User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:27 am

A poster recently claimed the 787 is certified for 44,000 landing cycles while the A330 is only certified for 35,000. I commented on this but for some reason the original post was deleted by the mods as was my comment. I have no idea why.

Is this claim true or false? If anyone knows it would be appreciated.


Thanks
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4484
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:46 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
A poster recently claimed the 787 is certified for 44,000 landing cycles while the A330 is only certified for 35,000. I commented on this but for some reason the original post was deleted by the mods as was my comment. I have no idea why.



Thanks

It's my bet? Those are claims rather than hard fact. the A350 and the 787 might average 6-10 hours between cycles. So? Having a life limit of 35,000 cycles?
How any hours would you say that is? The Airplanes my never reach their cycle limit in regular Airline Service. None if the 747-400's have reached their cycle limit, NOR any of the 777-200's and probable not any of the A330's either. I worked at United where we retired 747-100's that didn't have 40K cycles on them and they even flew domestically for most of their life from EWR and JFK to SFO,/LAX and ORD-HNL before the Pacific routes came to United. Some of them had NEVER ever seen full tanks! EVER!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sun Mar 22, 2020 5:35 am

For A330-200, -200F, -300, and -900 variants, the limit of validity (LOV) is 180000FH/60000FC, whichever comes first.

No A330 is even close.

Source https://www.aviationbusinessnews.com/mr ... intenance/
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:15 am

If an aircraft has 3 cycles per day and flies 365 days a year, it needs 40 years the reach 44,000 cycles.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:52 am

Thanks for the responses. As I recall Boeing claimed lower maintenance costs for the 787 and a longer operational life primarily due to the heavy use of composites. I would assume the A350 would have the same advantages as it also is predominantly constructed with composites.

As for cycle life, it sounds like it is not a factor. However, I do seem to recall a handful of 747-200 aircraft reaching their cycle limit and the FAA required section 21 inspection and replacement (the nose gear area) to keep them air worthy.

Regardless, since no A330 aircraft have reached their cycle limit and there are some 20 plus year frames out there, it sounds like a non-issue.

Thanks again for the information.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4557
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:39 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Thanks for the responses. As I recall Boeing claimed lower maintenance costs for the 787 and a longer operational life primarily due to the heavy use of composites. I would assume the A350 would have the same advantages as it also is predominantly constructed with composites.

As for cycle life, it sounds like it is not a factor. However, I do seem to recall a handful of 747-200 aircraft reaching their cycle limit and the FAA required section 21 inspection and replacement (the nose gear area) to keep them air worthy.

Regardless, since no A330 aircraft have reached their cycle limit and there are some 20 plus year frames out there, it sounds like a non-issue.

Thanks again for the information.


The only western widebodies I know of that have hit cycle limits are the former ANA 762s that Atlas and ATSG fly. They tend to be I. The mid-40,000s cycle-wise from their time getting flown hard domestically in Japan before conversion. Their former DL stablemates have way more hours but many fewer cycles.

Iirc some of the retired FX MD-10s were in the 40,000 cycle range too.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2528
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:29 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
As for cycle life, it sounds like it is not a factor.


It is and it is not. The only aircraft I've ever encountered to have a more than one-off reaching the limit were some of the Dash 8-102s Piedmont operated. When they passed their 80,000cy limit, they were issued an extension from BBD, albeit with some significant structural updates/mods. This is an Aircraft that routinely flew sectors like PHL-BWI & DCA-SBY 14, sometimes 16 times a day.

In most situations, you will not ever get close to this.

Spacepope wrote:
The only western widebodies I know of that have hit cycle limits are the former ANA 762s that Atlas and ATSG fly. They tend to be I. The mid-40,000s cycle-wise from their time getting flown hard domestically in Japan before conversion.



Makes sense. Do you know how the 74D's wound up?
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."
 
VC10DC10
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:33 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Some of them had NEVER ever seen full tanks! EVER!


Out of curiosity, how could you tell?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Thu Mar 26, 2020 6:01 am

VC10DC10 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Some of them had NEVER ever seen full tanks! EVER!


Out of curiosity, how could you tell?


I would wager they would, some of those fuel pump MELs on the 747 required full tanks to dispatch.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3751
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:51 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
A poster recently claimed the 787 is certified for 44,000 landing cycles while the A330 is only certified for 35,000. I commented on this but for some reason the original post was deleted by the mods as was my comment. I have no idea why.

Is this claim true or false? If anyone knows it would be appreciated.


