A380 "Too Big" Say Two Airline Execs
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tain't necessarily so. At least not in Canada.
To: 747FOCAL
I worked on the certification of the Canadair CL 604 and Bombardier tried to grandfather it for certification on the basis of three previous designs. The 604 was a more advanced design and the Canadian certification authorities refused Bombardier and made them completely redo all of the certification documents including the reliability assessment, the FMECA and the safety hazards analyses.
I also worked on the A-310 and the A-320 and in order to gain Canadian certification the FMECAs and the safety hazards analyses had to go to the smallest part in a component. I may be wrong and quite often I am but I would assume that the Canadians would require that certification not be granted on the basis of similar design and that Boeing would have to redo the documents for the previous designs.
.
Not to be evasive, but if you read the FARs, aircraft that share the same Type Certificate, do not have to meat the latest ammendments in some cases. The rules were designed that way to help the manufacturers save money as well as the FAA on bookkeeping.
I also worked on the A-310 and the A-320 and in order to gain Canadian certification the FMECAs and the safety hazards analyses had to go to the smallest part in a component. I may be wrong and quite often I am but I would assume that the Canadians would require that certification not be granted on the basis of similar design and that Boeing would have to redo the documents for the previous designs.
.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu Zuckerman,
I agree with you. If you look at the stack of paperwork that is sent in to the authority for a new TC vs and old one I am pretty sure your going to see a large differece.
I agree with you. If you look at the stack of paperwork that is sent in to the authority for a new TC vs and old one I am pretty sure your going to see a large differece.
Bear Behind
I believe it is not beyond the whit of man to get this thing certificated. If it needs another door or 2, then it shall have them. Airbus will do, I'm sure, whatever work is necessary to make the A380 pass - both in the U.S. and Europe (they already did with the A346 - a redesign was worked out).
So here's the really scarey part - if the TC is permitted to be the same by the FAA, then no retesting to the latest standards. So a 737-800 with winglets (circa 1999 or so) is certificated to the same standard as a 737-100 (circa 1965 or so). Now that worries me just a tad given what we've learned in the interim. I do believe that the much lauded "new wing" of the 737NG hasn't been fatigue tested to today's standards even though it is a "new design" (Inside quote marks are what Boeing are claiming - new wing and new design). That leads me to believe either:
1) it ain't new
or
2) it ain't up to the latest standards
Hmmm.
So here's the really scarey part - if the TC is permitted to be the same by the FAA, then no retesting to the latest standards. So a 737-800 with winglets (circa 1999 or so) is certificated to the same standard as a 737-100 (circa 1965 or so). Now that worries me just a tad given what we've learned in the interim. I do believe that the much lauded "new wing" of the 737NG hasn't been fatigue tested to today's standards even though it is a "new design" (Inside quote marks are what Boeing are claiming - new wing and new design). That leads me to believe either:
1) it ain't new
or
2) it ain't up to the latest standards
Hmmm.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Newcastle, WA, USA
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
panda-k-bear
I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts about the 737-800.
1) The wing is new.
2) It was certified to the Type Certificate standards in effect at the date of its TC application, which had to be no more than five years earlier than 1997, the date of its initial certification.
Those are the basic rules in effect. Almost no "grandfathering" is allowed in today's certification world.
If you make a significant change, it has to meet current standards.
Most Airbus and Boeing airplanes today are FAA/JAA/EASA certified on virtually the same day as this saves work down stream.
The only recent exception I know of to this generalization is the A340-500. The FAA required additional leak protection to the cargo hold fuel tank to protect against gear failure events and the FAA certification was delayed.
I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts about the 737-800.
1) The wing is new.
2) It was certified to the Type Certificate standards in effect at the date of its TC application, which had to be no more than five years earlier than 1997, the date of its initial certification.
Those are the basic rules in effect. Almost no "grandfathering" is allowed in today's certification world.
If you make a significant change, it has to meet current standards.
Most Airbus and Boeing airplanes today are FAA/JAA/EASA certified on virtually the same day as this saves work down stream.
