Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Airbus sticks to 2027 EIS for A350F
By Scott Hamilton
Oct. 22, 2025, © Leeham News: Airbus reaffirmed its goal for the A350F to enter service in the second half of 2027, despite some customers telling LNA that EIS may slip to 2028. The new certification environment prompted by the Boeing 737 MAX crisis may mean a longer-than-anticipated review by Europe’s regulator, EASA, customers say.
Crawford Hamilton, head of freighter marketing for Airbus, said that, so far, the 2H2027 EIS remains the target.
Rendering of the Airbus A350F. Assembly of the first two airplanes is underway. First flight is expected next year, and the entry-into-service goal is the 2H2027. Credit: Airbus.
“I’ve spoken to both the chief engineer and the deputy program manager and the program manager about this recently because there are a lot of things in the rumor mill going around about this,” Hamilton said. “The answer is no, the basic structure there for the requirements that we’ve met is all still there. It’s the same as it was, and we are going toward that to meet the requirements from both the EASA and the FAA. So, as I stated, the EIS is in the second half of 2027 and remains so.”
Hamilton, who is no relation to this author, said that Airbus has worked with regulators since 2022 to understand the certification requirements.
He made his remarks at the Cargo Facts conference in Nashville (TN).
Engine reliability and durability
The A350F is based on the passenger A350-1000, the largest model of the family. Five sections have been removed. The freighter is powered by the same Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 as the -1000. Some carriers, notably in the Middle East, have complained about the on-wing time of the XWB-97, which has fallen well short of promises.
Middle Eastern airlines operate in a very tough, hot and sandy environment. Cathay Pacific Airways, operating in a highly salt-air environment, also reported shorter on-wing time, though not as short as the Middle Eastern airlines.
Hamilton said the engine’s reliability is excellent. “That’s over 99.9%. There are issues on the durability of the engine and the on-wing time. Rolls-Royce have been working really hard on this. They are at a stage where they can now say they will get that durability up to a level that will be very much along where the market is at the moment for the Middle East.”
Interesting that AB is seemingly proceeding rapidly and smoothly with the EIS of the A350F…despite the “mountain of work” involved in getting a derivative certified 😉
The way things are going over at the competitor, the A350F may well have its EIS before the 777-9…despite it being almost 6 years since the latter had its first flight 🙈
In your own words, a 3 year delay is proceeding smoothly and rapidly….🤔
After all, they did predict a 2025 EIS
at launch ..
If everything went according to plan, we’d be graced with a new breed of freighter flying the friendly skies..
Not so quick Abby..
“At the November 2021 Dubai Air Show, US lessor Air Lease Corporation became the launch customer with an order for seven to be delivered around *2026*, among other Airbus airliners. Air Lease Corporation cancelled its launch order in August 2025. The launch operator of the A350F was initially planned to be Singapore Airlines, which ordered 7 aircraft at the 2022 Singapore Airshow with deliveries expected to begin in *2026*.”
It’s quite possible that the poster mistook another well-known airframer which suffered repeated delays in certification recently. Who knows? 🙄
Doubtful..
But since you seem to question everything I post..
A few more tidbits about missed timelines for the A350F EIS…😉📝📝
https://www.airnavradar.com/blog/airbus-approves-a350-freighter-for-service-entry-in-2025
https://www.airdatanews.com/airbus-confirms-a350-freighter-due-to-debut-in-2025/
The dynamic duo will surely dispute the facts.☺️
OMG! When’s the expected delivery in the contract?
That’s what’s crucial in the real world.
Worth noting the bias here.
Boeing does not have the 777X certified. So yes their path is longer even under good circumstances and for all the state reasons (no need to re-hash) it is not.
It does not diminish that the A350F looks to be Airbus first successful freighter program (I guess only the 2nd one though the A380F never made it at all)
What bias?
The A350F is great? That’s what you said.
Why the big fuss?
The 777-9 is quite different from the 777-300ER. Fuselage alloy, new carbon wing, new size and MTOW, new engines, new computers and software. The A350-1000 to A350F has much less differences hence reduced certification workload. The T-XWB on the 777F uses less T-O thrust on average and should have a longer life on-wing for the same turbine hardware.
Nice work by Airbus, even if the A350F EIS slips by a few months. Should be a popular freighter, methinks.
Agreed.
Scott has noted the issue of priority of filling 1000 orders and getting the F out the door.
The only LCA production slower than a wide body is COMAC and that is a single aisle.
One step at a time. Time is on their side.
VINCENT
The EIS should be expected to slip.
Read the long post
“Airbus predicts world freighter fleet to grow 45% by 2044”
“Toulouse, France, 22 October 2025 – Airbus’ 2025 Cargo Global Market Forecast (GMF) shows the worldwide fleet of dedicated freighter aircraft rising to 3,420 in the next 20 years, equivalent to a 45% increase. This will be made up of 815 existing freighters and 2,605 additional ones. Of these additional 2,605 freighters, 1,530 will be replacements and 1,075 will be for growth. The additional 2,605 will be split between 1,120 small aircraft, 855 mid-size widebodies, and 630 large widebodies. Overall of the 2,605 additional freighters, 1,670 will be conversions from passenger aircraft and 935 will be new-build freighters.”
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-10-airbus-predicts-world-freighter-fleet-to-grow-45-by-2044
As I recall Airbus estimated they would need 1000 A380 built, not even close.
I am more optimistic on the A350F but who knows what happens to economies in coming years.
FedEx is moving to more flights to Europe, never thought I would see that.
How many passenger 747-8 did Boeing expect to sell? Trans? I announce the discovery of the Airbus Derangement Syndrome.
Sigh.
How many A330-200F’s did Airbus expect to sell ? PEDRO!!🙈😆😆
A heck of a lot more than 38….😉
Let’s see:
The A330-200F was a straightforward, low-cost derivative of the A330ceo.
The 747-8 was a heavily-modifed 747-400, with development costs of $4-6B, and sales of only 155, of which only 47 for the passenger version.
Looks like someone missed the point 🙈
Actually, I agree with you..The330-200F
“A straightforward, low-cost derivative”… That no one wanted.
☺️😉
It’s too inconvenient to answer a simple but uncomfortable question. Oh dear.
The reason for the A330-200F was the MRTT with a main deck cargo floor. Airbus had to show a working solution to USAF unlike Boeing.
Airbus may have sold just 38 new freighters but the P2F conversions are running business at Elbe Flugzeugwerke.
Maybe we see an A330-900F.
MHalblaub wrote
October 24, 2025
The reason for the A330-200F was the MRTT with a main deck cargo floor. Airbus had to show a working solution to USAF unlike Boeing.
