From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terrell D. Drinkard) Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 11 Oct 96 19:44:48 References: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.1986@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Mark Ingram <email@example.com> wrote: >On 1 Oct 1996, 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist wrote: > >> I wrote: >> Actually, I think the 737 meets or exceeds all the current regulatory >> requirements. > >> Terry, >> A difference that comes to mind is that the old 737's at least, only >> had to allow 1 second for reaction time for an aborted takeoff as a >> derivative, wheras the A320 as a new airplane had to allow two. That would be a performance issue that relates to balanced field length for takeoff; that is, a procedural difference, not a systems or structural difference. Besides, it is relatively easy to get that field length back with additional thrust so that performance numbers are comparable. >I do suspect that there could be any number of significant "grandfathered" >737 systems that would not meet current certification criteria. In one of >the _AW&ST_ articles discussing the NTSB's ongoing investigation of 737 >uncommanded rudder inputs (United and USAir, among others), it was >reported that the rudder PCU (power control unit, I believe it is) could >not be certified under today's regulations. I've not worked the 737 in a year or so, but I don't recall anything like that. That sounds like a suspiciously irresponsible statement to me. Do you recall exactly where you read that? FWIW, there cannot be "any number" of significant systems that do not meet current criteria. Each manufacturer has to request a specific "grandfathering" action from the appropriate regulatory agency, and they are all subject to negotiation with that same regulatory agency. The regulatory agency keeps very close tabs on what systems are in the airplane as well as their cert status. -- Terry firstname.lastname@example.org "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense."