777-200LR Flight Test Journal: Archives

| December 2005 | November 2005 | October 2005 | September 2005 | August 2005 | July 2005 | June 2005 | May 2005 |

22 December 2005

Thanks for riding with us

Joe Kranak, Chief Engineer, Test and Validation, 747, 767, 777

Well, it's been quite a ride.

When we published the first entry for this journal back on May 20, we started by saying that "time flies." It certainly has. Flight testing the 777-200LR over the past few months has been both eventful and rewarding.

The Flight Test Program and this journal have both covered a lot of territory. And while our support of the test program presented a fairly typical challenge from a technical standpoint, we "broke new ground" with the publication of our journal. For the first time at Boeing, it provided the men and women who test and certify our products the opportunity to share their skill and enthusiasm for their profession directly with you. We hope that you found their stories of interest.

The -200LR itself was also a major focus of our writings, and for good reason. Following its highly successful stop at the Paris Air Show and ensuing 24-city "Going the Distance" world tour, the Worldliner made headlines around the world by setting a world distance flight record of 11,664 nautical miles (21,601 kilometers) in 22 hours 42 minutes without refueling. From the terrific sendoff that the crew and passengers received in Hong Kong to the reception that was waiting in London - and the two sunrises in between - it is the type of memory that remains with one forever.

While conducting the -200LR Flight Test Program, we also supported the Quiet Technology Demonstrator-2 (QTD2) research testing as well as the certification testing of the 777-300ER Enhanced version, and its entry into commercial service. Our airline customers are already realizing the benefits of the 777-300ER enhancements, while it will take a little longer before the benefits of the technologies tested on the QTD2 are incorporated.

You may recall that we also pointed out some of the "turbulence" encountered along the way: uncooperative weather in California, a disruptive runway project at Boeing Field, a bird strike in Moses Lake that required repair, and having to wait until September to do our cross-wind autoland testing (and then having to commute between Iceland and Ireland to get it done because a movie crew had reserved all of the local accommodations).

In our view, the highs definitely outnumbered the lows. Some of the facts associated with what was accomplished include:

• From first flight to last flight, the 777-200LR test program and World Tour consumed 423 flow days.
• The two 777-200LRs in the test fleet accumulated 886 flight hours on 328 flights, and 318 ground hours of testing.
• In addition, 27.8 miles of instrumentation wiring were fabricated and installed and 73 terabits (that's 73 followed by 12 zeros) of data were recorded and analyzed.
• During the test program and associated World Tour and world-record flight, 33 cities were visited (many more than once).
• An estimated 50,000 visitors took the opportunity to see our airplanes.
• More than 70 authors helped produce about 50 entries for our journal.

So, with this entry, we are closing the final chapter of the 777-200LR Flight Test Journal. Since publication of this journal has been somewhat of an experiment, we'd like to ask you for your comments - what you liked and didn't like, where we hit the mark and where we missed it. We've spent the last seven months sharing our passion for airplanes with you. Now, it's your turn. Please share your thoughts with us at bcaflighttest@pss.boeing.com.

It has definitely been quite a ride, and we're glad you were able to come along.

20 December 2005

Stamp of approval

Tim Braxmeyer, Maintenance Planning/Quality Supervisor

John Malone, Flight Test Quality Supervisor

In the 777-200LR Flight Test Program, Quality Assurance was the group responsible for developing and verifying compliance to airplane inspection programs supporting both airplanes - WD001 and WD002. We tailored the maintenance and inspection to match the actual flight test operational environment for each airplane. For WD001, testing was intensive and aggressive, while the majority of the WD002 airplane test program was basically straight and level flight operations. These are the same type of maneuvers you'd expect in service, so our oversight didn't need to be as intensive.