Respectfully, many successful KC767 were placed into service with Italy and Japan prior to the KC46 program launch. The air force looked at these as fleet demonstrators. Boeing had already placed working COTS based Tankers into actual service. The Italians got their first 2 of 4 on May 17, 2011. The Japanese airplanes started delivery in Feb 2008. All these aircraft had booms as well as drogues and remote refueling stations.
Have a great day
https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=297&q=when+were+italian+767+tankers+delivered&cvid=2e62a6ff4d7c44929b6a6b2ee55e0482&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhA
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-05-17-Boeing-KC-767-Tankers-for-Italian-Air-Force-Formally-Enter-into-Service#assets_117:1507
https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/10603/boeing-makes-first-ever-tanker-delivery-to-japan
@ MHalblaub
Very good point about the A330-200F 👍
Those predictions are just ‘unchanged’ for financial reporting reasons.
Doesn’t reflect the reality in the certification departments.
I thinks Scott’s sources are right to be sceptics
Sure its a simpler plane change , with same cockpit and flight control systems, same structure and same wings and same engines. Just a ‘novel’ cargo door . But look how long it took for the ‘novel’ fuel tank for the A321XLR.
Oh thats right the B777X has very little that remains from the older 777
I recall you boldly claimed the 777-9 flight testing are ending not that long ago, do you still remember that? 🤔
BA is forecasted to post a reach-forward charge up to $4.5 billion due to recent 777-9 certification delay.
Well I believe 777X flight testing will be ending until they get the FAA moving again!
Hindsight is such an easy thing.
Knowing BA, I am not silly enough to make such unwise pronouncement.
What does a ‘reach forward charge up to $4.5 bill’ really mean when you use program accounting ?
@Duke
Been a while since I took an accounting class, but I believe when a program is in a loss provision, any further losses are reported immediately in their entirety.
So program accounting only works for profit but not loss. Not sure but Boeing probably creates a reserve liability for the losses and the equity goes deeper into negative territory
Oh our resident financial guru has a problem. He knows neither finance nor program accounting.
AI AI what is reach forward loss for BA?
> A “reach forward loss” for Boeing means the company has already spent more on a program, like the 777X, than it expects to recover from selling the initial aircraft, requiring it to immediately book any future costs as losses. This accounting situation is happening because of significant development costs, production delays, and various setbacks, particularly with the 777X, which has pushed back its launch into 2027. Any new delays or additional costs related to the program must be immediately recognized as a charge to earnings, rather than being spread across future sales.
I was checking to see if you knew what it really meant – clearly you were ‘parroting’ as you dont.
And your google AI isnt helpful either – as any program accounting has lost money initially under GAAP rules
Casey is more correct as the current program number of planes that remain to be delivered wont be in profit at all. None have been delivered yet but large sums have been spent on the 30 or so that have been completed. That g will generate some ‘accounting profit’ soon enough
or in wording of a decent AI – GPT
“So, a reach-forward loss in program accounting ≈ a “loss reserve” or “onerous contract provision” in normal accounting terms.”
> “That g will generate some ‘accounting profit’ soon enough”
Hahaha good laugh for the afternoon!
GPT is also wrong, it’s not a reserve, it’s to write-down the deferred production cost included in BA’s inventory. Time for an accounting course.
It never said its equivalent to loss reserve . Note the approximation symbol. They just using a couple of different GAAP terms that are roughly the same
Hilarious. LMAO. Like I said before, take an accounting course before you further embarrass yourself.
https://aviationweek.com/shownews/farnborough-airshow/rolls-royce-rolls-out-trent-engine-upgrades
I do not have the impression Airbus had problems with EASA because Boeing had 737 issues with the FAA.
The A321XLR centre fuel tank certification issue was solved relatively smoothly.
I think the A350F specification looks very strong; a surprisingly high payload of 110t with an OEW probably 30t lower than 777-8F.
I think I would amend that in all falling tides drop all ships.
The AHJs have a lot to ponder and they are asking each other what if questions.
Yes they resolved the A321 tank issue but it was quite a bit beyond what Airbus thought it would be with objections from EASA and questions from the FAA.
I will go with Scott in a general slow down of the process that affects Airbus as well as Boeing.
Its not just the MAX that is being looked at closely.
Trans
Yeah let me remind you there’s a precedent that such an reliance has not worked: China does not* need Boeing, it only needs aircraft. 😅
Gentlemen.
I would hazard a guess that not many of you have actually done the Manufacturing Engineering on Freighter models derived from passenger airplanes. The process at the 10000 meter viewpoint is fairly simple. You remove all the passenger accoutrements, remove the windows, support the floor where the door cutout gos, revise the fuselage stringers or stringerlike structure to get the fuselage stiffness you need, add a 40 g cargo barrier behind the cockpit, add a crew escape path if door 1 is aft of the barrier. Revise the decompression venting plan and you are bacically home. None of these tasks are beyond the ability of Airbus peeps, they are quite talented. Watching you squabble back and forth
about the ability of either Airbus or Boeings peeps to get the job done is missing g the actual challenge in getting g this airplane done.
This is EASA’s first non derivative Commercial Freighter. They haven’t done it before and their ability to remain on a schedule that may have been possible in derivative land is suspect… I’m sure that the FAA is guiding them to the extent possible, but I’m also quite certain they are intentionally distancing themselves from the FAA to enable them to show they have the chops to do the vast bulk of it and be a true lead agency instead of in the shadow of the FAA. Like it or not there will be schedule slippage because of this and Airbus will never point at EASA as the source of any problems. They have learned from Boeing things to avoid. This is the risk that Scott alluded to. You can’t quantify it because EASA will be developing the finer points of certifying a freighter as it gos. They will be in a position of commanding the analysis data required for certification instead of overviewing the FAAs work and disagreeing here and there. That could be a very long process.
Understanding that the A350F uses potato chip skins means they dont need to build the cargo door skin unless they want to or have an engineering need to. This means that the cargo door assy itself is not a high risk part as it would be on the 787F where it would most likely be a monolithic part. There is a huge volume of work to do engineering wise as a parts deletion exercise is far more work than the additive processes that produces the passenger plane.
Airbus will do a great job on this airplane because that’s their normal way of doing things. EASA WILL ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION
“This is EASA’s first non derivative Commercial Freighter.
All the airline based freighters are derivatives…. of the donor model
EASA would have the A330 freighter ( new build) model. So no they wont be developing the finer points ‘as they go’
I dont think your analysis of the fuselage skins of B787 and A350 bears any relation to reality
Alos EASA doesnt have to design anything as its the manufacturer who has to prove its design AND production/ install meet the airworthiness standards
Duke.
