Door blows out during ground test on Boeing 777X jet
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra
So, the prototype doesn’t meet the certification criteria. So why not let the certification criteria meet the prototype
?
?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ian W
It is surprisingly similar to the A-380 wing structure test "The wing of the Airbus A380 static test specimen suffered a structural failure below the ultimate load target during trials in Toulouse earlier this week, but Airbus is confident that it will not need to modify production aircraft." The aircraft was still certified by EASA without repeating the test and you are all happy to fly (on) A-380s.
Now, what is all the secrecy and fuss about a cargo door?
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ian W
It is surprisingly similar to the A-380 wing structure test "The wing of the Airbus A380 static test specimen suffered a structural failure below the ultimate load target during trials in Toulouse earlier this week, but Airbus is confident that it will not need to modify production aircraft." The aircraft was still certified by EASA without repeating the test and you are all happy to fly (on) A-380s.
To be fair, one must quote the entire paragraph :
However Garcia says that the failure of the wing below the 1.5 target will require “essentially no modifications” to production aircraft: “This static test airframe has the first set of wings built, and we have refined the structural design for subsequent aircraft due to increased weights etc. We will use this calibration of the FEM to prove the adequacy of the structure on production aircraft.”
Nobody will reproach a failed test to Boeing, except maybe this was to be a demonstration that the previous tests had succeeded.
Also it comes at an unfortunate time, with many other quality/engineering issues cropping up.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally it's a passenger door that blew open, and the fuselage is a write-off...
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...r-stress-test/
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...r-stress-test/
To be honest I am surprised this is any worry.
My understanding is that the certification is being subcontracted to Boeing themselves in this day and age (why would the FAA do they their job in the first place? Such an outdated concept) so it should be relatively simple to make this a flying success (pun intended).
My understanding is that the certification is being subcontracted to Boeing themselves in this day and age (why would the FAA do they their job in the first place? Such an outdated concept) so it should be relatively simple to make this a flying success (pun intended).
Originally Posted by Less Hair
Didn't they want to run it on higher cabin pressure like the 787?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 55
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last week FAA declared testing on the 777X would be tougher.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/352087...n-dickson-says
Too late apparently
https://www.theepochtimes.com/foreig...s_3159634.html
Take into consideration there are no US based 777X customers. There's no way Boeing can again try to get around EASA and other foreign authorities.
Boeing, US congress and FAA can no longer, shoulder to shoulder, work the system. They created this situation themselves, by half-informing, bending & pushing.
They may have been legally be right, pushing congress around for new rulings, streamlining FAA, allow FAA to make exemptions, self regulation.
But they lost trust. & credibility Translate that in free cash flow..
https://seekingalpha.com/news/352087...n-dickson-says
Too late apparently
https://www.theepochtimes.com/foreig...s_3159634.html
Take into consideration there are no US based 777X customers. There's no way Boeing can again try to get around EASA and other foreign authorities.
Boeing, US congress and FAA can no longer, shoulder to shoulder, work the system. They created this situation themselves, by half-informing, bending & pushing.
They may have been legally be right, pushing congress around for new rulings, streamlining FAA, allow FAA to make exemptions, self regulation.
But they lost trust. & credibility Translate that in free cash flow..
Last edited by keesje; 28th Nov 2019 at 14:49.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that this was not a fit-for-flight test article that failed and only a test used for extrapolation of some proposed features. Surely the final aircraft configuration will meet all the published requirements.applicable to growth airframes validated by many hours of safe-flight experience.
Before condemning the FAA. and Boeing perhaps the posters could cite specific exceptions to a rule that applies in this case.
Before condemning the FAA. and Boeing perhaps the posters could cite specific exceptions to a rule that applies in this case.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are now the conspiracy theories floating around, that BA increased the pressure to prevent the hull from buckling during the test.
Looking at the failure, that was quite the explosion?
Looking at the failure, that was quite the explosion?
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that this was not a fit-for-flight test article that failed and only a test used for extrapolation of some proposed features. Surely the final aircraft configuration will meet all the published requirements.applicable to growth airframes validated by many hours of safe-flight experience.
Before condemning the FAA. and Boeing perhaps the posters could cite specific exceptions to a rule that applies in this case.
Before condemning the FAA. and Boeing perhaps the posters could cite specific exceptions to a rule that applies in this case.
Slowly bringing the ac up to 1.5 loading really doesnt provide a real test of conditions.
