ94AB
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:54 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:07 pm

par13del wrote:
SRJ94AB wrote:
My gut feeling is Boeing’s comments are more for their own PR than to jab at airbus. They could have commented to EASA at any time but the fact they chose to add a public comment on a EASA document is one way of showing the world “we take safety seriously” Not exactly a surprising strategy in trying to get their reputation back.

So after the MAX saga, you actually think Boeing or anyone else thought EASA would give any safety recommendation from Boeing a second thought, if reputation is what they are / were trying to retrieve that will only come in time from their customers.


I think EASA would take Boeing’s concerns seriously yes. Yes they have made some deadly mistakes with the 737 max and some questionable business decisions that don’t need mentioning again and again but ultimately it’s in everyone’s interest to listen to their comments on safety.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:47 pm

The entire EASA process has public disclosure requirements, just like many aspects of FAA rule making.

Allowing OEMs to provide private comments diminishes transparency and would allow them to attack each other on safety.
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:00 pm

Polot wrote:


Boeing’s response is only getting some attention because journalists want to sex up the news and turn this into some AvB thing to attract attention and clicks, and some of you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.


Tbf, I don't think journos had to do anything to sex up the news. When you have an OEM who's still grappling with their possible contribution to the deaths of 300+ people, it'll cause a stir when such company then comes out to comment/show concern about the safety regulations being applied to a plane being offered by their competitor, in a market class they're getting clobbered, it's prime for headlines. At a surface level, there's almost no way it doesn't come across as Boeing being an opportunist.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:24 pm

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions

Well explained here on aviation week, i mean a.net has pretty much said what he has said, but i don't know why he says they are unfazed when he does not highlight what their solution is... he just talks about what is needs to be proven and the comments in the document
 
Rampvan
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:36 am

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:59 pm

Working on the ex British Mediterranean Airways A320s when they were acquired by BMI in the mid 90s it was found that the BMED mid haul aircraft would carry one less AKH than our aircraft due to one position taken by a fuel tank for the extra range needed. Is this different from the XLR tanks?
Silver dream machine
 
tomcat
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:24 pm

Opus99 wrote:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/airbus-unfazed-easa-a321xlr-fuel-tank-special-conditions

i don't know why he says they are unfazed when he does not highlight what their solution is...


Because that is how Airbus is reacting:
Airbus says it is working on solutions addressing concerns raised by EASA and Boeing about the fire safety of the Airbus A321XLR rear center tank (RCT), adding that the variant’s development and certification schedule remain on track.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11412
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:39 am

Rampvan wrote:
Working on the ex British Mediterranean Airways A320s when they were acquired by BMI in the mid 90s it was found that the BMED mid haul aircraft would carry one less AKH than our aircraft due to one position taken by a fuel tank for the extra range needed. Is this different from the XLR tanks?

The XLR’s tank is permanent and will take up cargo space- 2 or 3 positions vs a normal A321 with no ACTs iirc. The difference is the permanent tank will be lighter and hold more fuel than ACTs occupying that space would, as the tank can be sized for the space versus ACTs which must individually be sized to fit through the cargo door. In the end though the XLR is intended for airlines committed to use the plane on long range routes, since it lacks the flexibility to remove the tanks.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:43 am

tomcat wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/airbus-unfazed-easa-a321xlr-fuel-tank-special-conditions

i don't know why he says they are unfazed when he does not highlight what their solution is...


Because that is how Airbus is reacting:
Airbus says it is working on solutions addressing concerns raised by EASA and Boeing about the fire safety of the Airbus A321XLR rear center tank (RCT), adding that the variant’s development and certification schedule remain on track.

Right of course, didn’t see that. Thanks for pointing that out
 
astuteman
Posts: 7291
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:51 am

Opus99 wrote:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/airbus-unfazed-easa-a321xlr-fuel-tank-special-conditions

Well explained here on aviation week, i mean a.net has pretty much said what he has said, but i don't know why he says they are unfazed when he does not highlight what their solution is... he just talks about what is needs to be proven and the comments in the document




I don't understand

a) why people are getting wrapped round the axle because of the comments from Boeing which have 1) been accepted by EASA, and 2) are part of a standard consulation process, and
b) why people are getting wrapped round the axle because this is "going to be such an issue to fix" when it seems a pretty one-dimensional engineering problem to me, particularly when compared to fundamental changes in control architecture, which is inevitable going to be a very complex integration problem..

Maybe Airbus haven't read the script that this is going to be a certification breaker, and have a good idea of how to demonstrate compliance with the special conditions?
"Unfazed" would suggest such...

Rgds
 
Opus99
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:58 am

astuteman wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/airbus-unfazed-easa-a321xlr-fuel-tank-special-conditions

Well explained here on aviation week, i mean a.net has pretty much said what he has said, but i don't know why he says they are unfazed when he does not highlight what their solution is... he just talks about what is needs to be proven and the comments in the document




I don't understand

a) why people are getting wrapped round the axle because of the comments from Boeing which have 1) been accepted by EASA, and 2) are part of a standard consulation process, and
b) why people are getting wrapped round the axle because this is "going to be such an issue to fix" when it seems a pretty one-dimensional engineering problem to me, particularly when compared to fundamental changes in control architecture, which is inevitable going to be a very complex integration problem..

