Stock Groups

Boeing recovery sidetracked by regulatory tussles on big jets -Breaking

[ad_1]

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO A Boeing 777X plane takes off from its plant in Everett (Washington), U.S.A., January 25, 2020. REUTERS/Terray Silvester

Eric M. Johnson and Tim Hepher

SEATTLE/PARIS (Reuters) – Boeing (NYSE:) Co’s steady climb out of successive crises – among the worst in U.S. corporate history – gained momentum last week when it won the 2021 jet order race https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-wins-annual-jet-order-race-adjusted-basis-2022-01-11 against rival Airbus SE (OTC:) on an adjusted basis with a 737 MAX sales blitz.

But closely watched orders and deliveries https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airbus-vs-boeing-orders-deliveries-2021-2022-01-11 have underscored the industrial and regulatory currents still facing its bigger 787 Dreamliner and 777X flagships – issues that have left Boeing fighting concurrent battles on both sides of the Atlantic.

Europe’s regulators have challenged the safety net provided by 777X flight controls. 787 deliveries are likely to be frozen in April, as U.S. regulators look into production defects.

Two of the largest passenger planes in the world are under pressure. This is despite the fact that the company faces a major challenge after the fatal MAX crash and pandemic.

One senior expert in air safety told Reuters that there is “so much nervousness among regulators who make these decision, and who sign off on them,”

“The reason for that is the aftermath of the MAX crisis https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-boeing-737max-timeline/timeline-boeings-737-max-crisis-idUKKBN27Y1RQ. Engineers now look at the world differently than before,” he stated.

The initial design of the large-sized 777 was overseen and managed by the same U.S. engineers as the MAX. This has attracted the attention of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is becoming more assertive.

The people stated that EASA and Boeing have been locked in an intense debate about engineering. This will decide whether additional safeguards for the aircraft’s flight control system are necessary.

While the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration certifies U.S. planes first, the European agency has a more prominent role than that of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration.

EASA proposed a method that Boeing could be forced to implement to ensure that an electronic failure does not trigger multiple outages simultaneously. It is called “dissimilarity”. Boeing may also attempt to demonstrate that the existing system is safe by performing a thorough analysis.

The single fault in the flight control system was one of the major factors in the MAX crashes which resulted to 346 deaths.

EASA pays great attention to back-ups even though the structure at the heart of the Boeing 737 is decades-old.

Boeing disagrees that EASA should call for indirect safeguards. According to the sources, it would mean two systems supplied by separate suppliers run in parallel. This could lead to new complications and complexity.

The software analyzes data collected from 1,600 hours worth of flight test flights to create its own analysis.

Boeing and the regulators did not respond to requests for details regarding this unusual stalemate in design principles.

A Boeing spokesperson stated that “As our team works through the rigorous design, we continue engaging with the FAA/global regulators to ensure they meet their expectations.

EASA indicated that it cooperates with FAA. It also noted its inability to provide technical solutions.

A spokesperson stated that they are currently reviewing the technical files of the FAA as well as Boeing. This work continues in an atmosphere where everyone is transparent and all parties cooperate.

According to the FAA, it will not approve an aircraft that does not meet our safety and certification standards.

It is not clear what the financial consequences of this dispute will be.

Boeing announced last year that they would be charging $6.5B for any certification delays or weaker than anticipated demand. This delayed the entry of the 777X into service, and it will do so until 2023. People said that the design philosophy supported by EASA would further delay it.

HUMAN HAIR

South Carolina’s mechanics are currently scouring 787 parked vehicles with ultrasound tools and instruments to determine gaps that might not be visible to the naked eye. It is an effort that could make full delivery resume before April.

These gaps, which were left during the manufacturing of carbon-composite structures to make the jet lighter but more affordable to fly, are about the same width as a human hair and violate Boeing’s requirements.

Boeing claims that the problems with the 787 are due to specifications which include a large safety margin. It also reported the problem. To restore the deliveries, Boeing will need FAA approval.

Boeing produced 14 2021sts, and 41 2020sts.

The key question now is whether or not the FAA will agree with Boeing’s claim – supported by new analysis and structural tolerances of composites – that the gap specifications can be modified without compromising safety. Two people stated.

Boeing spokesperson explained that the issues identified by our engineers and being addressed are part our methodical approach in ensuring conformance with our strict specifications.

Boeing claimed that the cost of repairs to correct structural problems and inspections would amount to approximately $1Billion in October.

A person who is familiar with the subject said that Boeing has faced longer-term challenges in constructing 787s at affordable rates and without making factory adjustments.

Boeing could be able to catch up by improving manufacturing efficiency. A recent decision by Boeing to concentrate production on one state will help reduce fixed costs.

For the moment, intense scrutiny continues.

The FAA required 100 pilots to perform meticulous manual inspections of their aircraft in order to find small cracks in the structure around the cargo and passenger doors.

This is rather than Boeing being allowed to only test a few planes.

Senior safety expert stated that “for decades, that was an acceptable method of saying the fleet’s good.” It is not necessary to physically inspect every plane. It is necessary in these circumstances.

[ad_2]