I think there is quite a bit of value in repetitive testing to the typical loading, many issues found in the field may have been avoided. having driven through quite a bit of turbulence, I always wonder about the stresses on the airframe.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
My understanding is that this was not a fit-for-flight test article that failed and only a test used for extrapolation of some proposed features. Surely the final aircraft configuration will meet all the published requirements.applicable to growth airframes validated by many hours of safe-flight experience.
Before condemning the FAA. and Boeing perhaps the posters could cite specific exceptions to a rule that applies in this case.
Before condemning the FAA. and Boeing perhaps the posters could cite specific exceptions to a rule that applies in this case.
Geeze- a simple check and knowledge re structural ( static ) test or even videos of 777 test in the mid 90's would make it obvious that the test to 1.5 times design or ' ultimate ' wouild reveal that the article under test was NOT designated or assembled for eventual flight. Airbus does different - but Boeing has never used the structural test article for flight. Usually the structural test article is amoung the first three airframes built. One for structural, one for fatigue test, and one for flight. For example, the first 767 built was for flight test and later sold to United. The second was for static test, the third for fatigue test. By the time of static test, about a half dozen 767 were already in various stages of assembly.
Originally Posted by turbidus
Aside from the conspiracy theories, the test is a single event test, not a repetitive or cyclical test.
Slowly bringing the ac up to 1.5 loading really doesnt provide a real test of conditions.
I think there is quite a bit of value in repetitive testing to the typical loading, many issues found in the field may have been avoided. having driven through quite a bit of turbulence, I always wonder about the stresses on the airframe.
Slowly bringing the ac up to 1.5 loading really doesnt provide a real test of conditions.
I think there is quite a bit of value in repetitive testing to the typical loading, many issues found in the field may have been avoided. having driven through quite a bit of turbulence, I always wonder about the stresses on the airframe.
BTW, for all the Boeing bashing going on, I notice this little tidbit apparently escaped notice:
At the same time, the fuselage was bent downward at the extreme front and aft ends with millions of pounds of force. And the interior of the plane was pressurized beyond normal levels to about 10 pounds per square inch — not typically a requirement for this test, but something Boeing chose to do.
Oh, and for all the bitching about 'self certification' - there were six FAA people observing the test when the failure occurred.
Oh Grebe, the first 767 - VA001 - was not sold to United. It was initially kept by Boeing for use as a flying test bed, before being modified to the AOA (Airborne Optical Adjunct) test aircraft as part of Reagan's 'Star Wars' initiative.
Last edited by tdracer; 28th Nov 2019 at 21:00.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
Oh, and for all the bitching about 'self certification' - there were six FAA people observing the test when the failure occurred.
Originally Posted by tdracer
BTW, for all the Boeing bashing going on, I notice this little tidbit apparently escaped notice:
In other words, Boeing had previously done the 1.5x pressurization test - and passed. Then, although it's not a regulatory requirement, they again pressurized the fuselage to 1.5x when they did the wing ultimate load test - when it failed at 99% of target.
In other words, Boeing had previously done the 1.5x pressurization test - and passed. Then, although it's not a regulatory requirement, they again pressurized the fuselage to 1.5x when they did the wing ultimate load test - when it failed at 99% of target.
Door blows off Boeing 777X during stress test
"A door blew off a Boeing 777X as the new plane was undergoing what was supposed to be its final structural inspection by federal regulators.
The test is meant to push the plane beyond its limits. Engineers had the plane pressurized and on the ground. They loaded it up well beyond capacity and bent its wings in an extreme manner, in a way almost certain to never happen in the real world."
Though the combined test was subsequently denied by another poster
Originally Posted by Smythe
Point of clarification here.
The wings were NOT being tested at the SAME TIME as the cabin pressure test.
They were simply doing the cabin pressure test while it was on the stand. (which was prudent, given the results)
The wings were NOT being tested at the SAME TIME as the cabin pressure test.
They were simply doing the cabin pressure test while it was on the stand. (which was prudent, given the results)
Originally Posted by medod
I wonder why Boeing bothered doing a non-FAA test then. And why FAA staff were there. Shits and giggles?
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
OK, but that doesn't actually say anything, at all, about the reality of delegated certification authority, which is an undeniable, inarguable reality -- whatever you think of it.
The level of ignorance of certification requirements, testing, and procedures exhibited by some of the critics on this forum is rather disturbing.
