@@JackieO_LAXcertification does not take into account manufacturing quality issues. The cert means that the aircraft is engineered correctly and safely. Key emphasis on engineered. Quality control issues have nothing to do with the engineering of the aircraft. That’s something Boeing needs to get under control on their own.
They are, at least on the structural side. They review (and delay) reviews for substantiating data for months with engineers from boeing going back and forth with the FAA engineers. Cert, alterations, etc. For matters related to Airworthiness Directives that need more immediate resolution, they have time limits and those get heavier attention.
If the FAA was not this strict with Boeing it would have several new aircraft certified. The problems with Boeing are almost all in managing the factories. At Boeing and the suppliers.
This concern is not new - Airbus had enough time to develop mitigation measures that would satisfy regulators. I am not worried for the XLR certification timeline.
@@MaxwHH no, if there will be another delay it won’t be for this. Because these exact requirements the FAA published have already been implemented by the EASA last year. Even the FAA said that their rules basically are now identical to the EASA rules.
FAA USA fighting Airbus XLR because Boeing doesn't have nothing like XLR. But they approved the disaster of 737 MAX with MCAS and engines at just some feets above the ground.
@@widget787mmm... where have you been the last few months, this issue has been thoroughly addressed by Airbus, this is just the FAA taking instructions from Boeing executices to try and create further delays.
@@Negotiator_ZA this is another concern completely different from the integrity of the integrated design of the RCT. FAA's concern now is about post crash safety performance, which are basically EVAC scenarios. it's a completely valid concern.
@@user-yt198 has… hence the changes implemented. Those concerns are still there just now mitigated by changes. The FAA has their own concerns based on the aircraft design provided to them. Was the changes implemented for the EU submitted at the time of application or is the FAA working on what was submitted?
The concerns raised by FAA are genie and not limited to post crashes scenarios, but also, it possesses the questions and concerns in the case of tail strike. In addition, in my view, long-haul narrow body flight ✈️ are bad idea. It gives only benefits to operators on the expense of Passengers comfort.
That would help, but accidents can still occur on takeoff or early into the flight before the tank is drained... The could also be weight and balance implications to using that tank first
The A350 burned slower than what was actually expected of the composite fuselage and did its job protecting passengers and crew from the fire underneath the aircraft so they could safely evacuate.
It did actually burn very slowly but it took ages before they initiated the evacuation. The composite materials burning trough much slower than aluminium fuselage is what saved the passengers there.
Boeing’s dollar contributions to the FAA now being diverted away from approving dangerous aircraft and towards disapproving competitor’s designs - nice
How cold is the passenger cabin directly above the fuel tank going to get? The fuel itself can easily be -20 or -30C. If the top of the fuel tank is right under the cabin floor, then it might get really cold for the passengers above it.
I totally get what they’re doing with the structure and why they’re doing it. Strength. But fuel sitting directly under seats and walls that are the actual fuselage skin no thanks.
Although there are very good reasons to drop flying (especially environmental ones, in Europe, where the railway alternatives are usually quite competitive), finding problems in pre-production planes should encourage you to trust airplane's safety. It is NOT finding problems before planes start to crash (e.g. Boeing 737MAX) that should worry you. The airplane industry has always taken whistleblowers and security very seriously and that's why flying is very much safer today than in the past.
I feel, that FAA should concentrate on Boeing's obsolete technologies and safety instead of criticism to Airbus, which is on peak in safety. EASA should have final word. Not FAA. Safety is 1st thing in aviation, but why so late US reaction? Why now? At the end of certification process? That is my opinion. You needn't to share.
@@markdonovan6810 Quite right. I fear there are some keyboard warriors who want to deify Airbus. Thank goodness safety is being considered by all the Certification Authorities for all manufacturers.
@@stevesmoneypit6137what? It will be certified this year... These requirements here have been already implemented, because the EASA already issued the very same requirement last year.
@@stevesmoneypit6137 If the XLR is not certified, no Boeing airplane ever will be able to be... The safety and design standards between the 2 companies couldn't be further apart.
In the Boeing 747 the center wing tank is right under your feet. Worked well so far (with exception of TWA flight 800, but her problem was the tank was empty)
FAA? Aren't those the same guys that approved the Max ...twice?
The maxs design is completely safe now. The problem is Boeing building them right
@@zmanzd8413so then they’re not completely safe if the problem of Boeing not building them right still exists
@@JackieO_LAX I said design not final product
@@JackieO_LAXcertification does not take into account manufacturing quality issues. The cert means that the aircraft is engineered correctly and safely. Key emphasis on engineered. Quality control issues have nothing to do with the engineering of the aircraft. That’s something Boeing needs to get under control on their own.
Yeah !!! 😮
Isn't this old news? They've already redesigned the RCT to accommodate this - it is what delayed the 321XLR's entry into service.
Just imagine if the FAA being this strict with Boeing...
My first thought.
They are, at least on the structural side. They review (and delay) reviews for substantiating data for months with engineers from boeing going back and forth with the FAA engineers. Cert, alterations, etc. For matters related to Airworthiness Directives that need more immediate resolution, they have time limits and those get heavier attention.
If the FAA was not this strict with Boeing it would have several new aircraft certified.
The problems with Boeing are almost all in managing the factories. At Boeing and the suppliers.
LOL! YEAH!!!!!!!!!
THANK U!!!
These were raised years ago, delaying the plane. They were incorporated into the design.