WD001's testing was far more stringent and included the "work horse" type of systems and procedures, like with stability and control and auto-lands - the testing that can be pretty hard on the airplane. Tests are rated at different "risk levels" with the highest-risk tests performed off-site at remote locations, such as Edwards Air Force Base, located 100 miles north of Los Angeles, Calif. Many tests also can be weather and condition dependent, which requires traveling to remote areas, like Iceland for crosswinds or Australia for heat. Typically, we develop a thorough pre-flight, post-flight and servicing regiment that we put the airplanes through every night to prepare for the next day's test.

Quality management ensures that type-certified and developmental airplane parts used in flight test are operated in accordance with appropriate established standards. We operate the type-certified systems, parts and components much like an airline. We release the routine scheduled maintenance requirements and exercise unscheduled maintenance for events such as hard or overweight landings, engine chops, blown tires, brake fires, bird strikes or lightning strikes, just to name a few. We do a lot of tests for conditions that will rarely occur to an aircraft in service. For instance, the aircraft will take off at maximum gross weight and the crew will intentionally turn off an engine. The aircraft will prove that with an engine out in this condition it still has the ability to take off and climb.

There is a big difference with quality management in a flight test environment compared to an airline's in-service fleet. We use cutting-edge technology everyday. For example, we'll discover there's a problem with a system under development, like if the nose-wheel doors are coming apart in flight. Quality works with manufacturing and engineering during the redesign and manufacturing stages to develop testing procedures that maintain the safe operation of the airplane. The engineering doesn't exist yet to explain the procedure; we have to work it out.

In flight test we want things to fail safely. This environment is where we test to define the parameters and ring out the aircraft problems before type certification. Engineering sets the performance parameters and standards and then develops the testing requirements needed to demonstrate the airplanes capabilities. Quality works with maintenance and engineering to complete the test and demonstrate final compliance.

It's extraordinary playing a part in the continued development of our products. To us, the wonderful part of our work is that the job description can change daily. It is a very fluid, dynamic environment that is so unique in the aviation world. We take a great deal of pride in testing a new model aircraft that symbolizes the talent of so many great minds working toward one goal. We know it's the best job there is at Boeing.

19 December 2005

Where it all comes together

George Trampus, 777 Flight Deck Crew Operations Model Focal

The flight deck is where all of the airplane information comes together and is displayed so the pilot can operate the airplane safely and efficiently. My group's main focus is the flight crew interface. We work with the pilots to generate the requirements for the flight deck and make sure all the crew interfaces are integrated. As model focal for the 777, I am the primary contact between the program, chief pilots and the Flight Crew Operations (Ops) Integration group. My primary responsibility is to facilitate communications and to act as the problem manager for specific issues.

On a brand new airplane model, Flight Crew Ops gets heavily involved early in the program to ensure that everything the pilot interfaces with meets basic 'human factor' requirements and maintains commonality between our models. For the -200LR, much of the basic design and functionality was determined by earlier 777 derivatives. There was new functionality in the Flight Master Computer and the addition of auxiliary fuel tanks in the cargo compartment. During flight test, my group identifies flight deck changes and ensures they get into the Flight Operations Manual. If new procedures are required, such as for the auxiliary fuel tank option, we help draft the procedures for normal and non-normal use. It's important to make sure the procedures are intuitive and simple from the pilots' perspective.

If new features are added to the pilot interface in the flight deck, we help develop prototypes in the engineering simulator for evaluation. Once procedures are evaluated, we send finalized requirements to avionics, where they are incorporated into the next avionics software load. The incremental software loads are validated in the simulator prior to being installed on the airplane.

Many people may not realize how important the flight simulator is to our work. The engineering simulator is used extensively for software development and for familiarizing Boeing and FAA pilots on new features and handling characteristics. At the start of flight test, we have the simulator updated for the new model; in this case the -200LR. We test new functionality and software in the simulator to make sure they're ready for pilot evaluations, which in turn determine if they're flight-worthy. The pilots use the simulator evaluations as a confidence test for how well the program is doing and how well we have integrated the new features into the flight deck.

Our biggest focus with integration testing in the engineering simulator is to ensure new problems don't slip in with the software upgrades. A lot of our time and effort is spent retesting existing functionality - or regression testing - along with any new functionality. Surprisingly we do tend to find problems that way. We try to be the pilots' eyes and ears and project ourselves into the way they think and fly airplanes. We'll take something they notice that doesn't feel or look right and try to isolate it on the simulator. The pilots' intuition is incredible. They'll get a funny feeling that something is wrong but they don't know what it is. They'll point us in the right direction and we troubleshoot and, low and behold, we validate there is a problem. We have learned not to discount their gut feelings.

Of all the 777 models, the -200LR was absolutely the sweetest airplane to work on; it has been almost effortless. The program came together quite well. We had a terrific team with some really great members. I can't help but think I have the greatest job in the company - I get to work one-on-one with the best test pilots in the world. We in Flight Deck Crew Operations have to pinch ourselves every once in a while to make sure it's not a dream.

13 December 2005

'Refurbing' the Worldliner

Andres Sanchez, Refurb Manufacturing Supervisor

Kirk Foster, Industrial Engineering Methods Analyst

There are many challenges to refurbishing a flight test airplane, and we are experiencing many of them right now. "Refurb" is the task of removing flight test equipment, reconditioning worn or damaged parts and installing customer-unique equipment. This includes the installation of seats, lavatories, galleys and painting the customer livery.

It sounds relatively simple, but it is not for a variety of reasons. A fact that few people realize is that it takes longer to refurbish a plane than it did to build it in the first place. It is kind of like the difference between building or remodeling a house. Remodeling is made more complicated because you have to deal with the structure that is already there.

Our number one hurdle is that we just don't do this often - a couple of planes every two or three years on average. At Boeing, we are good at building airplanes. We do it all the time - every day - and we do it efficiently. You just can't get efficient when you do something so rarely. A lot of information and knowledge is lost during the down times. We are making a real effort on this program to document issues and "lessons learned" in order to prepare for future refurb projects.

For the 777-200LR Worldliner program, we are basically refurbishing one plane at a time - WD001 first and WD002 after the first one is complete. WD001 has been in refurb for a little over a month now. We are working hand-in-hand with Flight Test as they continue to pull out wiring. Right now we are split into three teams - interior, exterior and skin. That will evolve as the project goes forward.

We removed the flight test galleys and lavatories and stripped the interior down to the studs. Then we began installing the customers' galleys, lavatories and interior. In the middle of the process, we sent the plane to the paint hangar, where it was sanded and repainted in the livery of its owner, Pakistan International Airlines. Normally, we would wait to paint it at the end, but not all of our paint hangars are equipped for both sanding and painting, and we had to take the time that was available to us.

WD002 will be a smaller job in some regards. For instance, it already has the customers' lavatories and galleys in it. Shortly after it was handed off to us just a couple weeks ago, its custom interior was removed and will be put on display at the new Passenger Experience Center.

One of the first things we learned is that the space we set aside for this project just isn't big enough. This kind of work requires a lot of tooling and lots of staging area. Right now our crew members have to do a lot of snake walking through all the jacks and tooling. In the future, we'll look for space that is better suited to our needs.

Another issue we have to deal with is the fact that we are bringing previously fuel-flown planes back into the hangar. That is completely out of the ordinary. There are a lot of additional safety and fire regulations when it comes to previous fuel-flown airplanes. We have to work very closely with the fire department when opening fuel cells, and we have to get a permit from the fire department prior to using any heat-producing tools.

Yes, refurb is a challenge, but it is the kind of challenge that keeps you on your toes. Our motto is "Whatever it takes!" And, it is the kind of challenge that will be very satisfying when we deliver these planes in top shape early next year.

09 December 2005

Troubleshooting on the go

Greg Lichneckert - Flight Systems Analyst

John Stoesz - Flight Analyst (WD002)

We sometimes describe the job of Flight Analyst as an in-flight trouble shooter, swapping out parts or getting something that's not working correctly to work again. There are 13 of us in Flight Test and airplane production. Although the job may vary somewhat by location, we all are points of reference and have experience with most airplane systems.

