Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

How Boeing lost their way

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

How Boeing lost their way

Old 29th Nov 2019, 23:49
  #101 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 8,949
I have just listened to a very interesting podcast on the BBC World Service - about CEO Stock Options. Only lasts 10 minutes but covers the 1990s and, I suggest, highly relevant to the discussion of changes in Boeing corporate mgmt.
In theory, stock options should motivate executives to perform better - but in practice, they haven't always had that effect. Why?

50 Things That Made The Modern Economy by Tim Harford of The Financial Times.
PAXboy is online now  
Old 30th Nov 2019, 10:07
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Beyond the M25
Posts: 2
Surely the ETOPS saga is a Government Organisation favouring its national industry, rather than regulatory capture. It could be argued that the remit of the FAA encourages this type of behaviour. There are other examples of regulation used to favour US manufacturers such as the ITAR and EAR for military contracts.
Chewing the crud is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2019, 02:48
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by SLF3 View Post
Look at "ETOPS 180 at introduction" in the link below. I'm not arguing that ETOPS was a mistake. Simply that the FAA bent the rules for commercial reasons to support the 777.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
The FAA issued special conditions to allow and set requirements for early ETOPS type design approval. Special conditions are a legitimate tool provided for in the US part 21 certification process regulations. I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that the 777 wasn't ready for ETOPS at the time it was approved, and it turned out to be one of the safest airplanes ever built. Boeing followed the special conditions for the 777 program very diligently.
Dave Therhino is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2019, 03:13
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 38
Just part of the real ETOPS story




Dave Hegy, manager, FAA Certification Management Office, also took this opportunity to announce that United Airlines has successfully complied with the requirements of their ETOPS plan and has demonstrated the ability to operate and maintain the 777 in a manner consistent with that required for 180-minute ETOPS operations.

"FAA approval for 180-minute ETOPS at service entry is one of the final milestones for the Boeing 777/Pratt & Whitney flight-test program," said Ron Woodard, president of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. "This approval signifies that the 777 not only has completed the 1,000-cycle validation program, but that it has finished one of the most thorough laboratory, ground and flight testing efforts in aviation history. The 777 is truly service-ready."

To further ensure that the 777 is service-ready, the later part of the 1,000-cycle validation program consisted of 90 cycles -- totaling about 400 hours -- that were flown in conjunction with United Airlines ground and flight personnel. This also helped prepare United Airlines for ETOPS operations. During flight testing, the 777 performed eight 180-minute single-engine diversions for a total of 24 hours -- that's equivalent to the diversion hours accumulated during the initial five years of 767 ETOPS operations.

Woodard attributes much of the 777's success to the "working together" concept that involved the entire industry in design, development and testing, not only of the 777, but also the products used to support operation of the airplane.

"I believe that during the next half century the 777 will prove itself unparalleled in areas of operational economics and passenger comfort," he said.

"Acceptance by the FAA is extremely gratifying," said Dale Hougardy, Boeing 777 Division vice president and general manager. "In conjunction with regulatory scrutiny, customer and supplier involvement, design enhancement based on past experience, and extensive testing have helped to make this the preferred airplane in its class. Its economy and flexibility will benefit the airlines and the flying public."

"Making this an even more auspicious occasion," Hougardy added, "is the fact that this month marks the 10-year anniversary of ETOPS. Boeing aircraft -- 737, 757, 767 -- now traverse every continent and ocean of the world performing ETOPS flights."

"The impressive safety record established by twin-engine jets over the past decade has set the stage for the 777," Hougardy said. "Over the past 10 years, Boeing and engine manufacturers have gained valuable in-service experience from the 737, 757 and 767 twin-engine aircraft flying ETOPS routes. Currently, airlines fly more than 10,000 ETOPS flights each month on Boeing aircraft."

Hougardy cited the 777 as the first twinjet designed from the beginning to perform ETOPS flights. The No. 4 777 has undergone the equivalent of at least a year's worth of daily airline passenger service, to ensure the airplanes' reliability to fly all intended missions. As of May 22, the 777 test fleet has accumulated a combined total of 1,950 flights and 3,664 hours of flight time.

"With this portion of the flight-test program now complete, we look forward to seeing the 777 enter revenue service next month with United Airlines," Hougardy said.
and another part

The Boeing [NYSE: BA] 777-300ER airplane completed the longest engine-out demonstration flight ever in support of Extended Operations (ETOPS) certification, when it flew more than five hours with one of its two engines shut down.

During the approximately 13-hour Seattle to Taipei, Taiwan test flight, the airplane's crew shut off one of the two General Electric GE90-115B engines and flew the plane for 330 minutes on the other engine.

"The flight went flawlessly. We were very pleased with the way the aircraft and the GE90-115B engine performed," said Frank Santoni, Boeing 777-300ER (Extended Range) chief pilot.