The only recent exception I know of to this generalization is the A340-500. The FAA required additional leak protection to the cargo hold fuel tank to protect against gear failure events and the FAA certification was delayed.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the midst of all this USA versus Europe banter its worth noting that the A380 escape system is being designed, rig tested and eventually manufactured by Goodrich at their Phoenix facility.
Having studied 'O' level geography, I have good reason to suspect that the Phoenix facility is located in America.
Having studied 'O' level geography, I have good reason to suspect that the Phoenix facility is located in America.
Bear Behind
Now I'm confused. Within 5 years of what? The NG certainly didn't go through a full certification procedure, did it? In the same way that a -600 didn't have a certification distinct from a -800 (or an A318 from an A320 even though they are the best part of 15 years apart).
What you're explaining is that the NG must have had a full certification done on it because it was more than 5 years from the certification of a previous model of 737? So it had a full evac. test, and all of the structure was therefore fatigue tested? Fuselage and wing included?
It boils down to this - was the wing fatigue tested or not? If yes, super. If not, why not, as it is a "new" wing?! (thanks for your patience - sorry about thread creep...)
What you're explaining is that the NG must have had a full certification done on it because it was more than 5 years from the certification of a previous model of 737? So it had a full evac. test, and all of the structure was therefore fatigue tested? Fuselage and wing included?
It boils down to this - was the wing fatigue tested or not? If yes, super. If not, why not, as it is a "new" wing?! (thanks for your patience - sorry about thread creep...)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Newcastle, WA, USA
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
panda-k-bear
Let me provide a bit more detail about my reply to your statements regarding the "newness" of the 737NG wing.
1) "The wing isn't new" panda-k-bear
My reply is based on the published 737NG characteristics vs those of the 737 Classic. These include:
Increased span
Double slotted trailing edge flaps vs triple slotted
Increase in cruise Mach number of .05.
From an airplane performance standpoint, these features, particularly the cruise speed change support the claim that the wing is "new".
2) "The wing doesn't meet the latest standards" panda-k-bear
Your concern on this item appears to stem from questions about the fatique testing that was performed. I can't help you there as the certification compliance data Boeing had to submit to the FAA and JAA is not in the public record. This is normal as it will include intellectual property that all airplane manufacturers consider confidential.
What I can do is describe the process that insures that whatever data was submitted met the standards in effect during the mid '90s when the 737NG was certified.
When an airplane manufacturer begins the certification process of a new airplane or a major derivative, an application for a new Type Certificate or an Amended Type Certificate is submitted to the FAA/JAA. In doing this, the manufacturer commits to meeting the certification standards in effect at that time. At the same time it also frees the manufacturer from the need to comply with new certification standards that may be enacted over the next five years. This assurance is necessary since it's difficult to design an airplane if the requirements are constantly changing.
The types of changes described above in 737NG wing "newness" question would have required a step up to the regulations in effect in the 1992 or so time period since the 737NG certification date was 1997.
As to your specific question about fatigue testing, let's look at the relevant regualtion, FAR/JAR 25.571. This regulation states:
(a)(1)(iii) An analysis, supported by test evidence, of the principal structural elements and detail desigh points identified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section
(a)(2) The service history of airplanes of similar design, taking due account of differences in operating conditions and procedures, may be used in the evaluations required by this section.
Based on these words, it's entirely possible that little, if any, new fatique testing as required if the structural arrangement on the 737NG as sufficently close to the 737Classic. However, the application of these data would have had to meet the mid-90's structural standards.
If you have the concern that the FAA could have been offering Boeing a "sweetheart" interpretation, remember the JAA also certified the 737NG and they would have had no incentive to do so. From my own 25 years of airplane certification experience, I've seen no mercy from the FAA.
Hope this answers your concerns. Any other discussion should take place another thread
Let me provide a bit more detail about my reply to your statements regarding the "newness" of the 737NG wing.
1) "The wing isn't new" panda-k-bear
My reply is based on the published 737NG characteristics vs those of the 737 Classic. These include:
Increased span
Double slotted trailing edge flaps vs triple slotted
Increase in cruise Mach number of .05.