Well for a starter, the 787 is a newer plane, so improvements should be expected. I'd expect to see similar over at Airbus whenever they come out with new models.

Second, along with weight savings, more cycles was one of the big selling points of CFRP. Carbon fibre has a greater strength-to-weight ratio than the traditional materials an A330 is built from. The 787s construction method with the fuselage being made in single-piece barrels can only help. All other things being the same, an uninterrupted barrel will be stronger than one assembled from multiple pieces.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:53 am

VSMUT wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
A poster recently claimed the 787 is certified for 44,000 landing cycles while the A330 is only certified for 35,000. I commented on this but for some reason the original post was deleted by the mods as was my comment. I have no idea why.

Is this claim true or false? If anyone knows it would be appreciated.


Well for a starter, the 787 is a newer plane, so improvements should be expected. I'd expect to see similar over at Airbus whenever they come out with new models.

Second, along with weight savings, more cycles was one of the big selling points of CFRP. Carbon fibre has a greater strength-to-weight ratio than the traditional materials an A330 is built from. The 787s construction method with the fuselage being made in single-piece barrels can only help. All other things being the same, an uninterrupted barrel will be stronger than one assembled from multiple pieces.



According to Boeing's specs the 787 is rated for 66,000 FC or 200,000 flight hours. This is much greater than many earlier generation aircraft.


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... ticle2.pdf


According to the FAA the A330 CEO is rated for either 33,000 or 40,000 FC or 60,000-100,000 Flight hours depending on whether it is WV050 enhanced or non-enhanced.


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR ... 1-1115.xml


This would certainly seem to me to be a selling point for the 787.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19704
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Fri Mar 27, 2020 1:05 am

ElroyJetson wrote:

Regardless, since no A330 aircraft have reached their cycle limit and there are some 20 plus year frames out there, it sounds like a non-issue.

.



ElroyJetson wrote:

According to the FAA the A330 CEO is rated for either 33,000 or 40,000 FC or 60,000-100,000 Flight hours depending on whether it is WV050 enhanced or non-enhanced.


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR ... 1-1115.xml


This would certainly seem to me to be a selling point for the 787.


So which is it? A selling point or a non-issue? ;)
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:12 am

Starlionblue wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

Regardless, since no A330 aircraft have reached their cycle limit and there are some 20 plus year frames out there, it sounds like a non-issue.

.



ElroyJetson wrote:

According to the FAA the A330 CEO is rated for either 33,000 or 40,000 FC or 60,000-100,000 Flight hours depending on whether it is WV050 enhanced or non-enhanced.


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR ... 1-1115.xml


This would certainly seem to me to be a selling point for the 787.


So which is it? A selling point or a non-issue? ;)




Fair question which is why I did my own research. Zeke's source lists an LOV limit for the A330 CEO that is almost twice as high as the FAA source. I would assume the FAA has final say but I leave that to you.

I do not and will not get into a battle over sources, but if in fact the 787 is good for 66,000 cycles and the A330 CEO is good for 33,000-40,000 .cycles that appears to be a significant difference. Is that a selling point for airlines....I don't know, I am sure maintenance costs and intervals are a big factor which is probably related to overall air frame life.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:03 am

afterburner wrote:
If an aircraft has 3 cycles per day and flies 365 days a year, it needs 40 years the reach 44,000 cycles.


It seems people are conveniently ignoring this post, which says all there is to say about it IMO. The typical widebody isn't even going to have 3 cycles a day, and even DL doesn't keep frames for 40 years.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 AT7 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 742/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
CR2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
F50/100 J31 L10 L410 M11/80/90 RJ85 SF3 SU9 T134/154 Y42
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:12 am

To be clear per Boeing the 787 LOV is 66,000 FC or 200,000 flight hours. The link is here. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... ticle2.pdf


It is great information specific for flight cycles for all Boeing aircraft. Enjoy. :)
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
Sokes
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:53 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Air ... t_and_crew:
" While the airframe had accumulated 35,496 flight hours prior to the accident, those hours included over 89,680 flight cycles (takeoffs and landings), owing to its use on short flights.[5] This amounted to more than twice the number of flight cycles it was designed for.[3]"

It sounds like even planes manufactured in 1969 were overdesigned.
How could they do twice the flight cycles that the plane was designed for?

