A German magazine reported Sunday that Boeing is set to announce a further three to six month delay to the 787 program due to issues with achieving its "type certification". The report, which appeared in FOCUS, cited sources inside the FAA who also said that the delay would be announced in mid-May.
Boeing 787 program spokesperson Yvonne Leach responded to the report telling FlightBlogger that, "The FAA has been overseeing our effort every step of the way and we've been working closely together."
Leach added, it is "not our understanding" that there are any additional issues with achieving FAA type certification for the 787.
787 Program Manager Pat Shanahan commented on FAA certification during the 787 update on December 11, 2007:
"Boeing and the FAA have reviewed and agreed to all the technical requirements needed to achieve type certification. Also, we have submitted more than 25% of the certification deliverables to show type certification."
"This is the first time on any program where we and the FAA prior to flight test have agreed on all the requirements. Now, the next portion of this is demonstrating compliance to those requirements, but it's a big step forward for us and really is a reflection of the last four years of the close working relationship between Boeing and the FAA. I feel confident that we've identified what is necessary to demonstrate during the flight test program and now we need to go produce the data and work with their technical specialist to show compliance."
Boeing CEO Jim McNerney confirmed in February that about 35% of the 787s airworthiness certification requirements had been completed.
A source familiar with the certification process says that modifications to the center wing box are not impacting the FAA certification schedule. Airplanes 1-6 will have stiffeners installed inside the center wing box to improve structural integrity. Airplane 7, the first production aircraft, will feature a redesigned wing box.
Boeing's 787 flight test program is slated to begin in late October, according to another company source familiar with the upcoming flight test schedule, and is set to be completed early in the third quarter of 2009 with first delivery later in the quarter to ANA. Dreamliners One, Two and Three are all expected to take to the sky within three weeks of one another.
This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.
How could the wingbox NOT impact FAA certification? It seems to me that any testing that impacts anything even remotely connected to the wingbox is presumably invalid. By their own admission, the "stiffeners" aren't just a matter of adding something but are requiring the re-routing of other components. This is a major re-design.
Leach added, it is "not our understanding" that there are any additional issues with achieving FAA type certification for the 787.
A non denial, denial.
If this delay proves to be true, it will be a real blow to Boeing's credibility.
We will have to wait and see. However, before any of Boeing's Barmy Army start writing in, please bear this in mind. The magazine that started this particular rumour off is better known for AIRBUS bashing.
I'm still trying to figure out if this is a change in direction for their editorial team or an aberration... ( Or simply that they got 787 mixed up with A350...)
Xpat
It's gotten so boring around here that folks are worried about a story as dubious as this?
Well, as somebody who has lived in Germany more than half of his life and who is quite familiar with the media scene over there, I can tell you that FOCUS is _NOT_ a reliable source of news. It's more of a boulevardesque-type "news"/scandal periodical. I personally, would never trust anything written in FOCUS.
How good of a source of timely info has Ms Leach been to date?
I'd ask ILFC.
Out of topic.
Airbus to test-fly P&W geared turbofan on A340 this year
Either Airbus is doing P&W's work for free or they are building an airplane with GTF engines.
Airbus is not making much money in 2006 and 2007. So they can not afford burning money just for fun. This news is weird.
The reason Im doubting this is the fact that this storey is in a German paper, rather than American or even Japanese.
Another Malaysian Sun / KC-X type storey?
Well, although the FOCUS might not be as reliable as other sources it is probably a lot more reliable than the Malysian Sun...
Total distrust seems a little strong...
Other magazines picked the rumour up, too.
Lets see what happens...
Yes, but the Malaysian Sun was right!
Set aside the source of the original rumor and look at how Boeing responded to Jon's query about it. They DON'T deny it at all. Instead they issued a non-denial denial. That is a devastating admission in my books. Just last week Boeing SWORE that this was their last delay and within days they're already hedging. A forceful denial would have cleared the air but a lawyerly evasion is as good as an admission. Boeing needs to sacrifice some corporate heads (Scott Carson, etc.) and put someone with credibility in charge of BCA. Get the bad news out once and for all and then dump the resources needed into the program to get it right. The problem is that the Carson's of the world have so much invested in proving that their global outsourcing model is/will be successful, that they can't acknowledge the mistakes and fix them.