EASA has adopted the Congressional Air Safety act by reference. They need to make their internal processes for cert account for the changes. Using previous unchanged aircraft cert basis definitions is no longer allowed, so EASA needs to update their internal process to account for it. You’re right, they dont design anything, they revise how they handle data submissions
Duke.
Go look again. The A350F certification is not allowed to use the old same as except certification using the previous passenger cert basis as rubberstamped data you merely point at and only having to address major changes. This is the fallout of the Congressional Air Safety act. EASA adopted this by reference. The fallout was that the rules changed during the single skin Airbus fuel tank and some of the delay was the EASA and the GAA agreeing on how the Air safety act was to be implemented on in process work. That makes the A350 freighter the first non derivative freighter Airbus has done. All the cert data is new. You may be able to cut and paste old data into the new submission, but you are not now allowed to just point to the old data without actually producing it again and getting new analysis signatures on the new data package.
As far as the cargo door on the 787F down the roaad it would probably be a monolithic skin panel assy with the new tooling to go with it. Remember the 787 is filament wound as barrels and a semicurcular panel would be a disruption to the current autoclave stuffing process. It would be an odd sized part needing a work around in the schedule complicating life..Airbus on the other hand, has the ability with their Pringle parts that nest within each other to build the specific panels needed to build the freighter door with little disruption to their current production methodology.
I think over the last 25 years EASA certified the A346, A380, A350, A400M and a string of derivatives (A321, A330, A340 freighters, A320NEO, A330NEO, MRTT. National European authories are keeping each other sharp in EASA. They should be in good shape for the A350F.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GztLsBUWQAAKi2H?format=jpg&name=small
There must problems one can imagine out of thin air!
European adopted Congressional Act?
@ Pedro
Some commenters here seem to think that the EASA is just a European branch of the FAA.
They don’t seem to realize / want to accept that the EASA can and does go its own way.
Example: retrospective modification of in-service MAXs to incorporate synthetic AoA sensor –> mandated by EASA independently of the FAA.
Keesje
EASA has a very talented group working for them. They have not however certified a new freighter in the non derivative post Congressional Air Safety Act timeframe. They will have to make some internal changes as they move forward, just as the FAA will. That’s not a knock on a body, just facts. As EASA certs the A350f, so.e past pro essi v .methods will need to change, a dentist you find those kind of things when you actually do the work……
@Aba
The goalposts are quietly being moved, trying to backtrack.
Just to be clear of what’s being stated without backing:
“EASA has adopted the Congressional Air Safety act by reference.”
PEDRO WROTE
October 23, 2025
@Aba
The goalposts are quietly being moved, trying to backtrack.
Just to be clear of what’s being stated without backing:
“EASA has adopted the Congressional Air Safety act by reference.”
The Congressional Air Safety Act’s requirements have been incorporated into practice by the FAA and EASA mainly through enhancing safety management systems, risk assessments, and oversight processes aligned with their regulatory frameworks.For the FAA:The FAA updated its Production Approval Holder risk model to better account for risks during changes in production rates, issuing enhanced guidance for safety inspectors on risk assessment and targeted audits.The FAA modernized its Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) program with commercial cloud solutions to process safety data faster, improving safety intelligence for risk mitigation.They reinforced oversight with extended provisions like the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act, and introduced annual training including ethics and safety concern reporting for designated officials.The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 outlined many of these actions, emphasizing continuous improvement in certification and safety oversight, with regular congressional reporting on implementation progress.
For EASA:EASA integrated Safety Management Systems (SMS) into a broader management system approach encompassing air operations, airworthiness, aerodromes, and air traffic management, aligning with ICAO standards but tailored for the European context.They set phased SMS implementation deadlines for different domains, embedding components like safety policy, risk management, safety assurance, and safety promotion into organizational management systems.EASA emphasized proportional regulation based on organization size and complexity and promoted combining SMS with other systems to streamline compliance.Cooperation with the FAA includes sharing safety data practices, risk management, and aligning regulations where possible through joint declarations and technical collaboration. Overall, both agencies responded to the Air Safety Act by modernizing risk assessment tools, advancing safety data analysis and sharing, enforcing rigorous oversight and training, and fostering international cooperation to enhance global aviation safety. Their efforts reflect the act’s congressional mandate for improving aviation safety systems, accountability, and technology adoption
As you see it was a far reaching effort1
PEDRO WROTE
There must problems one can imagine out of thin air!
European adopted Congressional Act?
YES. AND HERE IT IS FOR YOU.
https://democrats-transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Pages%20from%20BILLS-116HR133SA-RCP-116-68%20-%20Aircraft%20Certification,%20Safety,%20and%20Accountability%20Act.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/IAWG_CPR_recommendations.pdf#:~:text=In%20December%202020%2C%20the%20Aircraft%20Certification%2C%20Safety%2C,and%20Accountability%20Act%20%28ACSAA%29%20was%20signed%20into%20law.
That should about
PEDRO WROTE
There must problems one can imagine out of thin air!
European adopted Congressional Act?
YES. AND HERE IT IS FOR YOU.
https://democrats-transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Pages%20from%20BILLS-116HR133SA-RCP-116-68%20-%20Aircraft%20Certification,%20Safety,%20and%20Accountability%20Act.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/IAWG_CPR_recommendations.pdf#:~:text=In%20December%202020%2C%20the%20Aircraft%20Certification%2C%20Safety%2C,and%20Accountability%20Act%20%28ACSAA%29%20was%20signed%20into%20law.
That should about do it, unless of course facts no longer matter
@PNWgeek:
Some great added in depth detail.
Question: As the 787 just cut the door and window holes out of the wound body, would they not do the same thing with the door?
It would seem the Freight door would then be an extension of the process Boeing uses to build the Pax doors.
I had hoped to get one of the coupons from the 787 but could not swing it before the guy retired.
Going back to my carpenter days, we used some stuff called T-111. Basically it was an outer house skin in 4 x 8 panels. While most of it was lower cost, you could get some fancy stuff. We just sheeted a whole wall (Laying down) then then cut out the window area (which was framed in).
So we are building a custom house and the guy had ordered some uber fancy T-111. He sees us cutting out the window and door sections and got upset we were destroying those window/door shaped pieces of T-111 and throwing them aside.
The boss explained to him T-111 was not amendable to fitting around windows. Its benefit was it was fast vs clinker siding. It would cost far more in labor to piece around a window and you would have all sorts of patches and seems. It had to fall on a stud or you had to add studs or short studs for it to have an attachment.
Basically if you want Clinker type siding you needed to order it from the start. Siding cost more as did the labor to fit it.
Poor guy did not really get it.
