Welcome to the Boeing 777X Testing/Production thread - 2023 edition.

Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the previous now locked 2022 edition:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468443

Summer 2025 for x9

2028 for freiter

What's actually the holdup right now?

77west wrote:

What's actually the holdup right now?

Well it was put on the back burner to get the MAX 7 and 10 certified. They are also awaiting FAA approval to continue certification (TIA)

77west wrote:

What's actually the holdup right now?

As indicated in comment above, combination of immaturity of the TIA application to FAA, and resources available at Boeing to develop what they are requesting. Just takes time.

Thanks guys, I remember watching the first flight back just before we went into lockdown here in NZ so thought it would be well underway by now. Hopefully they can get it certified by this time next year.

Is there any chance that the 'learning the process' for certification lessons from finishing the MAX 7 and 10 could speed up the process for the 777X? Both Boeing and the FAA have some learning to do.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Is there any chance that the 'learning the process' for certification lessons from finishing the MAX 7 and 10 could speed up the process for the 777X? Both Boeing and the FAA have some learning to do.

Depend if faa pull their finger out

Amazed how max certified with the 7, but the 7 max still not certified itself.

777x will prob the be the most tested jet in the universes.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Is there any chance that the 'learning the process' for certification lessons from finishing the MAX 7 and 10 could speed up the process for the 777X? Both Boeing and the FAA have some learning to do.

Interesting thought, I could see the 10 since that is at a "similar" stage to the 777X in certification, but the 7 was used to assist in the re-certification of the 8 and 9. If the FAA changed the certification requirements after the re-certification of the 8 and 9 then no, I do not see how they could help. The 7 and 10 are derivatives of non-FBW a/c with much less computing power designated for crew alerting and safety systems, the 777X is a derivative of a FBW a/c with a more digital cockpit interface. If I stay away from the technical, then I could agree that the format of documentation to the FAA which is also a standard that must be met by Boeing should be somewhat familiar / learned / resolved when they get to the 777X.
I am leaning on the side of major changes to the "grand fathering" documentation being a huge part of the delay, no sources for same, just my feeling. Boeing has billions tied up in the 7, 10 and 777X, the 787 has just started rolling again, yes they have publicly stated they are re-assigning resources, but when so much funds are tied up in development, hiring additional staff is not as huge an expense percentage wise to the successful delivery of products if the road ahead is known. If the FAA is able to source additional human resources paying in my opinion less than what Boeing could offer, I see no reason why human resources should be a cause for delay at Boeing. The FAA and Boeing are involved in the certification process, the skill set of the individuals involved - in my opinion - has some major overlap, the focus and demands of their employers differ greatly.
I am sure most have seen / read the article below, I re-read as I did not think the word maturity in relation to the TIA issue was literally time based on years of use versus time in use by continuous testing.
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... eing-777-9

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Is there any chance that the 'learning the process' for certification lessons from finishing the MAX 7 and 10 could speed up the process for the 777X? Both Boeing and the FAA have some learning to do.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable conclusion, that the process will improve moving forward, as both sides learn to better manage it. The rejection ratio for Boeing submissions should diminish over time.

The trade is that longer time in preparation, is still less time than rejection and resubmission. Plus it minimizes the FAA's time as well. Initially it was trial and error, which is clearly not a time-efficient method, for either side.

It might be that the true benefit won't be fully apparent until the next aircraft certification, whenever that is.

Spoke to a Boeing employee I saw at the store yesterday. I asked about the 777x program, they said this year will be a big year for the 777-9. N779XW will continue testing (resumed today), N779XX will start back up this month, N779XY will start back up in April, and N779XZ will start back up in July. All four planes will be actively flying this summer as TIA approaches.

N779XW has perform 3 test flights so far this year being, around 5 hours each on 4, 5 and 6 of Jan

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n779xw

757Boii wrote:

Spoke to a Boeing employee I saw at the store yesterday. I asked about the 777x program, they said this year will be a big year for the 777-9. N779XW will continue testing (resumed today), N779XX will start back up this month, N779XY will start back up in April, and N779XZ will start back up in July. All four planes will be actively flying this summer as TIA approaches.

Nice to see them flies soon.

As the TiA, we knows this dependings on FAA who not exactly endere themselves

757Boii wrote:

Spoke to a Boeing employee I saw at the store yesterday. I asked about the 777x program, they said this year will be a big year for the 777-9. N779XW will continue testing (resumed today), N779XX will start back up this month, N779XY will start back up in April, and N779XZ will start back up in July. All four planes will be actively flying this summer as TIA approaches.

