Originally Posted by
Less Hair
No it's not just paperwork. It would open a can of worms to finally put in EICAS. This is why they avoided it through all those years.
Yep, see my note:
Originally Posted by
WideScreen
Note: During design, a lot of extra effort is spent, preparing for the certification, so the exact cost allocation is somewhat diffuse.
It's not a matter of "some extra sensors" and "some extra wires", all this extra stuff does interact with the current systems, which all need to be (re-)certified. A lot of paperwork, and probably requiring a lot of extra "testing". And before you can dive into the paperwork creation, you'll need to work out all the tech (and GUI things), IE preparation of the certification. Because this whole needs to be (re-)certified, you can just tag-on some goodies, etc. I think, we agree on this.
Originally Posted by
safetypee
Design, engineer, certification, all cost in their own way … and in this instance, the cost of non commonality.
The "making" itself is roughly linear with the amount of items, of course, only for this MAX-10, so little synergy with other aircraft.
Originally Posted by
safetypee
Although the flight deck displays appear spacious, its what goes on behind the scenes could be a problem, particularly the warning philosophy - integrated; new centralised warning display combining the critical alerts and logic (in this instance), or a distributed concept where alerts are still associated with the relevant system (existing aircraft ?).
The moment you start messing with this stuff, you have to re-certify the individual components and the whole. $$$$$$
Originally Posted by
safetypee
For the Max, previous balances might have been finely judged, but the 737 was ageing, Airbus had some surprises; and then there was the surprise of the extent of MCAS late in the testing. No dedicated MCAS alert, ‘failure’ had to be deduced, etc, … FAA will approve … etc …
Yep, when you start moving around things, things change, with the chance of late discovered items, etc. So, yeah, I really feel (technically) sorry for Boeing, they are in this position, but, hey, this is what they shareholders and major US airlines aimed for.
Originally Posted by
safetypee
Given this, it is more than likely that Boeing’s design was significantly influenced by operators; they wanted “faster, better, cheaper”, which aligned with Boeing's requirement's, but then with hindsight how often is it concluded that this ideal is impossible, time and time again. We don't learn, or those that have, retire.
Yeah, there was already a huge order for the MAX (AA IIRC), even before a NG successor was announced (let alone Boeing had decided to design such a successor), go figure, so the US airlines do really bear part of the MAX disaster blame.