TRANS
The door would be a lot more involved than slicing the skin off the fuselage and making it move. It is quite large and has to be able to withstand the torsional rigidity loads in service in addition to being able to seal and absorb pressurizarion loads. This means the door will be reasonably thick to contain all the latching mechanisms, hinges seals and air loads in case of an in flight opening. The fuselage wall thickness is probably wrong to do the job.
PNW, B787 belly hatches are quite large too. The frames that surround the belly hatch opening would carry most of the loads not the skin alone- although as a semi monocoque they carry some along with horizontal stringers and ring frames. Same principles apply for aluminium fuselages
Its often misunderstood the the B787 with its outer carbon fibre skin barrel fabrication method still has horizontal stringers as well as closely spaced carbon fibre ring frames added at different stages.
Clearly the 787 would cut the upper cargo door opening in the barrel after the framing and door surround reinforcement added inside. Could be the cut out carbon fibre skin is reused for the new hatch skin, I dont know ?
Im assuming that Airbus does the same for cargo door opening in its rear fuselage side panel after it comes out autoclave
The smaller crown and the belly panels are made separately and then stitch assembled with side panels plus ring frames to make a shipping unit.
Behind the cockpit you have a “mini cabin” with a few seats, toilet, galley, emergency equipment…
Yep, and its all different not to mention the cargo holdback.
There are many variations for internal arrangement of one aircraft. LMAO.
I begin to question are these accounts being stolen??
Weird + more weird
PNWGeek
“There is a huge volume of work to do engineering wise as a parts deletion exercise is far more work than the additive processes that produces the passenger plane.”
I’m not qualified to contradict you, but I don’t understand. Why is it more work to delete parts?
Christopher
When you do a freighter from an existing passenger engineering data set. Here’s the process.
You import the closest passenger variant dataset and you start removing all the unnecessary passenger stuff from the airplane. A lot is easy, stow bins for example just get the entire installation drawing deleted. One button, poof gone. One would think….. But you’re not done. Every frame where a stow bin mounts now has holes for mounting brackets that are unnecessary, you need to go to the frame drawing and delete those holes that are there. Guess what, there’s not an existing pre engineered frame assembly that you can use, so you create a new one. When you create the new frame assembly, you also need to calculate the new loads the frame may be carrying. Is the frame adequate for the floor loads. Generally the basic airplane didn’t account or protect structure for future freighter use so our new frame may need to be uprated. If we upgrade the frame we now need to understand that effect on the grip lengths of any fasteners hanging any remaining systems clips and brackets that are basic airplane structure. Do they change? If the grip lengths changes, the associated systems drawing containing the mounting hardware bill of material changes creating a new freighter specific assembly number and you get to create all of that. Every part you reuse from the basic airplane config gos thru this thinking. We also need to remove windows this creates new skins and different stringers on the IML of the skins sized appropriately for the loads. THEN you get to create freighter specific parts from scratch, draw them all in Catia, define the tooling to make and install them………. It gos on like this throughout the airplane. Goinggg backwards is much harder than it looks because the decision tree is quite involved in so many ways that aren’t obvious on the surface
Compare this to adding a plug or 2 into the existing basic airplane and extending the basic systems needed to populate the new tube segments. Ttttthis is all about straight add to the BOM and is much easier because you can clone so much of it. The work volume is more manageable because the scope of work is smaller…..
Hope that helps
It sure makes sense to me
There are A330 & A321/A320 freighters in this world, all certified. LMAO.
So much bad faith answers… tagged with a humourless acronym, is that how you get temu credits from PFWD for your patriotic work ?
LMAO. Hilarious.
Duke
Are you aware there are aftermarket freighter conversion programs? 🙄
All are certified, right?
PEDRO
Are you aware that NONE of those have a new Tgpe Certificate. They are all done on a SUPLEMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATE. Those are Modified Aircraft that still reside on the OEMs original Type Certificate Data Sbeet. They are completely different animals created using an STC certification process that is far less involved than the original TYPE certification. I have completed STCs on my own for products I sell into the fleet and I’ve never had to do anything with EASA. It is a completely different process and having done it more than once, I know the truth of the matter. I’m not surprised you didn’t have a clue about the differences. Pointing at STC aircraft, passenger conversions to freighters as examples of TC’d aircraft is remarkably disingenuous.
PEDRO
PROOF OF AIRBUS STC PROCESS
Straight out of Airbus Fast Magazine
https://aircraft.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta126/files/2021-08/FAST-article-Passenger-to-Freighter.pdf
@ Pedro
There’s a nice post below from @keesje — with link — explaining that the A350F will be an STC — just like the aircraft types that you listed 👍
Oh how soon you forgot this? 👇👇😃
> The A350F “only requires a supplement to the existing A350 certification”.
How the hell this has to been repeated again and again to some posters is beyond me! 🤷♂️
PEDRO WROTE
ABALONE
October 26, 2025
> The A350F “only requires a supplement to the existing A350 certification”.
THANK YOU for illustrating the Ammended Type Certification Process. When you add new model aircraft to the Type Cerrificate Data Sheet,, You add a new line describing the new model.
That’s far different than a SUPPLEMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATE. AN STC is a package of engineering for an approved modification of an existing certified vehicle that allows you to modify the aircraft in accordance with approved data documented.in the STC. The STC will contain all the approved signed off engineering along with thw installation instructions, Bill of Materials and approved product sources. It will also note any changes needed in the flight or maintenance manuals. An STC does not affect the aircrafts certification in the aircrafts TCDS, It supplements it on an aircraft by aircraft basis when the operator wishes to modify his aircraft. The STC incorporation is logged into the specific aircrafts logbook with a notation in the Equipment list and in the sequential history log to show when and where the STC was installed in the airplane
This is the world that Elbe and Bedek live in. They modify existing passenger aircraft producing a conversion to a Freighter.
I chose not to be picky on the terminology with KEESJE because I understand the machinations of translating German Magazine Articles into English by German speakers. It is forgivable for him to interchange the 2 terms because he adequately described the process. He did say STC but actually described the single line addition that an Ammended Type Certificate addition to the Aircraft TCDS causes. He did a good job.
YOU HOWEVER, Parrot incorrect terminology as fact. This illustrates youre lack of grasp of the actual subject It would be great if you actually understood enough about the subject to be more than an ill informed annoyance.
From the german article linked:
“The freighter certification only requires a supplement to the existing A350 certification. Nevertheless, MSN701 will assist as a second test aircraft in the certification program. This second A350F is expected to reach the Toulouse final assembly line before the end of the year.”
So a STC, not a new TC. Two prototypes for test program.