He’s right. N779XX starts January 13th: source Matt Cawby

http://kpae.blogspot.com/2023/01/paine- ... 5.html?m=1

TIA is expected middle of the year

It seems like they’ve basically started the flight test program again, following Boeings changes. So now just doing flight control regression etc etc

Rhal97 wrote:

TIA is expected middle of the year

That is do be determined

It good aspirations but all depend on faa.

We shalls see.

Rhal97 wrote:

TIA is expected middle of the year

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

That is do be determined. It good aspirations but all depend on faa. We shalls see.

Indeed, but if Boeing is putting the 777X test fleet back into regular circulation, it could be a sign that they and the FAA have settled on what needs to be done prior to the FAA granting TIA and Boeing has reactivated the fleet to both complete those tasks and to have the full fleet available for work once TIA had been granted,.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Rhal97 wrote:

TIA is expected middle of the year

That is do be determined

It good aspirations but all depend on faa.

We shalls see.

Of course. But i think let’s just use that as a marking point for tracking purposes. If indeed the “middle” of the year comes and goes we know that they’re still behind what their own internal plans are at least. But hopefully it comes this year at least

Stitch wrote:

Rhal97 wrote:

TIA is expected middle of the year

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

That is do be determined. It good aspirations but all depend on faa. We shalls see.

Indeed, but if Boeing is putting the 777X test fleet back into regular circulation, it could be a sign that they and the FAA have settled on what needs to be done prior to the FAA granting TIA and Boeing has reactivated the fleet to both complete those tasks and to have the full fleet available for work once TIA had been granted,.

Exactly my thinking as well. There’s a feel like the test program has sort of started from scratch with all the flight control testing going on at the minute and the incremental introduction of each test plane from WH001 to 004

N779XX (WH002) is back online and conducting a function flight test

Almost 5 months to the day since it’s last flight, it’s good to see n799xx up in the air.

Rhal97 wrote:

757Boii wrote:

Spoke to a Boeing employee I saw at the store yesterday. I asked about the 777x program, they said this year will be a big year for the 777-9. N779XW will continue testing (resumed today), N779XX will start back up this month, N779XY will start back up in April, and N779XZ will start back up in July. All four planes will be actively flying this summer as TIA approaches.

He’s right. N779XX starts January 13th: source Matt Cawby

http://kpae.blogspot.com/2023/01/paine- ... 5.html?m=1

TIA is expected middle of the year

It seems like they’ve basically started the flight test program again, following Boeings changes. So now just doing flight control regression etc etc

N779XX just took off from BFI a few minutes ago . Nice to see things going as planned

wesk wrote:

Almost 5 months to the day since it’s last flight, it’s good to see n799xx up in the air.

Indeed . Hopefully a smooth 2023 for the program .

At the time of this post, 13 Jan 12:15 PT, N779XW and N779XX are flying at the same time. Last time this happened was around March of 2022. Great milestone for Boeing!

How is production being handled? As I understand it, there are ~27 aircraft sitting in various states of construction, how many do they plan to produce before certification?

Ellofiend wrote:

How is production being handled? As I understand it, there are ~27 aircraft sitting in various states of construction, how many do they plan to produce before certification?

Boeing has paused 777X production through the end of 2023: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ure-costs/

LN1723 and LN1728 were confirmed to be 777-9s in last year's 777 production thread by an A.Netter who has inside knowledge. These were some six months after the pause announcement below. I think if 1723 and 1728 are counted, the total is 29 777-9s.

Stitch wrote:

Ellofiend wrote:

How is production being handled? As I understand it, there are ~27 aircraft sitting in various states of construction, how many do they plan to produce before certification?

Boeing has paused 777X production through the end of 2023: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ure-costs/

EASA and Boeing "closer" to agreement about flight control matters:

"Europe's chief aviation regulator pointed on Tuesday to a narrowing gap in talks with Boeing (BA.N) over cockpit design requirements for the future 777X airliner.

"European regulators have been seen at odds with Boeing for more than a year over changes they want in flight controls of the latest version of the 777 - a stand-off that has contributed to a cumulative five-year delay, according to industry sources.

"EASA has set out an approach that could prompt Boeing to add an extra fallback to guarantee that a single invisible failure within the cockpit's electronics cannot trigger simultaneous outages - a design precaution known as "dissimilarity"."

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-01-24/

JerseyFlyer wrote:

EASA and Boeing "closer" to agreement about flight control matters:

"Europe's chief aviation regulator pointed on Tuesday to a narrowing gap in talks with Boeing (BA.N) over cockpit design requirements for the future 777X airliner.

