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.

.:E :E

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. :cool:

All of this notwithstanding- it will be fun to see one fly.

TT

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.

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.

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. ;)

That is the lower deck slide on the GE website.

Ah, I see, so then it definitely WAS fatigue tested - is that what you're saying?

He is right. as long as you are within 5 years you can claim equivelency to the already standing certification.

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...)

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

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......

panda-k-bear

Please don't read too much into my explanation. I have no idea how much fatigue testing was performed on the 737NG.

These two airline execs are obviously real "experts" in predicting aviation trends and requirements .....just look at how well their airlines are doing!!

:p

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.

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. :ok:

It will be used for static ground (fatigue) testing only.

http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/77774.jpg

Looks great already. Wonder how it looks with those huge Trent 900 operating underneath it.

Marcel_MPH :cool:

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!:D

Ahhh, loooook, it's smiling!

It'll be interesting to see if it still looks so fugly when it has it's fairings on...;)

Bet it won't fly, right 747FOCAL? (sorry, FOCAL, I just wanted to get back at you for that post the other day);)

The one above won't no. It's going to be tested to destruction. Proper Bo.

No worries rotor. ;) They are going to break this one, then build one that flies. Then comes the tough part. :}

Ooh-ooh let me guess!

Not the darn evacuation chestnut again!

I reckon it looks like an A-7 on steroids :D

Well now that you bring it up.......................:p

I'm rather suprised that it only appears to have two main landing gear legs. If this is the case, then for runways/taxiways to be able to cope with all that weight there would need to be about 10 wheels on each truck!!!????:confused:

The ground testing airframe is light enough to be supported by only two wing trucks on the main gear, but the real A380 will have 22 wheels in a configuration similar to the 747, but with two six-wheel trucks for body gear. :)

thanks for that, A-Floor

For people interested: on the !!!!!!!!!!!!!! website information can be found about the A380.

Marcel_MPH :cool:

Anyone for another go at the evac slide thing again? :E Just kidding......

Hell, they just have to send me an email. I trust them when I get into one of their aircraft - why shouldn't I trust them to build a slide?

Your missing the point, it's not that they can't build the slide. it's getting that many people down the slide in 90 seconds that will be the sporty part. ;)

Set the bu%%er on fire. That'll get 'em out in 90 seconds. Let's face it, FOCAL, if they're all going to die anyway (and won't anybody PLEASE think of the children), what difference will it make?!

By the way, what happens if you can't actually see DOWN the slide (i.e. see the bottom) but it just appears like a tube or something from the top - you know, like they have in water parks?

Interesting Study..............


http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/A...LTXT/00_11.pdf


Evacuee injuries and demographics in transport airplane precautionary emergency evacuations.

Report Date: March 2000
Author: Hynes, M.K.

Abstract: During a nine-year period from January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1996, there were more than 500 transport airplane precautionary emergency evacuations (PEEvacs), occurring on average about once a week. Each year as many as 6,000 persons participated in these events. In many cases, passenger and crewmember injuries resulted from the PEEvacs, resulting in large personal costs to passengers and crewmembers, as well as financial costs estimated to be in excess of $11 million annually to airlines.

This study was undertaken to sample available evacuee and injury data related to a subset of those PEEvacs, including information on types and causes of evacuee injuries, and evacuee age and gender. Other demographics were sought, but that information was generally unavailable. Unique, direct contacts with airport management were used to supplement publicly available information on certain of the PEEvacs, including activation of emergency escape slides during PEEvacs, injuries caused by the PEEvacs, and outcomes.

Of the 136 airports identified as experiencing PEEvacs, 24 were selected to provide detailed data on injured evacuees for a 34-month interval lasting from December 1994 through November 1996. During this time frame, there were 109 precautionary evacuations at the 24 airports selected, i.e., approximately 70% of all reported evacuation events that occurred during the study period. Specific information on 193 persons injured during 19 of these evacuations was obtained and analyzed.