From structural standpoint, the section with the extra large, composites cargo door and its surrounding structure seem the most interesting. I assume they have a seperate test facility to do strenght and fatigue testing on this new section.
Thanks for that. For competitive reasons might not publish much about the door cut-out process
CHRISTOPHER
continuing….
Imagine the structures changes driven by deleting the passenger escape doors. Another biggee is deletion of passenger o2. Think of all the clips brackets and wiring mounts that need to be removed, the mounting parts AND HOLES will make you redraw them creating hundreds of new freighter specific drawings. Consider the electrical system differences. Those are huge. All the passenger specific wiring standoff and brackets go away and their holes need to be deleted off the structures drawing. Virtually anything you look at making a freighter from the basic passenger dataset will probably change. I’ve actually wondered out load why we dont fly the freighter first and then cert tha passenger airplane. Get the freighter flying and generating revenue first to help cash flow while finishing the passenger model
Have a great day
And all the Windows that get sheathed over.
Wont be sheathed over. Just not cut out of the skin at all.
Carbon fibre skin in only a very tiny thickness and negligible weight compared to some ‘sheath’ and the extra work to fix the skin discontinuity.
Why do you want to delete holes? They save weight.
MHalblaub wrote.
October 24, 2025
Why do you want to delete holes? They save weight.
Thats a great question. virtually all of the holes you need to delete are fastener holes. Some may be clearance holed for wire bundles that need to pass through things. In any case, the holes cause non linear dustribution of stresses. Lets make it easy and look at a floor beam. when a floor beam is loaded, the predominant load is in bending as the weight on the floor pushes it down. this stresses the web of the beam as well as the beam caps. When you look at how the loads flow through the web, if there are no holes in the web, the loads flow as a series of parallel lines and all is well. If we leave the holes in the part, the load flow is no longer a series of parallel lines. The lines have to scrunch themselves together to pass by the hole. This creates a discontinuity in load flow, and the discontinuity causes higher local loading. Do this in enough places and the cycling of dynamic loads passing by the holes can make the structure more susceptible to fatigue cracking. The reason it’s not a problem with a fastener in the hole is that in interference holes, the load passes thru the fastener as it is invisible to the load. Great question, hope that helps
Sigh!
EASA and its SMS
Mirror mirror pls tell me more:
> EASA **hasn’t incorporated a “Congressional Aviation Safety Act” because the Act is a US law and EASA is a European agency**. However, **EASA is incorporating new safety management principles, driven by its own new regulations like the EU 2018/1139 framework**, which mandates a structured, risk-based approach to safety. These principles include establishing a comprehensive European Plan for Aviation Safety (EPAS) and requiring member states to develop State Safety Programmes (SSPs) to address emerging risks and ensure continuous safety improvement.
EASA’s new safety management requirements
Mandatory framework: EU Regulation 2018/1139 established that sound safety management principles are essential for continuous improvement in civil aviation.
European Plan for Aviation Safety (EPAS): EASA is required to draw up an EPAS to plan and implement safety improvement actions at the Union level.
State Safety Programmes (SSPs): Based on the EPAS, each EU member state must also create an SSP, which aligns with Annex 19 of the Chicago Convention.
Risk-based approach: The goal is to create a common framework for identifying, assessing, and mitigating safety risks, including the new challenge of cybersecurity threats (InfoSec).
Integration: The new framework requires organizations to integrate their Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) with existing safety management systems
@Pedro
Some people conflate “coincidence” and “causality”…🙈
ABALONE
Some people fail to understand “By Reference”.
Where is the smoking gun? Where is the proof?
I see one wrote up some spaghetti of mumble jumbo, and laughingly always circled back to what the FAA has done. So my question is: what the hell has the EASA done? Where is the undeniable link to the Congressional Aviation Safety Act? Unanswered questions. These are something very basic.
PS: The Airbus has successfully completed the certification of the A321XLR to the satisfaction of both the EASA and the FAA. Why is the process any different for the A350F?? 🙄
Looks like some people see things upside-down and back-to-front 🙈
“Senator Cantwell is pushing for the FAA to align its safety standards with those of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) by demanding the FAA implement a more robust safety culture, increase oversight of aircraft manufacturers, and enhance international cooperation on safety standards.”
***
Another one for you: “the tail wagging the dog” 😉
“Boeing is facing yet another obstacle after the EASA warned it would enforce safety retrofits even if US Congress decides not to. US lawmakers are currently considering if the two significant safety changes should be rolled out to in-service MAX 8 and MAX 9 aircraft in exchange for lifting a deadline on cockpit safety systems in the MAX 7 and MAX 10.
“For its part, Boeing has said it will make the two features available as an optional retrofit for customers. Should the EASA mandate the safety features in all 737 MAX aircraft, airlines could face different safety standards in Europe than in the US if Congress decides the other way.”
PEDRO
Did you actually read the EASA portion?
Here it is Yet AGAIN
For EASA: EASA integrated Safety Management Systems (SMS) into a broader management system approach encompassing air operations, airworthiness, aerodromes, and air traffic management, aligning with ICAO standards but tailored for the European context.They set phased SMS implementation deadlines for different domains, embedding components like safety policy, risk management, safety assurance, and safety promotion into organizational management systems.EASA emphasized proportional regulation based on organization size and complexity and promoted combining SMS with other systems to streamline compliance.Cooperation with the FAA includes sharing safety data practices, risk management, and aligning regulations where possible through joint declarations and technical collaboration Overall, both agencies responded to the Air Safety Act by modernizing risk assessment tools, advancing safety data analysis and sharing, enforcing rigorous oversight and training, and fostering international cooperation to enhance global aviation safety. Their efforts reflect the act’s congressional mandate for improving aviation safety systems, accountability, and technology adoption
PEDRO
You were nice enough to point out the EU 2018/1139 framework
That was in fact where the US Congressional air safety act was incorporated by reference into the EASA Docs.
Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and EASA Airworthiness Directives do not formally cite or directly transpose the U.S. Congressional Air Safety Act by name, but they do incorporate and operationalize its core intent: raising and maintaining high, uniform standards of aviation safety, transparency, oversight, and international harmonization.
Alignment with U.S. Congressional Air Safety Act Intent
The Basic Regulation tasks EASA with promoting a uniform and high level of civil aviation safety through robust oversight, risk management, safety data analysis, performance-based regulation, and mutual recognition with global counterparts such as the FAA.
EASA is directed to cooperate internationally, particularly with FAA under bilateral agreements, to improve safety rules and restore public confidence after major incidents—a foundational intent of the U.S. Air Safety Act.
The Regulation requires EASA and Member States to align with ICAO standards and to participate in developing and implementing new technical and operational rules, a process that systematically incorporates relevant improvements inspired by U.S. legislation after Congressional acts.
