Boeing requests cert waivers for 787-9

[underfire]

This is a bit odd...cert without the RAT? Is the RAT different on the 9?

SEATTLE – Boeing appears confident it will deliver the first 787-9 to Air New Zealand on schedule at the end of June despite having to make a last-minute request to the FAA to approve the aircraft with exemptions for two components that currently do not meet airworthiness regulations.

The appeal, lodged with the FAA on June 4, requests exemptions for the ram air turbine (RAT) and an altitude selector knob on the mode control panel (MCP). Boeing says a capacitor in the RAT is being redesigned to improve reliability and does not currently meet airworthiness standards, having failed during a non-certification-related flight test. But the redesign is not expected to be available for retrofit until February 2015, several months after the 787-9 is due to enter service.

A year to redesign a knob??

The concern over the altitude selector knob follows the discovery that the unit lacks sufficient torque resistance and, when pushed, can be accidentally over-rotated by up to two detents. This means that when this is used in vertical navigation mode, the crew could push it and introduce an error, accidentally flying above or below their assigned altitude. A redesigned MCP is in development but will not be available until May 2015. Boeing has also issued an advisory to the crews of the current 787-8 fleet which is configured with the same MCP.

[aterpster]

underfire:

The appeal, lodged with the FAA on June 4, requests exemptions for the ram air turbine (RAT) and an altitude selector knob on the mode control panel (MCP). Boeing says a capacitor in the RAT is being redesigned to improve reliability and does not currently meet airworthiness standards, having failed during a non-certification-related flight test. But the redesign is not expected to be available for retrofit until February 2015, several months after the 787-9 is due to enter service.

Yet another reason not to take a ride on that cludge.

[underfire]

All electric aircraft without a RAT....cant see any issues there....

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Well its looks like they got the waivers, as the B787-9 has secured type certification for 787-9 from both the FAA and EASA. :ugh:

[tdracer]

A year to redesign a knob??

Two weeks to redesign, fifty weeks to get it certified and into production.:=

And if you think I'm exaggerating, for a simple electronic filter to be added to an existing LRU, I just spent over 3 months just getting the cert plan reviewed and approved by the FAA.

[DaveReidUK]

the B787-9 has secured type certification for 787-9 from both the FAA and EASA.

Complete with 330 minute ETOPS approval.

[Skyjob]

Maybe the exclusion of the RAT in certification has implications on the use of other systems on board.

As an example, the 737 can be ETOPS-180 as a BBJ provided the APU is started and available before entering the ETOPS sector as it does not have a RAT.

[belowMDA]

From what I've heard around the office, both these issues are prevalent on the-8 as well. Obviously that's already certified so covered by ADs I guess.

Skyjob I'm guessing the assumption is that the RAT will work just fine and despatch accordingly. The only time I believe it has been an issue is after previous use. However when you need the RAT, you NEED the RAT

[underfire]

However when you need the RAT, you NEED the RAT

Exactly. They didnt put the RAT on the ac for the hell of it.

I have a suspicion that when they say a year to fix a knob or a RAT, that it simply means that units built to date, will be covered under the exception, and that units after that date, will be compliant.

Does anyone think that they will actually go and replace the knob of all of the 87-8's? Will they replace all of the existing RAT's??

Its all :mad:. just like the batteries.

That ac is a disaster, and it flies like :mad:...

[cockney steve]

This is a blatant admission that the Airworthiness rules are over-restrictive and not fit for purpose,- to put it another way, an abuse of regulatory powers to keep themselves in a job.........Why do I say this?
IF THE AIRCRAFT IS SAFE ENOUGH WITH A WAIVER, IT'S SAFE ENOUGH!
The original requirement is obviously superfluous.......
OTOH, the regulators may be bowing to pressure from elsewhere....An indefensible course of action....their duty is to ensure the highest standard of safety for Pax and Crew.either it's dereliction of duty and reckless endangerment of users, or it's incompetent regulation, the deficiency of which is being mitigated by the waiver.

Hoist by their own petard.

[Skyjob]

However when you need the RAT, you NEED the RAT

And when the aircraft does not have a RAT, like the 737NG (aka BBJ), the APU must be providing the third source of electrics to ensure compliance.

The BBJ APU can be started up to FL410, once started will run tirelessly at very little fuel flow and is able to provide a third source of AC Electrics to the aircraft as requirements for ETOPS dictate.

Not all aircraft have a RAT...
There are alternative methods...

[flydive1]

Some have both;)

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Anyway, B787-9 operators have until the end of August 2015 to replace the affected RAT with the modified RAT and November 2015 for the Knob.
The requirement only covers the 787-9 and not the B787-8.

[tdracer]

To elaborate a bit, since the -9 wasn't already certified, Boeing got what we call a 'time limited exemption'. Any aircraft that isn't retrofit by the time the exemption expires is effectively no longer certified.


Because the 787-8 is already certified, the FAA needs to issue an AD to enforce a retrofit. Unless the FAA can justify making it an emergency AD, public comment is required before they can issue the AD. I presume the FAA is currently doing the paperwork to initiate an AD against the -8, with a similar compliance time as the -9.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

I forgot to mention that the FAA have given Boeing until 31st December 2014 to produce a fix for the RAT, to there satisfaction.
The time limited exemption runs out the end of Feb 2015.