The results of this study confirm the need for improved incident reporting and continued research into preventing injuries associated with the use of emergency egress systems and precautionary emergency evacuations of transport airplanes. The results should be additionally useful when considering proposed changes to applicable regulations and to airline training programs and aircraft emergency operations.
:\

Emergency Evac at BKK today
http://www.news.com.au/common/story...55E1702,00.html

United Airlines plane evacuated
From correspondents in Bangkok
August 2, 2004

A UNITED Airlines jet aborted takeoff at Bangkok International Airport early today after a bird got caught in one of its engines, and four passengers suffered minor injuries as they evacuated the plane, the company said.

Flight UA838 headed for Tokyo also "experienced a tyre blow-out" during the aborted takeoff, United Airlines said in a statement. It wasn't clear what caused the tyre to burst.

"The takeoff was aborted due to a bird ingested into one of the engines," the company said. "For the safety of passengers and crew members, the pilot activated an immediate evacuation."

The Boeing 747's two pilots, 15 crew members and 346 passengers slid down evacuation chutes onto the tarmac, the statement said.

There endeth the story.

OK. It's at full chat TOGA and there's a bird strike. It's before T/O decision so there is room on the runway to stop. Slam on the brakes and blow a tyre or two.

Is that really enough reason for a full scale evacuation?

And yes. I must add a big "well done everyone for holding it all together"

Well, you can criticise the 380 all you want but:

THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL SELECTS A380 AND ADDITIONAL A340S
AUGUST 27, 2004

Thai Airways International has taken another major step in its long term fleet expansion plan, by deciding to acquire six A380 double decker aircraft, which will be delivered in 2008/09, and herewith becoming a new customer for the type. The airline is also committed to expanding its new fleet of A340-500s and A340-600s, by deciding to acquire one additional aircraft of each type. The airline previously placed an order for three A340-500s and five A340-600s in August 2003, with all eight of these aircraft due for delivery in 2005. The additional A340-500 and A340-600 will be respectively delivered in 2007 and 2008.


Thai Airways International’s A380s are destined to operate on major trunk routes from Bangkok’s new Suvarnabhumi airport to destinations in Europe, whilst the A340-500s will be operated on a completely new network of ultra long-haul services from Bangkok to North America. The A340-600s will be deployed on services to cities in Europe and North America. Thai Airways International currently operates an Airbus fleet of 21 A300-600Rs and 12 A330-300s on regional and domestic routes.


All four A340-500s and six A340-600s in the Thai Airways International fleet will be powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 500 engines, which burn up to 20 per cent less fuel than older generation jet aircraft, whilst providing outstanding range and payload performance.


“The relationship between Thai Airways International and Airbus stretches back to the first A300 order in 1977 and I am naturally delighted to see the airline once again select our latest generation widebody A380 and A340 aircraft for its long haul fleet expansion. With Thailand’s strong domestic economy and booming tourism & trade, I am particularly confident of a bright future for Thai Airways International’s new Airbus fleet operating from the all new Suvarnabhumi hub airport.” said Noel Forgeard, Airbus President and Chief Executive Officer.


With Thai Airways International’s selection, Airbus has now 139 orders and commitments from 13 customers for the A380 programme. Built to the latest and most stringent certification requirements, the 555-seater A380 double decker embodies the most advanced technologies, providing 15 to 20 per cent lower operating costs than the largest aircraft flying today and 10 to 15 per cent more range.


Offering the highest degree of operational flexibility and economy combined with unmatched passenger comfort, Airbus’ A330/A340 Family of aircraft has established market leadership in the 240-380 seat category with more than 820 orders from 64 customers to date. This includes over 210 orders from 18 customers in the Asia-Pacific region.


All Airbus aircraft feature the latest technology at no extra charge – such as advanced fuel-saving aerodynamics, including wing tip fences, widespread weight-saving carbonfibre composites, and pilot and maintenance-friendly fly-by-wire controls and centralised maintenance.


Airbus is an EADS joint company with BAE Systems.