Youre welcome.
Dont point that out – he loses face , unless the party does it. No doubt an answer will pass to the tag team for reply
@ Pedro
Let’s look at some dates.
– EU 2018/1139 originated on July 4, 2018, with a revision in 2023 (stemming from April 7, 2021) to update references to the 1944 Chicago Convention.
– The FAA Reauthorization act is dated May 7, 2024.
Time flowing backwards for some people? 😉
ABALONE AND PEDRO
Since this had nothing to do with reauthorization I posted the real data
Congress passed the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act (ACSAA) in direct response to the Boeing 737 MAX crashes (Lion Air Flight 610 in 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in 2019).
The revision sequence is as follows.
U.S. Origin Law was U.S. Congressional ACSAA, FAA Acts
EU Mirror/Linked Text Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 & EASA Airworthiness Directives
Key EU Dates Effective 2018 (Reg.), ongoing ADs
Notes EASA updated rules, ADs, and BASA/TIP to incorporate U.S. safety amendments from FAA-mandated measures.
And with that, its time to close this wonderful trip thru history before you try to conflate Mad Cow Disease or the Death of Princess Diana into the story.
@ Pedro
Worth noting that EU 2018/1139 pre-dates the MAX crashes.
🙄
> Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of *4 July 2018* on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (Text with EEA relevance.)
@ Pedro
Look at what Gemini had to say on the subject:
“There is no single “Congressional Aviation Safety Act.” However, recent US legislation, such as the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (H.R. 3935), includes provisions to align US and international safety standards, which aligns with the EASA model of harmonizing regulations. This includes evaluating and revising regulations in areas like aircraft certification, flight crew rest and fatigue, and pilot training to be more comparable with international practices, including those in Europe. The intent is to strengthen overall aviation safety by fostering greater international consistency in regulations, as seen in the EASA framework which establishes common rules for the European Union. ”
Shock, horror! The purpose of the new US legislation was to better align with existing EASA norms — not the other way around! ☺️
ABALONE and PEDRO
You need to ask better questions, Abalones Gemini crap in is generating Gemini crap out, and I’m finding it quite amusing that you know so little about the subject that you cane even compose a decent AI prompt.
Try these, first the act, and second is the changed product rule where the rules for derivative aircraft were changed. Interesting to note that Pg 1 of the Changed Products Rules Recommendations is specifically marked for THE INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES WORKING GROUP.
https://democrats-transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Pages%20from%20BILLS-116HR133SA-RCP-116-68%20-%20Aircraft%20Certification,%20Safety,%20and%20Accountability%20Act.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/IAWG_CPR_recommendations.pdf#:~:text=In%20December%202020%2C%20the%20Aircraft%20Certification%2C%20Safety%2C,and%20Accountability%20Act%20%28ACSAA%29%20was%20signed%20into%20law.
That should about do it.
Good night
How many time do I have to repeat same old same old? It’s insane.
“… always circled back to what the FAA has done. So my question is: what the hell has the EASA done? Where is the undeniable link to the Congressional Aviation Safety Act? Unanswered questions.”
Pedro wrote
How many time do I have to repeat same old same old? It’s insane.
“… always circled back to what the FAA has done. So my question is: what the hell has the EASA done? Where is the undeniable link to the Congressional Aviation Safety Act? Unanswered questions.”
I Posted the Congressional act you repeatedly refused to acknowledge.
I posted the report on the international group that all agreed on how derivative products would be handled. This is the Changed Part International Working Group.
Participating authorities
include the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil
(Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil) (ANAC), CAAC (China), and Japan Civil Aviation Bureau. They all published agreements to how future decisions to their laws on derivative products(Changed Parts) would be addressed.All that is easily found in the executive summary. It’s all easily verifiable except for those with weird agendas such as yours.
There agreements are good enough for every listed agency to agree to and the existence of all these agency’s adopting the requirements of section 117 of the air safety act are beyond question.
It’s not up to me to prove that the obvious exists to someone that actively denies facts. It’s all there for you to read.
LETS CHANGE THIS UP MOVING FORWARD.
You prove the NON EXISTANCE OF THESE LINKED LAWS AND REPORTS. Show me beyond all doubt and unreasonable objection that these don’t exist. Really, IVe done the heavy lifting and now it’s your turn
@ Pedro
Fascinating to read how these people flatter themselves, without any objective basis. From the link (emphasis added):
“The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 addresses several safety issues to *ensure the United States, and the FAA, remain the world’s gold standard in aviation safety*.”
https://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=407498
What are these people smoking?
# Living_In_The_Past
PEDRO Wrote
Sigh!
EASA and its SMS
Mirror mirror pls tell me more:
> EASA **hasn’t incorporated a “Congressional Aviation Safety Act” because the Act is a US law and EASA is a European agency**
PEDRO…..Have you ever noticed that when you Ask the Correct questions you will receive the correct data……. As I said, the Congressional Air Safety act was incorporated in EASA BY REFERENCE because EASA doesn’t incorporate US law directly as you state.. But you dont know what that means apparently so one more time just for you I’ll post it again.
The Congressional Air Safety Act’s requirements have been incorporated into practice by the FAA and EASA mainly through enhancing safety management systems, risk assessments, and oversight processes aligned with their regulatory frameworks.For the FAA:The FAA updated its Production Approval Holder risk model to better account for risks during changes in production rates, issuing enhanced guidance for safety inspectors on risk assessment and targeted audits.The FAA modernized its Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) program with commercial cloud solutions to process safety data faster, improving safety intelligence for risk mitigation.They reinforced oversight with extended provisions like the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act, and introduced annual training including ethics and safety concern reporting for designated officials.The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 outlined many of these actions, emphasizing continuous improvement in certification and safety oversight, with regular congressional reporting on implementation progress.
For EASA: EASA integrated Safety Management Systems (SMS) into a broader management system approach encompassing air operations, airworthiness, aerodromes, and air traffic management, aligning with ICAO standards but tailored for the European context.They set phased SMS implementation deadlines for different domains, embedding components like safety policy, risk management, safety assurance, and safety promotion into organizational management systems.EASA emphasized proportional regulation based on organization size and complexity and promoted combining SMS with other systems to streamline compliance.Cooperation with the FAA includes sharing safety data practices, risk management, and aligning regulations where possible through joint declarations and technical collaboration Overall, both agencies responded to the Air Safety Act by modernizing risk assessment tools, advancing safety data analysis and sharing, enforcing rigorous oversight and training, and fostering international cooperation to enhance global aviation safety. Their efforts reflect the act’s congressional mandate for improving aviation safety systems, accountability, and technology adoption
The key passage here is this
Overall, both agencies responded to the Air Safety Act by modernizing risk……… This was a very large package encompassing far more than the narrow world of derivative aircraft certification changes. It took years to do, But that also escaped you.