Do plane makers overdesign because designs contain assumptions or because one needs tolerance for mistakes in materials or workmanship?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Fri Mar 27, 2020 9:35 pm

Sokes wrote:
How could they do twice the flight cycles that the plane was designed for?
You simply rebuild a huge portion of the plane and do an expensive D check. Parts from retired aircraft can also be fitted to keep it going. It can get expensive and the cost benefit is usually not worth it.

The 787 allows for 66,000 cycles without this heavy maintenance. The A330 can reach that number of cycles but to reach that same point the A330 would have had to have gone through multiple expensive heavy maintenance checks. This maintenance cost would be taken into account when calculating total ownership costs. Resale value is also much less if the aircraft requires a full rebuild. If an aircraft has heaps of cycles left it will sell easy or it will be kept longer. When you divide the original purchase price over a longer service life then it reduces the cost per day or leasing costs.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:15 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Sokes wrote:
How could they do twice the flight cycles that the plane was designed for?
You simply rebuild a huge portion of the plane and do an expensive D check. Parts from retired aircraft can also be fitted to keep it going. It can get expensive and the cost benefit is usually not worth it.

The 787 allows for 66,000 cycles without this heavy maintenance. The A330 can reach that number of cycles but to reach that same point the A330 would have had to have gone through multiple expensive heavy maintenance checks. This maintenance cost would be taken into account when calculating total ownership costs. Resale value is also much less if the aircraft requires a full rebuild. If an aircraft has heaps of cycles left it will sell easy or it will be kept longer. When you divide the original purchase price over a longer service life then it reduces the cost per day or leasing costs.



Thank you and well said. My original point to this thread was to determine flight cycles for the 787 and A330 Ceo and first see if there is a significant difference (there is, the 787 has between 26,000-36,000 more cycles per links I provided above) and if that difference is a potential selling point for the 787 (unknown),


Per Airbus, the 787 has a $30,000 per month maintenance cost advantage versus the A330 (see link below). Is this in part related to cycle life? I don't know. Possibly.


https://i.ibb.co/H4tZPjW/61-D99-B58-858 ... D557-E.png


.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:19 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
[I would assume the FAA has final say but I leave that to you.


You assumption is incorrect, the FAA only regulates US registered A330s, the oldest is an ex US Airways with American that was built 20 years ago.

Your FAA link does not cover many aircraft in commercial service including the 787.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:12 am

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
[I would assume the FAA has final say but I leave that to you.


You assumption is incorrect, the FAA only regulates US registered A330s, the oldest is an ex US Airways with American that was built 20 years ago.

Your FAA link does not cover many aircraft in commercial service including the 787.



I assumed nothing. I stated The FAA has final say. Since the FAA is the US regulatory body I would think that would be obvious for the U.S. Per the FAA regs the A330 is only certified for 33,000 or 40,000 FC depending on type. Per Boeing the 787 is certified for 66,000 cycles. I am not aware if the 787 or A350 as newer aircraft have had LOV assigned by the FAA.

If you have that info by all means post. :)


Link to FAA information. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR ... 1-1115.xml
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:03 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
To be clear per Boeing the 787 LOV is 66,000 FC or 200,000 flight hours. The link is here. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... ticle2.pdf


It is great information specific for flight cycles for all Boeing aircraft. Enjoy. :)


That link you provided clearly states the opposite

“These anticipated values are based on preliminary engineering calculations and are subject to final revision before final submission to the Faa. These LOV values are substantially beyond the original design service objectives embodied in the design of the airplanes. These are anticipated values only and are subject to revision.”
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:05 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
I assumed nothing. I stated The FAA has final say.


Your previous post stated “I would assume the FAA has final say but I leave that to you”
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:10 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Per the FAA regs the A330 is only certified for 33,000 or 40,000 FC depending on type. Per Boeing the 787 is certified for 66,000 cycles. I am not aware if the 787 or A350 as newer aircraft have had LOV assigned by the FAA.

If you have that info by all means post. :)


Link to FAA information. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR ... 1-1115.xml


That FAA link also clearly states

“Limit of validity. No certificate holder may operate an airplane identified in paragraph (a) of this section after the applicable date identified in Table 1 of this section unless an Airworthiness Limitations section approved under Appendix H to part 25 or § 26.21 of this chapter is incorporated into its maintenance program.”

The A330 is maintenance steering group 3, it is not subject to D checks. You cannot read that regulation without having specific knowledge of the operators maintenance program.