Maybe Airbus haven't read the script that this is going to be a certification breaker, and have a good idea of how to demonstrate compliance with the special conditions?
"Unfazed" would suggest such...

Rgds

If you go up thread you will see me saying i find it hard to believe it is a big problem but people have pointed out the solution is not straightforward. And also some coming in to say customers are not so hot on the development. Again That might also just be noise
 
2175301
Posts: 2045
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:09 am

astuteman wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/airbus-unfazed-easa-a321xlr-fuel-tank-special-conditions

Well explained here on aviation week, i mean a.net has pretty much said what he has said, but i don't know why he says they are unfazed when he does not highlight what their solution is... he just talks about what is needs to be proven and the comments in the document




I don't understand

a) why people are getting wrapped round the axle because of the comments from Boeing which have 1) been accepted by EASA, and 2) are part of a standard consulation process, and
b) why people are getting wrapped round the axle because this is "going to be such an issue to fix" when it seems a pretty one-dimensional engineering problem to me, particularly when compared to fundamental changes in control architecture, which is inevitable going to be a very complex integration problem..

Maybe Airbus haven't read the script that this is going to be a certification breaker, and have a good idea of how to demonstrate compliance with the special conditions?
"Unfazed" would suggest such...

Rgds


I believe the answers are:

a) because a number of people believe that Boeing is not only incompetent; but, will do anything they can to sabotage Airbus - and this is such an example.

b) because if the answer was simple it would never have become an issue... and complicated issues requiring complicated answers are beyond the capabilities of Airbus.

Of course, I agree with your points: This is all above board and standard practice. Airbus can and will resolve this; although it will require some changes to their planned design. That is the nature of designing new products that require extensive safety reviews and approvals.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19644
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 8:34 am

Opus99 wrote:
And also some coming in to say customers are not so hot on the development. Again That might also just be noise


I don't recall seeing anything other than unsubstantiated claims that airlines are "worried".
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 8:59 am

scbriml wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
And also some coming in to say customers are not so hot on the development. Again That might also just be noise


I don't recall seeing anything other than unsubstantiated claims that airlines are "worried".

It was upthread thats why i said it might just be noise. no sources
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4006
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:07 am

Opus99 wrote:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/airbus-unfazed-easa-a321xlr-fuel-tank-special-conditions

Well explained here on aviation week, i mean a.net has pretty much said what he has said, but i don't know why he says they are unfazed when he does not highlight what their solution is... he just talks about what is needs to be proven and the comments in the document

Why would airbus be obligated to publicise potentially valuable IP around detailed tank design? As long as they know the solution(s) they can state whether they are fazed or not. It would be a more pertinent question I think to wonder what airbus would say if they were fazed... I would guess they would say they weren’t fazed.

Scenario 1.
“Mr president, we checked the gold in fort Knox and there’s twice as much as we thought”
President: “ok, double the guard”

Scenario 2.
“Mr president, we checked the gold in Fort Knox and there’s none left!”
President: “ok, then double the guard.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Opus99
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:09 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/airbus-unfazed-easa-a321xlr-fuel-tank-special-conditions

Well explained here on aviation week, i mean a.net has pretty much said what he has said, but i don't know why he says they are unfazed when he does not highlight what their solution is... he just talks about what is needs to be proven and the comments in the document

Why would airbus be obligated to publicise potentially valuable IP around detailed tank design? As long as they know the solution(s) they can state whether they are fazed or not. It would be a more pertinent question I think to wonder what airbus would say if they were fazed... I would guess they would say they weren’t fazed.

Scenario 1.
“Mr president, we checked the gold in fort Knox and there’s twice as much as we thought”
President: “ok, double the guard”

Scenario 2.
“Mr president, we checked the gold in Fort Knox and there’s none left!”
President: “ok, then double the guard.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe I should make it clear, I don’t expect airbus to do that. But I was not sure why he said unfazed in the article because I thought he only spoke about the issue but not what airbus actually said regarding it, whether they said it’s not a problem etc. But a poster pointed it out upthread
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:33 am

The A321XLR is the only larger project at Airbus, with an certicication and EIS coming up. Since there isn't much else happening, also due to covid, Airbus have their absolute best people, and plenty of them, working full-time on the A321XLR.

I have confidence that any issues will be resolved, and that the XLR will be certified on schedule. Two years to EIS now. It will be a game changer. Only Boeing will have cold feet: NMA or NSA?
 
WIederling
Posts: 9932
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:56 pm

par13del wrote:
SRJ94AB wrote:
My gut feeling is Boeing’s comments are more for their own PR than to jab at airbus. They could have commented to EASA at any time but the fact they chose to add a public comment on a EASA document is one way of showing the world “we take safety seriously” Not exactly a surprising strategy in trying to get their reputation back.