"European regulators have been seen at odds with Boeing for more than a year over changes they want in flight controls of the latest version of the 777 - a stand-off that has contributed to a cumulative five-year delay, according to industry sources.

"EASA has set out an approach that could prompt Boeing to add an extra fallback to guarantee that a single invisible failure within the cockpit's electronics cannot trigger simultaneous outages - a design precaution known as "dissimilarity"."

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-01-24/

This is good news

It seems the dispute on "dissimilarity" is due to the extension of the concept of Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR), to hardware & software vendors, as is done in Airbus FBW systems.

Boeing has taken a different approach with the 777 FBW, using TMR but with the same hardware in the redundant channels, and engineering dissimilarity into the computational paths instead, to trap common mode errors.

The Primary Flight Computer (PFC) is the central computation element of the FBW system. The triple modular redundancy (TMR) concept also applies to the PFC architectural design. Further, the N-version dissimilarity issue is integrated to the TMR concept. The PFCs consist of three similar channels (of the same part number), and each channel contains three dissimilar computation lanes.

The Boeing position is that they have established the same statistical and experiential level of safety, without the need to rely on differential hardware.

The EASA position is that differential hardware eliminates the possibility of common mode errors entirely. Which creates a better solution than monitoring and trapping them.

This is all somewhat academic and esoteric, as neither platform has suffered from common mode failures. But it goes to design philosophy. EASA would prefer to see the differential hardware solution more widely adopted.

The FAA is essentially neutral, I suspect they don't see an inherent superiority in either solution. But nor are they averse to improvements in safety.

My guess is that Boeing and EASA are negotiating on how those improvements can be made within the 777x TMR implementation.

Avatar2go wrote:

It seems the dispute on "dissimilarity" is due to the extension of the concept of Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR), to hardware & software vendors, as is done in Airbus FBW systems.

Boeing has taken a different approach with the 777 FBW, using TMR but with the same hardware in the redundant channels, and engineering dissimilarity into the computational paths instead, to trap common mode errors.

The Primary Flight Computer (PFC) is the central computation element of the FBW system. The triple modular redundancy (TMR) concept also applies to the PFC architectural design. Further, the N-version dissimilarity issue is integrated to the TMR concept. The PFCs consist of three similar channels (of the same part number), and each channel contains three dissimilar computation lanes.

The Boeing position is that they have established the same statistical and experiential level of safety, without the need to rely on differential hardware.

The EASA position is that differential hardware eliminates the possibility of common mode errors entirely. Which creates a better solution than monitoring and trapping them.

This is all somewhat academic and esoteric, as neither platform has suffered from common mode failures. But it goes to design philosophy. EASA would prefer to see the differential hardware solution more widely adopted.

The FAA is essentially neutral, I suspect they don't see an inherent superiority in either solution. But nor are they averse to improvements in safety.

My guess is that Boeing and EASA are negotiating on how those improvements can be made within the 777x TMR implementation.

Great - make things more complex. That usually works out well. The current design works well - no need to change it.

Has anything additional on the GE9X issue been made public yet?

morrisond wrote:

Great - make things more complex. That usually works out well. The current design works well - no need to change it.

Agree. Easa and the faa seem hell bent on the punishment for Boeing on 777x.

And there no improvement to suggests that safety is upped.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Great - make things more complex. That usually works out well. The current design works well - no need to change it.

Agree. Easa and the faa seem hell bent on the punishment for Boeing on 777x.

And there no improvement to suggests that safety is upped.

Need to drop the victim mentality. Boeing is a corporation that does not have feelings. It does seem like the contention here is that EASA is out to make things difficult for Boeing and not to improve safety. That is what we are saying here now?

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/st ... -42812015/

Calhoun cites progress with EASA on design differences on the 777X

enzo011 wrote:

Need to drop the victim mentality. Boeing is a corporation that does not have feelings. It does seem like the contention here is that EASA is out to make things difficult for Boeing and not to improve safety. That is what we are saying here now?

There's no suggestion in any of this that EASA has any hostile intent. It's just a matter of deciding the best approach to implement dissimilarity within triple redundancy. The discussion is ongoing and Boeing has not objected to any of it.

Calhoun in the earnings call remarks, acknowledged that the discussion has been the major issue over the last year or more, and that progress is being made. That was echoed also by statements from EASA this week. Calhoun did not seem to think it would disturb the current schedule outlined for 777x certification.

Airlinerdude wrote:

Has anything additional on the GE9X issue been made public yet?