Wash your mirror and see reality……..
I think Air France, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines, Ethiopian Airlines, Etihad Airways, Korean Air, Lufthansa, Qatar Airways, and Singapore Airlines operate Boeing 777-200F freighters but also committed to Airbus A350 fleets.
Some might be on the fence, waiting how A350F and 778F programs progress before they make a choice. One might be China Southern.
Plugged a pic of new Southern A50 livery, seen on a local airport. The A350F will be longer and heavier than this A350-900.
https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/6/668745_1759255535.jpg
Power-on on first A350F, MSN700.
https://www.aero.de/news-51025/Durch-die-Adern-der-ersten-A350F-fliesst-schon-Strom.html
Second freighter, MSN701, will also be used for testing next year.
“Die Frachter-Zulassung erfordere lediglich eine Ergänzung der bestehenden A350-Zulassung.”
As reported earlier:
> Ground testing of new components for the A350-1000-powering Trent XWB-97 is also in full swing
> Rolls-Royce aims for the XWB-97 improvements to be rolled out in *2028*. They are particularly designed to address the engine’s durability in hot and sandy environments.
From the german article linked:
“The freighter certification only requires a supplement to the existing A350 certification. Nevertheless, MSN701 will assist as a second test aircraft in the certification program. This second A350F is expected to reach the Toulouse final assembly line before the end of the year.”
So a STC, not a new TC. Two prototypes for test program.
From structural standpoint, the section with the extra large, composites cargo door and its surrounding structure seem the most interesting. I assume they have a seperate test facility to do strenght and fatigue testing on this new section.
https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta136/files/styles/w640h512/public/2024-07/sto-1103-mock_up_center_a350f_cargo_door_02.jpg?h=aed3950e&itok=X111Ii5E
Keesge.
THANKS FOR THIS.
The A350F certification will add a line to the TCDS document, no different than the previous aircraft certifications. My point, so massively beaten every which way was that the derivative process of certification has been significantly changed inside that basic work flow. The old methods of cert documentation by similarity has been changed amd more original documentation is now required. Nothing outside the skill set of Airbus in any way but more boxes to check off and more original analysis packages to be submitted. Since this is Airbusses first freighter after this change, I pointed to that as being the only new thing that may adversely affected schedules. Thanks for focusing this back to what I actually said about that…..
Continuing… The 777x got caught up in these changes to a far greater extent as it has such a large body of change, being a rewing with floppy wingtips, a new stab and vert tail, and reengine with new flight controls. This caused Boeing to need to submit piles of new data they passed over as unnecessary when the FAA took a justifiably conservative reassessment of the programs documentation. How much of the delays in the 777x, 737-7 and -10 are a result of Boeing getting caught taking liberties with the process is uncertain. It is interesting to note that the FAA seemed to consider the potential cowling heat a more significant issue than the same hardware on previously certified 737s. This is quite probably caused by the Changed Product Certification Rule changes.
PNWGeek, I think the 777x and 737-7/-10. The latter are clear derivatives and shoulf have been certified long ago.
The 777x is a new aircraft. As you say new wings, engines, system fuselage materials, – holes and load patterns.
The 777x FAA decision to allow it to be certified as a derivative IMO came as Boeing-Congress had FAA cornered (2012 ACPRR ARC).
It seems when FAA regained authority in 2018 they reinstated oversight and had Boeing do the extensive certification activities coming with a new aircraft, taking years.
The A350 was a *completely* new plane, and was certified just 16 months after its first flight…
Well, after years of hesitation and Mk 1-4 A330,
Lets not mention it was designed as a new aircraft.
So, after design was started in 2004, 9 years plus 16 month, so 10.45 years.
+1 TW…
Not sure what conceptual design has to do with certification time…but okay, if we’re going down that path, then the prize definitely goes to the NMA, doesn’t it?
More than 10 years on paper, but still not even finalized…much less launched 😅
So, how come the 777X had its first flight almost 6 years ago, but is still nowhere near cert? 🙈
Is it because of the “mountain of work” that was recently bemoaned…?
Strange that the competition can climb an even bigger mountain (new plane vs. derivative) in just 16 months…👀
Trans
Who can forget the queen of delays: the 777X, program launched back in 2013. Fourteen years and counting, a “derivative”, no less! Airbus D. Syndrome continues…
Not sure what work done in 2004 goes into the A350…
KEESJE
That’s exactly what happened. Inside the new Changed Product Certification rules, they really clamped down on the old concept of Certification by Similarity. This is due to the revisions to of all the definitions of what exactly constitutes a change. There are new decision gates classifying the magnatitude of the changes and much more specificity in how changes must be documented and what level of engineering documentation is necessary. The Changed Part rules were a subpart of the Congressional Air Safety act. Another subpar of the act dalt with a redefinition of what work can be delegated to the OEM. This made the cert process a lot more robust but has added to the timelines. Your comment of who is in control is especially appropriate
Scott pointed responsibilities some time ago.
https://leehamnews.com/2024/02/26/ultimately-congress-is-responsible-for-mess-at-faa-boeing-spirit-et-al/
@ Keesje
The certification of the A321XLR went pretty smoothly — from first flight (June, 2022) to EIS (October, 2024) in a little over 2 years, despite having to do an unexpected RCT re-design. The plane also had strengthened landing gear, and a modified wing trailing edge.
No reason to expect the certification of the A350F to be any more difficult — barring geopolitical trickstering from “special interest” parties.
Amusing (but noy surprising) attempts to blame the continuing certification delay of the 737-7, 737-10 and 777-9 on the system, rather than on the ineptitude of their OEM.
Agreed.
I also believe a major problem one unnamed major airframer experiences in certification of certain derivatives is due to assumptions it used during its self-cert era.
How come one doesn’t take that into account of the difficulties faced by the major airframer is beyond me.
And, additionally — the effects of braindrain, and “el cheapo” personnel policies:
“The Federal Aviation Administration is concerned that Boeing is appointing engineers to act as internal representatives of the FAA who lack the required technical expertise or knowledge of the procedures they must use to get agency approval of designs.”
“The FAA letter, dated Nov. 2, and addressed to Tom Galantowicz, Boeing vice president for product and services safety, lists a series of failures to meet FAA requirements among the engineers Boeing appointed to act on the agency’s behalf.
-“Some lacked “direct experience requiring expertise in the general certification process.”
-“Some were not “cognizant of related technical requirements and problems related to civil aircraft approval.”