ETOPS is a conservative, evolutionary program that allows airlines to fly twin-engine jetliners on routes that at some point take those planes more than 60 minutes flying time from the nearest airport.

The 777-300ER is the newest Boeing 777. Two are currently undergoing 1,500 hours of flight testing, and both have met or exceeded expectations as the program approaches its ninth month of testing. So far, crews have evaluated takeoff, landing, handling characteristics, fuel consumption, and now ETOPS.

There will be additional 330-minute ETOPS tests in various locations in the months ahead. In total, the airplanes will record approximately 220 hours of ETOPS flying. That will involve additional engine shutdowns for 330-minutes, various system checks and simulated malfunctions to ensure the systems are working in the long-range environment.

ETOPS certification by U.S. and European regulatory authorities is slated for early next year. The first 777-300ER will be delivered in April 2004 to International Lease Finance Corp.'s customer, Air France.

"Everything we've done so far is putting us in position for the ETOPS certification series of flights and final approval by the FAA," said Lars Andersen, program manager for the 777-300ER.
and in 1993 seattle times . .
Fact: The concern is that a twin loses thrust in one engine and, before it can make a safe landing, something else goes wrong with the second engine. It has never happened. In the entire history of twin-engine commercial jetliners, there has not been a single accident resulting from the shutdown of one engine and the subsequent loss of the other. Not one. The record of the Boeing 767 is illustrative: After more than 312,000 flights, only 15 planes have experienced an engine shutdown during the ETOPS portion of a flight. All diverted, turned back or continued - safely, as a result of rigorous ETOPS safety requirements.

The 777 needs to be proven safe for ETOPS on thousands of shorter flights first, but Boeing wants to use just a checklist of precautions.

Fact: When the first 777 takes flight next June, it will begin the most extensive flight-test program ever for any commercial jetliner. Three 777s will each fly 1,000 flights - the equivalent of a full year of airline service. Those 3,000 flights will simulate day-to-day airline operations and maintenance, and 270 flights will be flown by line crews of three of the world's leading airlines.

All new airplanes are plagued with glitches that need to be worked out in passenger service before allowing ETOPS.

Fact: Boeing's philosophy is, and always has been, to resolve safety concerns before passengers board any new airplane, including the 777. Guided by the experience we've gained from other jets, Boeing will use advanced technology to conduct more than 70 new tests for the 777's engines and more than 140 for its systems to prove the airplane's safety and reliability. The new lab we've built for this testing is literally a test plane that "flies" even as the first 777 is being built. With this unprecedented testing, most potential problems can be found and fixed before flight testing and well before passengers fly on the 777.

The FAA is about to grant Boeing's request for 180-minute ETOPS for the 777 at service entry; European authorities, in a setback for the 777, granted a more conservative 120 minutes.

++=

for example

September 2, 1996

FARNBOROUGH - The GE90-powered Boeing 777 completed all 180-minute ETOPS (Extended Twin OPerationS) Type Design requirements in August after flying a demanding Early ETOPS 1,000-cycle flight test program.

During the flight test program, the GE90 performed flawlessly. One of the engines, #900109, which flew the entire 1,000-cycle test program in an unbalanced state to prove its strength and endurance, was on display at GE's Farnborough Exhibit.

In September, the highest-thrust engine ever certified by the FAA, the 92,000 pound (409 kN) thrust GE90-92B, will begin flight testing on a Boeing 777. This will be followed by flight testing in October on the Boeing 777-200 IGW (Increased Gross Weight) aircraft. The -92B will also be the first engine to enter service on the 777-200 IGW when the aircraft is delivered to launch customer British Airways early next year. The engine will enter service derated to 90,000 pounds (400 kN) thrust.

Since its initial delivery in late 1995, the 85,000 pound (378 kN) thrust GE90-85B has achieved an outstanding in-service record. The engine, in service on four British Airways and two China Southern 777 aircraft, has logged more than 21,000 flight hours while maintaining a 99.95 percent dispatch reliability rate. The engine is also demonstrating excellent performance retention, resulting in longer on-wing life and lower maintenance costs to airline customers.

The GE90 is produced by GE Aircraft Engines and its revenue-sharing participants Snecma of France, IHI of Japan, and FiatAvio of Italy.


Last edited by Grebe; 1st Dec 2019 at 03:29. Reason: added info
Grebe is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2019, 09:25
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 321
I think you continue to make my case for me. ‘Special conditions’ is by definition an exception or modification of the rules. The net effect of the special condition was a significant commercial advantage for Boeing.

The fact Boeing complied with the special condition diligently and that ETOPS was a success is irrelevant.