This is similar to EDTO, no one can fly beyond 60 minutes in a twin unless it’s operations spec in the US permits that, and the permission varies between operators.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:26 pm

:) Have a nice day. Links to FAA regulations and Boeing data posted above.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Topic Author
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:41 am

I have done an exhaustive search for FAA limits of validity for the 787 and its does not appear to exist. Nor can I find any information for the A350. My guess is as newer models those limits have not yet been formally established for regulatory bodies such as the FAA and they go by initial guidance by the manufacturer. If anyone has that information or can find it please post.

What I can say is the A330 is only certified for 33,000-40,000 FC depending on type. I have providing a new link along with the FAA Information. Boeing's initial guidance for the 787 is 66,000 FC or 200,000 FH. I provided that link as well. This Boeing number is a significant improvement over older model wide bodies (see link). It will interesting to see when the FAA ultimately issues an LOV for the 787 if the Boeing number is the final answer.




https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.1115
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:59 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
What I can say is the A330 is only certified for 33,000-40,000 FC depending on type. I have providing a new link along with the FAA Information.


The information you have posted from the FAA is dated 2012 and it does not include the newer A330 models like -200F and -900 (DL actually operates the -900), the information the information I provided includes the newer models.

You have taken the FAA rule out of context as it clearly states "Limit of validity. No certificate holder may operate an airplane identified in paragraph (a) of this section after the applicable date identified in Table 1 of this section unless an Airworthiness Limitations section approved under Appendix H to part 25 or § 26.21 of this chapter is incorporated into its maintenance program."

from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR ... 1-1115.xml

That is why the FAA does not need to amend their 2012 rule, because each individual operator has "incorporated into its maintenance program" LOVs for the A330-900, A350, 787, 747-8 etc. Otherwise they would not be able to operate the aircraft under that rule.

ElroyJetson wrote:
Boeing's initial guidance for the 787 is 66,000 FC or 200,000 FH. I provided that link as well. This Boeing number is a significant improvement over older model wide bodies (see link). It will interesting to see when the FAA ultimately issues an LOV for the 787 if the Boeing number is the final answer.


That was not "Boeing's initial guidance" at all they were merely preliminary numbers they were sharing with customers. You are taking the numbers in the article out of context. The article purpose was for educations specifally for

"On Jan. 14, 2011, a new FAA rule (14 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 26 Subpart C) became effective requiring airplane manufacturers to make available service actions necessary to preclude the onset of WFD and to establish operational limits, known as limits of validity (LOV), of the maintenance program that effectively define an airplane’s usable life. It is important that operators become familiar with the rule so they can prepare for changes to airworthiness limitations that will limit how long an airplane may be operated in terms of flight cycles or flight hours.

This article describes Boeing’s approach to complying with the new rule and its impact on operators of Boeing airplanes throughout the world. "

from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... ticle2.pdf

The magazine was designed so that different areas of the aviation community could be educated on these rule changes, the magazine however does not replace normal published maintenance data. It is within that propriety data that they have these actual LOVs published, and they are incorporated into the operators maintenance manuals. Each airline can have different limits, and different aircraft tails within the same airline can have different limits. That is all contained within the published data as it is tail specific.

The AERO magazine is an educational tool, it was not uncommon for articles from that or Airbus FAST to be reproduced by airlines to educate different areas of the operation.

"AERO magazine is published quarterly by Boeing Commercial Airplane Group and is distributed at no cost to operators of Boeing commercial airplanes. AERO provides operators with supplemental technical information to promote continuous safety and efficiency in their daily fleet operations. The Boeing Company supports operators during the life of each Boeing commercial airplane. Support includes stationing Field Service representatives in more than 50 countries; furnishing spare parts and engineering support; training flight crews and maintenance personnel; and providing operations and maintenance publications. Boeing continuously communicates with operators through such vehicles as technical meetings, service letters, and service bulletins. This assists operators in addressing regulatory requirements and Air Transport Association specifications. Information published in AERO magazine is considered accurate and authoritative. However, no material should be considered FAA-approved unless specifically "

from https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... index.html

Boeing have stopped generating the magazine.

As I have pointed out numerous times already, that AERO notes article specially states that is not FAA approved data and is subject to revision

"These anticipated values are based on preliminary engineering calculations and are subject to final revision before final submission to the FAA. These LOV values are substantially beyond the original design service objectives embodied in the design of the airplanes. These are anticipated values only and are subject to revision. "

from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... ticle2.pdf
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1748
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Landing Cycles for an 787 Vs A330

Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:14 pm

This thread has turned into a personal issue between some users and will be locked.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Whiteguy and 27 guests

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