In flight test we work with almost everybody - pilots, test directors, ground operations, project and analysis engineers and shop personnel. When there's an airplane problem we try to convey what's wrong to maintenance and engineering. We don't go onboard and test systems arbitrarily; if there is a problem, we'll get a call. But we don't necessarily wait for the pilots to call us. A good description of what we do is maintain an overview; we're watching what's going on and paying special attention to what's being tested. An analyst is onboard almost every test flight, unless there are restrictions, like the first flight for airworthiness.

If we can't solve a problem on the spot, there are different ways of dealing with it. We may write a squawk or communicate with engineering and the pilots to see how we need to work and document the situation. Some problems can be fixed right away. You see things and say, "We've seen this before and this is how we fixed it." We'll talk about what the system is supposed to do and work out a solution. But there are so many variables in some of the systems that nobody is going to know it all. Some systems' software, like in the autopilot, might need to be swapped out and changed every flight.

Once we write up a problem, it is the maintenance crew's responsibility to follow through, and Quality Assurance has general oversight. Different groups - not just the analysts - are involved in the process and keep an eye on problem resolution. Sometimes the flight crew will come back to us and ask more questions about what we saw when the problem came up.

It might be fair to say, though, we actually keep track of various airplane problems and issues more than other groups. We think that is one of the reasons they like us going along on all the flights. It's a measure of continuity; we're pretty consistent. We were on more than 95 percent of the test flights for WD001 and WD002. We pretty much know what's going on.

The 777-200LR has performed amazingly well. There were no chronic problems, nothing recurring; no single common thread came through the whole program. It's a pretty clean airplane. What else we like about the work is the variety - the airplane programs are all so different!

07 December 2005

Certification innovations

Bob Buchholz, 777 Safety, Certification and Performance

Catherine Weaver, 777-200LR Certification Project Lead

The 777-200LR - the world's longest range commercial airplane - is full of innovations, nose to tail. Therefore, it seems very fitting that the certification process for this plane is breaking new ground as well.

Much of the certification data that Boeing is providing to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the Worldliner is being approved by Boeing people who are acting on behalf of that regulatory agency. These people are designated engineering representatives (DERs) and authorized representatives (ARs) who are members of the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegated Compliance Organization (BDCO). This is the first time Boeing has certified an airplane using the BDCO process.

What this really means is that Boeing has agreed to take on certain administrative overhead from the FAA. In theory, this new process should make the certification process more efficient and flexible for us. When we're doing the administrative portion, we can work around the clock if necessary, whereas FAA personnel work standard business hours.

As with almost any first-time process, this one has had its ups and downs, and we're still working through some of the issues. We're using it as a springboard so that future programs can take full advantage of the efficiency and flexibility it offers.

In this case about two-thirds of all the compliance submittals are delegated to Boeing engineers who are ARs or DERs and who have authority from the FAA to say "yes." Once they have the compliance data, they sign a piece of paper that says, "I approve of this data." For the other third of the data, they still have to sign the same piece of paper, but they say, "I recommend approval of this data." Then the whole package goes to the FAA for review and approval.

Although there is a certification organization, every engineer on the program is responsible in some way for certification. It's viewed as a company responsibility - for the first time, we're all responsible.

The certification organization is the bookkeeper and the conduit for all this information. We are also the facilitator/translator between the certification agencies and Boeing. We are responsible for making sure that the parties get together and talk things out, and also for making sure that the decisions and conclusions at those meetings are well recorded and understood so they can be referred to.

When the DERs are fulfilling the function of finding compliance, they are responsible to the FAA or to the BDCO. They are technically outside The Boeing Company. They are paid by Boeing, but they are acting on behalf of the agencies. It's a unique relationship and it's one that puts a lot of responsibility and stress on those individuals. That's why we only take very experienced engineers, people who have that broad view and understand their job very well.