From an airplane performance standpoint, these features, particularly the cruise speed change support the claim that the wing is "new".
2) "The wing doesn't meet the latest standards" panda-k-bear
Your concern on this item appears to stem from questions about the fatique testing that was performed. I can't help you there as the certification compliance data Boeing had to submit to the FAA and JAA is not in the public record. This is normal as it will include intellectual property that all airplane manufacturers consider confidential.
What I can do is describe the process that insures that whatever data was submitted met the standards in effect during the mid '90s when the 737NG was certified.
When an airplane manufacturer begins the certification process of a new airplane or a major derivative, an application for a new Type Certificate or an Amended Type Certificate is submitted to the FAA/JAA. In doing this, the manufacturer commits to meeting the certification standards in effect at that time. At the same time it also frees the manufacturer from the need to comply with new certification standards that may be enacted over the next five years. This assurance is necessary since it's difficult to design an airplane if the requirements are constantly changing.
The types of changes described above in 737NG wing "newness" question would have required a step up to the regulations in effect in the 1992 or so time period since the 737NG certification date was 1997.
As to your specific question about fatigue testing, let's look at the relevant regualtion, FAR/JAR 25.571. This regulation states:
(a)(1)(iii) An analysis, supported by test evidence, of the principal structural elements and detail desigh points identified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section
(a)(2) The service history of airplanes of similar design, taking due account of differences in operating conditions and procedures, may be used in the evaluations required by this section.
Based on these words, it's entirely possible that little, if any, new fatique testing as required if the structural arrangement on the 737NG as sufficently close to the 737Classic. However, the application of these data would have had to meet the mid-90's structural standards.
If you have the concern that the FAA could have been offering Boeing a "sweetheart" interpretation, remember the JAA also certified the 737NG and they would have had no incentive to do so. From my own 25 years of airplane certification experience, I've seen no mercy from the FAA.
Hope this answers your concerns. Any other discussion should take place another thread
Bear Behind
Old Aero Guy,
Thank you for your comprehensive reply. I appreciate it very much as it appears to answer to points that I've had troubnle getting out of Seattle. In essence, it seems that no independent fatigue testing was done, only by delta analysis of the 737 classic structure. I have no doubt that it DOES meet the criteria (it has to) - I was being a little facetious in order to prompt a response such as your own. I don't believe that Boeing gets a sweetheart deal as far as certification is concerned on things this important (though we could debate all day long the rudder issue resolution), but I thank you once again for your time and your explanation.
Best wishes,
p-k-b
Back to original thread......
Thank you for your comprehensive reply. I appreciate it very much as it appears to answer to points that I've had troubnle getting out of Seattle. In essence, it seems that no independent fatigue testing was done, only by delta analysis of the 737 classic structure. I have no doubt that it DOES meet the criteria (it has to) - I was being a little facetious in order to prompt a response such as your own. I don't believe that Boeing gets a sweetheart deal as far as certification is concerned on things this important (though we could debate all day long the rudder issue resolution), but I thank you once again for your time and your explanation.
Best wishes,
p-k-b
Back to original thread......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
panda-k-bear,
If you read the Type Certificate Data Sheet you will see that the only thing they got exempted on for structures was bird strike velocity. The rest was brought to the latest ammendments.
If you read the Type Certificate Data Sheet you will see that the only thing they got exempted on for structures was bird strike velocity. The rest was brought to the latest ammendments.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Attic
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CN 5000 Rollout
Since I didn't want to open a whole new topic for it, I just put it here:
The first complete airframe (CN 5000) was rolled out this morning.
It will be used for static ground (fatigue) testing only.
The first complete airframe (CN 5000) was rolled out this morning.
It will be used for static ground (fatigue) testing only.
Bear Behind
Pretty wonderous - that's one big beastie. It sort of brings it home when you actually see it in the flesh, so to speak, doesn't it? It's no longer a paper aeroplane but a real thing you can reach out and touch. It stops the silly arguments dead, really.
Glad to see a new type out there!
Glad to see a new type out there!