So after the MAX saga, you actually think Boeing or anyone else thought EASA would give any safety recommendation from Boeing a second thought, if reputation is what they are / were trying to retrieve that will only come in time from their customers.


UP front : I was not aware that the Boeing comment was in scope of an EASA RFC. who elevated it to elephantine dimensions?

Then:
because Boeing and the FAA snitched on Boeing issues in collusion does not mean that points found with the competitor are valueless.

IMU that extra FAA effort that was spent on Airbus products over the years worked towards Airbus advantage in the long run.
( how would things look today if the A320 had had access to the lesser cert requirements applicable until just before its development cycle finished?
introduction of those changes can be seen as enemy action well cloaked.)
How much more future proof could the 737 evolution have been without excessive access to grandfathering?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25616
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:16 pm

crimsonchin wrote:
Polot wrote:
Boeing’s response is only getting some attention because journalists want to sex up the news and turn this into some AvB thing to attract attention and clicks, and some of you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

Tbf, I don't think journos had to do anything to sex up the news. When you have an OEM who's still grappling with their possible contribution to the deaths of 300+ people, it'll cause a stir when such company then comes out to comment/show concern about the safety regulations being applied to a plane being offered by their competitor, in a market class they're getting clobbered, it's prime for headlines. At a surface level, there's almost no way it doesn't come across as Boeing being an opportunist.

Airbus says:

“Public consultation is part and parcel of an aircraft development,” Airbus said. “All subjects raised along the way will be dealt with hand in hand with the airworthiness authorities to fulfill all requirements for the type certification.”

Ref: https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions

Seems their "surface level" is different than yours.
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
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1073
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
crimsonchin wrote:
Polot wrote:
Boeing’s response is only getting some attention because journalists want to sex up the news and turn this into some AvB thing to attract attention and clicks, and some of you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

Tbf, I don't think journos had to do anything to sex up the news. When you have an OEM who's still grappling with their possible contribution to the deaths of 300+ people, it'll cause a stir when such company then comes out to comment/show concern about the safety regulations being applied to a plane being offered by their competitor, in a market class they're getting clobbered, it's prime for headlines. At a surface level, there's almost no way it doesn't come across as Boeing being an opportunist.

Airbus says:

“Public consultation is part and parcel of an aircraft development,” Airbus said. “All subjects raised along the way will be dealt with hand in hand with the airworthiness authorities to fulfill all requirements for the type certification.”

Ref: https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions

Seems their "surface level" is different than yours.


What did you expect them to say? That they are now offended and go sulking in their room?
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25616
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 8:34 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
Revelation wrote:
crimsonchin wrote:
Tbf, I don't think journos had to do anything to sex up the news. When you have an OEM who's still grappling with their possible contribution to the deaths of 300+ people, it'll cause a stir when such company then comes out to comment/show concern about the safety regulations being applied to a plane being offered by their competitor, in a market class they're getting clobbered, it's prime for headlines. At a surface level, there's almost no way it doesn't come across as Boeing being an opportunist.

Airbus says:
“Public consultation is part and parcel of an aircraft development,” Airbus said. “All subjects raised along the way will be dealt with hand in hand with the airworthiness authorities to fulfill all requirements for the type certification.”

Ref: https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions
Seems their "surface level" is different than yours.

What did you expect them to say? That they are now offended and go sulking in their room?

I think what Airbus is saying is quite plausible, it's part and parcel of an aircraft development. I think if they felt otherwise they could find a trusted aviation journalist to leak out their point of view. It is much more plausible to me than to think that Airbus is butthurt by all of this and is secretly stewing over it.
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
Polot
Posts: 11412
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 8:50 pm

Revelation wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Airbus says:

Ref: https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions
Seems their "surface level" is different than yours.

What did you expect them to say? That they are now offended and go sulking in their room?

I think what Airbus is saying is quite plausible, it's part and parcel of an aircraft development. I think if they felt otherwise they could find a trusted aviation journalist to leak out their point of view. It is much more plausible to me than to think that Airbus is butthurt by all of this and is secretly stewing over it.


Indeed. In fact everyone is ignoring that Airbus has commented on FAA special conditions proposed (at the time of comment) on Boeing models. Here’s one on 787 external data/network security in which Airbus submitted comments:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... tection-of

Here’s one on data network security from passengers: https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... olation-or
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1073
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: A321XLR’s rear fuel tank demands special fire-protection conditions

Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Airbus says:

Ref: https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions
Seems their "surface level" is different than yours.

What did you expect them to say? That they are now offended and go sulking in their room?

I think what Airbus is saying is quite plausible, it's part and parcel of an aircraft development. I think if they felt otherwise they could find a trusted aviation journalist to leak out their point of view. It is much more plausible to me than to think that Airbus is butthurt by all of this and is secretly stewing over it.


Oh I agree. And still, in those official statements you‘d rarely read anything but diplomacy.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god

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