-“Some did not know the “technical and procedural requirements involved in obtaining such approvals.”
“Furthermore, the FAA complained of weaknesses in the Boeing panels that appointed these engineers. These panels “have not demonstrated an independent assessment of a candidate’s experience and technical capability.”
https://www.postbulletin.com/business/faa-says-boeing-is-appointing-people-lacking-expertise-to-oversee-airplane-certification
ABALONE.
Nice article from 2021. Who knows if this is still happening. Do you have anything newer? It would be good to confirm the concern in the wake of the retirement wave caused by the lump sum retirement recalibration.
There’s no need for a report every year, once the talent is gone is gone… BA has been cutting down its commercial aircraft development capability for more than a decade.
“from first flight (June, 2022) to EIS (October, 2024) in a little over 2 years”
Certification doesnt ‘start’ from 1st flight , just the final flight aerodynamics part.
XLR was announced in Jun 2019
Sure…as if any OEM has real difficulties with bench tests, wing load tests, etc., before FF.
Although, now that you mention it: the 777X did spectacularly fail its wing load test, didn’t it? And not with a relatively clean sub-limit wing snap (like the A380) but with a never-before-seen fuselage explosion. You think a fuselage re-design is the cause of the 777X delay?
ABALONE.
The 777x failed 1% short of the 1.50 ultimate load test. This will be allowed to proceed as approved by analysis.
The Airbus A380 failed this test by a much wider margin falling 3% short of the ultimate load target.
The A380 failure actually established the procedure for engineering your way out of this test failure by analysis of the failure and getting upgrades designed to fix the shortfalls.
This is just another one of your tempests in a teapot, you could have just as easily said that the 777x wing performed better than the A380 did, because that’s the truth. . But you never will because that doesn’t fit your agenda.
We also dont know if the A380 fuselage would or would not fail at 99% because it never got there.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2006-12-06/airbus-thinks-it-has-overcome-a380-structural-test-failure
@duke
The 737-7 was announced a year earlier in 2018! Oops!
When it will be certified is still a mystery.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
Watch the personal attacks..
You’ve already been warned..
ABALONE
you need a new story.
First you berate me telling me the Congressional Air Safety act didn’t exist. So I provided it for you. Now you say that I am blaming the very thing you went to great lengths to disprove the existence of for Boeings 777x cert stretch out. That’s also wrong. I noted the rules are different. I said Boeing was the reason Boeing ia behind. I’m starting to detect a pattern with you. You seem to jump on my posts trying. To accomplish only God knows what. This whole tempest in a teapot started when I said the A350F is the first freighter after the derivative rules changed and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some schedule slippage. Why, because I understand the breadth of the changes the acts compliance required.
You apparently never even considered asking me 1 question, why did I say that? Your job seems to be to attack any news from Boeing especially that stuff that you have no clue about. In the future when I cover a subject that you are not conversant in, ask me for an explanation. I’m tiring of showing people how little you actually know.
Keesge.
We are in agreement that the 777x should have been a new aircraft type certificate as opposed to Boeing using the old derivative cert rules. When the rules changed, Boeing was forced to actually do it as a new airplane. That’s goodness. The -7 and -10 were originally under the old derivative rules in effect before the Changed Product rules revision and they had been wavered around it. I’m not sure why BA couldn’t get the tasks done in the timeframe waived, but the cowling changes seem to be caught by the new rules revision when the waivers expired. Combine that with a cowling design failure and a need to restart the cowling effort and here we are…… There were also new limits to what can and can’t be delegated in the Congressional act. Boeings failure to adapt puts us where we are today
Thanks for that useful information
Duke.
Rough weekend so forgive me for not getting back to your comments about the fuselage construction.
Great points noting it isnt built like an F1 Tub. The 787 was conceptionally a metallic airplane made from carbon. It has ring frames and stringers. There’s a barrel in the Future of Flight and you can see it’s not very different from a 767 barrel after.you look beyond the material. Thanks for the input about the doors
https://share.google/Et2EuevpRWdZAn1gp
Actually……the 787 barrel “concept” was part of Phil Condit PhD dissertation at the Science University of Tokyo in 1997 entitled “Technology Applications in the Design of Commercial Aircraft: From Materials and Processes to Manufacturing and Operations.”
It wasn’t a typical dissertation, it was more of collection of engineering notes he had from Boeing
PNWgeek, agree. Especially the 737-10 delays are hurting Boeing IMO. Maybe not as capable as A321NEO, but no doubt a very efficient 4-5 hour aircraft having commonality with the global 737 MRO, product support and pilot infrastructure. If it had been available in 2021, defections could have been prevented.
Quite laughable today reading the USAF treated the kc767 as *demo* of the kc-46. Clearly the kc767 *didn’t demonstrate* how difficult it is for BA to deliver kc-46 that meets requirements.
David.
That’s odd, Im remembering barging barrels from fuse barrels from Sandiego To Long Beach for the DC10 program
the dissertation information was about part count reduction using composite barrel sections…not just a barrel that is made from drill and fill metallic I guess you don’t have copy of the dissertation like I do..so that’s ok
David.
Whats the chances I can get a copy?
I made a photo copy of the dissertation when it was sent to me from Condit office during my PhD dissertation research (couldn’t get it thru regular dissertation service) Probably about $30 UPS each way It just sitting under a bunch of fly fishing books right now lol
PEDRO.
Remember the new rules.
Prove to me the laughability of of the fact that the KC767 was delivered to the Italians and Japanese. Exactly why is existence of those aircraft laughable. Why is it laughable that these aircraft have performed so well they receive no negative press. Why is it laughable that Boeing had already built solid performing COTS aircraft on time and on budget to their operators. Get specific because I will keep asking you endless variations of this question repeatedly inferring how you apparently can’t answer a straight question irrespective of how many times it is answered. When I dont like your response to this I’ll rephrase the question again in an effort to discredit you, as you have done to me when I give you chapter and verse answers that don’t fit your agenda. Your turn in the barrel
Pedro’s post comprised two sentences.
You evidently stopped reading after the first sentence, because his second sentence pre-answers your questions.
He even added emphasis to the key bits.
ABALONE and PEDRO
Under the new rules, its up to PEDRO to prove his points. So far he isn’t able to do so. Ill wait for his response to the following questions. Prove to me the laughability of the fact that the KC767 was delivered to the Italians and Japanese. Exactly why is existence of those aircraft laughable. Why is it laughable that these aircraft have performed so well they receive no negative press. Why is it laughable that Boeing had already built solid performing COTS aircraft on time and on budget to their operators.
Pedro didn’t say that any of those things were laughable.
Go back and read his post again.
🙈