The fact that the FAA rewrote the rules for Boeing’s benefit is.
SLF3 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 06:48
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 127
You seem to be arguing that the FAA did something improper with the 777 early ETOPS special conditions. The provision in the US type certification procedural regulations (14 CFR 21.16) to deal with innovative products through special requirements can be traced back at least as far as CAM 04 in 1938. The FAA and its predecessor agencies in the US have responded to innovation with special conditions numerous times as called for by the governing statutes, regulations, and policy. Your preference may be for innovative products (or innovative use of existing products) to be held back until general rulemaking can be done, but that is not the way the US aviation regulations are set up.
Dave Therhino is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 08:39
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 321
I think it was agreed to by the FAA under pressure from Boeing for commercial reasons. That was a commonly held view at the time. EASA certainly thought so, since they did not accept the special condition and insisted Boeing complied with the FAA rules as written.

Reprinting Boeing marketing material isn’t going to change that. Arguing the rules were followed doesnt doesn’t change it either. Boeing are arguing they followed the rules for MCAS too: that may be true, and maybe a defence in court: it doesn’t mean the FAA should have allowed it.

SLF3 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 15:29
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 38
I think it was agreed to by the FAA under pressure from Boeing for commercial reasons. That was a commonly held view at the time. EASA certainly thought so, since they did not accept the special condition and insisted Boeing complied with the FAA rules as written.
Of course EASA was pure and holy and had no commercial reason in mind as in protecting Airbus ?

Despite over a few decades of 767 flights under ETOPS-180.

Thanks for your unbiased opinion..

Last edited by Grebe; 2nd Dec 2019 at 16:05. Reason: minor corrections
Grebe is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 16:53
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 321
767, a few decades of ETOPS 180 service.
Performance standard 1 IFSD in 50,000 flights.
777, a new design with new and bigger engines approved for ETOPS 180 based on 1,000 flights prior to entry into commercial service, based on 'special conditions'
I have no relationship with either Boeing or Airbus (other than as SLF). You have 30 years with Boeing. So who is more likely to be biased?
EASA likely have some dirty washing (EC225?) in their laundry basket, but right now they have rather more credibility than the FAA.
SLF3 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 17:34
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Grebe View Post
In the entire history of twin-engine commercial jetliners, there has not been a single accident resulting from the shutdown of one engine and the subsequent loss of the other. Not one.
Hmmm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster
"
a Boeing 737-400, crashed ... when a fan-blade broke in the left engine ... The crew mistakenly shut down the functioning engine ... Of the 126 people aboard, 47 died and 74 sustained serious injuries."

Seems quite lost to me.
jimjim1 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 17:45
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by jimjim1 View Post
Hmmm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster
"
a Boeing 737-400, crashed ... when a fan-blade broke in the left engine ... The crew mistakenly shut down the functioning engine ... Of the 126 people aboard, 47 died and 74 sustained serious injuries."

Seems quite lost to me.
That's not the same thing is it? Only one engine had a problem, they shut down a serviceable engine.
possel is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 19:35
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,457
It wasn't EASA - EASA didn't exist in 1995 when the 777 was certified. It was the JAA. EASA came along later using the JAA as their blueprint.
Agree possel - crashing because you shut down a perfectly good engine isn't exactly an indictment of ETOPS. Furthermore they were only minutes from an airport when the failed engine failed.
tdracer is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2019, 01:39
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: in the shadows
Age: 44
Posts: 36
But it fits precisely to the wording "shut down of one engine and subsequent loss of the other" ... (replies like these remind one to always be careful how you phrase something, people might always take you by the word ...)
anotheruser is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2019, 10:58
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
Originally Posted by anotheruser View Post
But it fits precisely to the wording "shut down of one engine and subsequent loss of the other" ... (replies like these remind one to always be careful how you phrase something, people might always take you by the word ...)
It doesn't fit it at all. If you include mishandling then no aircraft would be allowed off the ground. Are you arguing that fixed undercarriages are required because otherwise wheels up landings are possible?
You obviously have a personal axe to grind. But note that Airbus has taken advantage of the same rules for ETOPS - or perhaps I missed the thousands of hours of operations of the A-350 with new engines before ETOPS was allowed....
Ian W is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2019, 13:56
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 127
You can argue with whether it meets a semantic definition, but engine failure plus crew error is a serious threat on any conventional transport, and arguably even more so on twins. Industry and the regulators agree about this. That scenario is really a single failure (the first engine failure), with a cascading effect of crew error that has some conditional probability of occurrence. That conditional probability is debated a lot in risk assessment discussions.
Dave Therhino is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2019, 00:45
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,917
crashing because you shut down a perfectly good engine isn't exactly an indictment of ETOPS
Exactly, Delta had a crew shut down both serviceable 767 engines at 1,200 - 1,600 feet shortly after take off, restarted OK after getting as low as 500 feet. Had happened previously as well on the 767.
megan is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.