I am from Germany and read this post with curiosety.
Although FOCUS is not the authorative news magazine in Germany it is not that yellow as suggested in one of the other posts.
What I find remarkable is that a German magazine claims to have sources in the FAA. This in it self wanted me to disregard the feature as it was reported in other German media. But now, reading the the comments by Boeing, I think maybe the is more to the story. There is a German saying: 'Where there is smoke, there is fire.' I smell smoke, and Boeing has just explained, that they are in full support for fire fighting in general and that it is not 'their understanding' that they have 'issues' with the fire department.
Let us wait and see if there is just someone smooking or if there is an other fire burning.
Who here expects the planes to fly within three weeks of each other? I don't think anyone who has been watching this program. They haven't hit a date since 7/8/07 and now they are going to get everything lined up with-in that time frame.
I think there are two important issues regarding the financial impact of a hypothetical delay in certification.
One is the obvious impact on Boeing of further compensation payments.
The other is the possibility of outright cancellations. I cant see many airlines defecting to the A350 because it is still very far away and still carries the risk of delays in its own right, the 767 is too old and small, and the 777 big and expensive, but I can see some airlines defecting to the A330. If Airbus can get the production line in Alabama up and running in time then they could in theory use 'cheap A330s' as an effective weapon against an indefinatly delayed 787, partly because its cheaper to make american assembled A330s than French assembled ones.
Boeing should have postponed roll out and given the supply chain time to mature; completing and documenting the hardware. They decided to take the whole thing on in Washington with a less experienced "lean manufacturing" staff. I think its a chaotic scene on many levels, due to poor oversight and even worse decisions. Single barrel is expensive and heavy--not the shape of things to come as Udvar-Hazy claimed. Airbus is gaining time at Boeings' expense and will be vindicated for not going down the "bleeding edge" path.
DL is buying the 787, AA will probably follow. These orders will offset any possible cancellations.
Boeing can choose to terminate purchase agreements with current buyers instead of paying too much penalty.
The number of 767 and 757 to replace in the US is huge enough to absorb 787 production for several years.
JE, can you please email me at your earliest convenience? I'm reachable at flightblogger (at) gmail (dot) com.
Thanks,
Jon
quoting:
''Single barrel is expensive and heavy--not the shape of things to come as Udvar-Hazy claimed. Airbus is gaining time at Boeings' expense and will be vindicated for not going down the "bleeding edge" path. ''
- I was one of the few whom said that Airbus should be given the benefit of the doubt regarding their decision not to go with a single barrel and bleedless design on the A350XWB, at a time when the majority of airliners.net lashed their 'inferior' approach and disputed Airbus' reasoning for the design of the A350.
I think that the rational behind the design decisions of Airbus at the time are starting to become clear.
Eds comments make a lot of sense.
I also believe the Airbus decision to keep on with a bleed air system will be vindicated.
Still cannot find a source to show that Boeing have factored in up to about 600lbs of fuel per hour to drive the generators.
Several studies and demonstrators led to Boeing's choice. Some of those studies are publicly available on the internet.
There is not any major issue with the 787's composite structure. The current issues may have well occured with aluminium structure.
Electrical compressors have been around for decades. This is not an issue either.
The main issue in 787 debacle is coordination and discipline.
The remaining technical issue may be invisible, that is the software.
Pat Shanahan pointed out during the April 9th program update that Boeing expects the FAA to issue socalled Special Conditions on lightning strike protection. I think this was a clear "forward statement".
Have previous SC requirements been successfully demonstrated/proven? The one on hacker intrusion into the flight control system (ab)using the the wireless software upload function comes to mind.
Shanahan also hinted at issues with the brake control system, IFE system, and some elements of the power system.
My sources on the program laughed when I asked if this rumor was true. "Of course, everyone knows it. Management only admitted to half the expected delay and it could be even worse."