There is no new information, beyond the fact that an anomaly was found during routine engine inspection. The engine was removed for stand testing, and developed a high temperature alert on the stand. That generated a pause in test flights, which have now resumed. There is no indication of it being a serious issue at this time. It was not a topic of the earnings call today.

Avatar2go wrote:

There's no suggestion in any of this that EASA has any hostile intent. It's just a matter of deciding the best approach to implement dissimilarity within triple redundancy. The discussion is ongoing and Boeing has not objected to any of it.

Take it up with the posters I replied to. They seem to suggest that EASA is only making things more complicated and not safer and that the FAA and EASA is out to punish Boeing. Would be nice to call out them directly instead of replying to me to sort of defend them.

enzo011 wrote:

Take it up with the posters I replied to. They seem to suggest that EASA is only making things more complicated and not safer and that the FAA and EASA is out to punish Boeing. Would be nice to call out them directly instead of replying to me to sort of defend them.

I replied to your post because it was the last in the series, and included the others, as a compendium. I agree fully with your position and was trying to establish a factual basis to consider the issue. No criticism or defense was intended or offered.

enzo011 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

There's no suggestion in any of this that EASA has any hostile intent. It's just a matter of deciding the best approach to implement dissimilarity within triple redundancy. The discussion is ongoing and Boeing has not objected to any of it.

Take it up with the posters I replied to. They seem to suggest that EASA is only making things more complicated and not safer and that the FAA and EASA is out to punish Boeing. Would be nice to call out them directly instead of replying to me to sort of defend them.

Without proof it's just social media banter that should be ignored.

Singapore Airlines first 2 777-9's will be LN1723 and 1728. They expect first delivery in 2025

https://twitter.com/MZulqarnainBut1/sta ... 76576?s=20

Crosswind testing taking place in Amarillo, Texas with N779XX.

https://fr24.com/data/aircraft/n779xx#2f452e55

https://abc7amarillo.com/amp/news/local ... ong-runway

Pardon my Ignorance, but what does TIA mean? I’ve seen it referenced a few times in this thread.

TIA = Type Inspection Authorization. It is needed to start official flight testing.

Here is a quick description:

Type Inspection Authorization (TIA): The TIA is an internal FAA document that authorizes the ACO employees to begin the test program, usually the flight test portion. It is the FAA “kickoff” document, and is fully described in Order 8110.4B. When the TIA is issued, Boeing people will celebrate because it means; “Let’s do it”.

From: https://www.aa.washington.edu/files/mae ... 7-2014.pdf

Does a design, firm enough to build airframes, even exist for the -8 or -8F?

tootallsd wrote:

Does a design, firm enough to build airframes, even exist for the -8 or -8F?

It stands to reason that there is, since it will share most everything with the 777-9.

The third test frame N779XY is due to return to flight testing next week, seen below at PAE going through an engine start up





https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/16 ... 99073?s=20

WH003 777-9 N779XY has returned to flight testing seen ready to depart PAE on a functional check flight (2 Mar)



https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/16 ... 82529?s=20

Progress Update on the 777X:

EASA has dropped its flight control system changes for the 777X and has instead told Boeing to monitor the 777X for the first few years to see how the system performs. This is a key breakthrough and has been one of the major stumbling blocks for the program.

The focus is now on TIA, hence why the flight test fleet has come back in quick succession. Boeing is still aiming to get this by the middle of the year. from my understanding FCS issues have been resolved, CCS issues is partially completed and the uncommanded pitch event has been long resolved.

Anwyay, Aviaiton week says that industrsy souces have an increased confidence that boeing will deliver the 777X in the 2025 timeframe, exemplified in emirates opening a simulator training centre in 2024 to include 777X simulators. They were unsure of investing in one because they were not confident in the timeline for EIS.

Links:

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... n-criteria
(this link is behind a paywall but the first few lines give you the gist)

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... -year-777x

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... eb-28-2023
(this link gives you the detailed summary of the first link)

"In what will be seen as a key breakthrough for Boeing’s delayed 777X development, the European Union Safety Agency (EASA) and the US manufacturer reached an understanding on common mode failure certification criteria for the large new twinjet, according to industry sources. Although details of the compromise remain sparse, sources say EASA has given up its demands for fundamental flight control system changes to comply with its definition of redundancy. In return, Boeing has agreed to a protocol under which the system performance and any potential failures will be closely monitored for at least the first several years of 777X operations. "

Is it just me or does the 777X wing look ever so slightly thicker than the one on the B777-300ER?