Re: Safety and design rankings (was Re: Flight controls)

From: (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Organization: Boeing
Date:         29 Dec 92 22:53:49 PST
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1992.163@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
>In article <airliners.1992.144@ohare.Chicago.COM> writes:
>>I would suggest not: the former is more of a derivative, the latter more of
>>a new type, with its new wing (which was designed to support the all-upper-
>>deck concept, plus maybe one more derivative after that) ...

Both airplanes are derivatives, actually.  The MD-11 was certified under
the DC-10's certification basis.

>My understanding was that the 747-400 does *not* have a new wing but
>rather a tweaked version of the original.  I recall some statement
>from Boeing regarding the lack of winglets on the 777, which noted
>that the 777 had a new wing and starting from a clean slate it was
>more efficient to not have them, whereas working from an existing
>design as with the 747-400 it was helpful to have them.

I can't speak to exactly how much of the 747-400's wing design could be
considered 'new', but I do know that it was modified extensively to
change the pressure distribution across the wing - particularly the
inboard wing where we were seeing double shocks on the older models.

>What I've seen suggests the F.100 is quite advanced, probably not far
>behind the A320 and perhaps closer to the Airbus philosophy than to

The Fokker 100's flight deck is much more Boeing-esk than Airbus-ish.
There are control columns, and the FMS is very similar to the Boeing
models.  The F 100 does have envelope protection, as do the Airbus
airplanes, but I don't think you would find it much different from
what is already flying.  It is a very advanced flight deck, very

>>                    INS/PMS, conventional otherwise
>Ok, I'll risk it ... what's PMS?  (We're talking about airplanes!)

Could it be the Performance Management System, a la Douglas MD-80? :-)

>I've always wondered just what the flight engineer really does on a
>767 equipped for three flight crew.  I believe QANTAS does this.
>Also, some A310s lack the FFCS (Forward Facing Crew Cockpit) having
>instead what I assume is a cockpit more like an older A300.  All of
>these are due primarily to union/labor pressures.

You are quite right, three-crew cockpits are union requirements on some
airlines.  The flight engineer on a 767 would do the same job done
on other three-crew airplanes - deal with onboard systems.  All those
nifty controller boxes are left behind in Seattle.  :-)

"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."