I thought this had been dealt with some time ago?
@@nikmwhThey were, and they'd been redesigned to comply to these regulations.
This concern is not new - Airbus had enough time to develop mitigation measures that would satisfy regulators. I am not worried for the XLR certification timeline.
Old news, they have already redesigned the RCT
Looks like Boeing is still successfully lobbying the FAA to delay and add further weight to their competitor's new aircraft model.
Seems like Boeings HQ relocation to Arlington starts to pay off...
I'm sure Airbus will will resolve these issue to the satisfaction of the FAA, the travelling public deserve the highest level of safety.
The biggest insult is it was Boeing who called the FAAs attention to this in the first place! 😂
Nice of the FAA to do its job… Though the 5 minute timer is odd, considering they’re meant to evacuate all passengers in much less time.
Is FAA job to push down Boeing competitors?
Isn't it more like 90 seconds?
90 seconds to get out of the aircraft, but you've still want time to get away from the aircraft before this tank goes up?
@@roadie4360 and get fire crews to the crash site before the aircraft detonates itself... hence the 5 minutes.
That’s another delay 😒
Not at the fault of Airbus, but OF FAA
@@lawrencepll76 yeah I know man I’m just annoyed
@@MaxwHH no, if there will be another delay it won’t be for this. Because these exact requirements the FAA published have already been implemented by the EASA last year. Even the FAA said that their rules basically are now identical to the EASA rules.
@@MrSchwabentierBut didn't the EASA already approved this issue when Airbus resolved it?
@@jessicafusio8865 yes, that’s the point. The FAA just clarified they’re using the same rules
I thought this issue had been dealt with, and that Airbus had made engineering changes?
FAA USA fighting Airbus XLR because Boeing doesn't have nothing like XLR.
But they approved the disaster of 737 MAX with MCAS and engines at just some feets above the ground.
Legendary American Protectionism.
So you want to be seated right above the RCT without any additional protection of the RCT?
So you are ok with Planes whos doors were blown apart and saw multiple crashes but this is urgent ? @@widget787
@@widget787mmm... where have you been the last few months, this issue has been thoroughly addressed by Airbus, this is just the FAA taking instructions from Boeing executices to try and create further delays.
@@Negotiator_ZA this is another concern completely different from the integrity of the integrated design of the RCT. FAA's concern now is about post crash safety performance, which are basically EVAC scenarios. it's a completely valid concern.
EU regulators have the same concerns
Had. Airbus and EASA already agreed on the requirements and test aircraft is already flying for months.
@@user-yt198 has… hence the changes implemented. Those concerns are still there just now mitigated by changes. The FAA has their own concerns based on the aircraft design provided to them. Was the changes implemented for the EU submitted at the time of application or is the FAA working on what was submitted?
Doing the job on behalf Boeing lol
"One Boeing's behalf, FAA Proposes Safety Requirements for Airbus A321XLR Amid External Fuel Fire Concerns"
😁😁😁😁😋😋😋😋
FAA's points make sense. So it's further delay then.
Not addressed in this video is whether Airbus has already considered this requirement, and what tests they have already performed for EAA approval...
no, that should be no further delay. These requirements are identical to the ones the EASA issued last year.
@usakousa no sir, the FAA is taking last minute instructions from Boeing executives
@@NikonF5user It's EASA on the other side of the pond.
@@acrodrigues1 Yep! I mistyped! Thanks for the correction...
Safety first...always.
Is this requirement covered in the EASA requirements or is this on top of that ?
So the range could be reduced further
It‘s basically identical to what the EASA requested last year.
Sounds like lobbyists forced them to look further in this matter…
Was looking for this comment
That was my first thought.
Euro regulators didn't like the design either so so much for your incredible 'theory'.....
EASA has identified this problem earlier and Airbus has started working to fix this since that.
I’m sure Airbus is taking every safety measure and precautionary approach they can.
Make the safest airplane even safer. Great idea!
So much better than the "Boeing-safe" standards.....
Who told you the a321xlr is the safest airplane?
@@AarushNishikanth1 A320neo-family airplanes are the safest commecial airplanes.
@@Luke_Go so is the 787, 737, a350, and 777
@AarushNishikanth1 I believe the correct term was "the a320neo is the safest in its class"
3rd world clo wn doesn't know about aviation
Hmm, I wonder if some entities are trying to DISTRACT from the many glaring issues with Boeing?
Well considering this is old news, Simple Flying covering this is absolutely them trying to distract from Boeing.
The concerns raised by FAA are genie and not limited to post crashes scenarios, but also, it possesses the questions and concerns in the case of tail strike.
In addition, in my view, long-haul narrow body flight ✈️ are bad idea.
It gives only benefits to operators on the expense of Passengers comfort.
All passengers seating above the RCT will be issued asbestos boots and fire-hood to wear during evacuations. There ya go! ;-)
If it wasn’t for double standards there would be no standards at all
Faa is so strict to airbus. Thats good if it was with boeing in the past...that would be also better
EASA. takes its role seriously and has already identified this issue.
You would have thought Airbus would have been liaising with the FAA in the early stages of their integral RCT concept?
At least were not that guys “Boeing”.
I really hope this plane will make low-cost flights across the Atlantic under $300.
Looks like, FAA want difficult sell Airbus in USA
Don’t most fires occure when wing tanks errupt? So why would this be more dangerous? Same requiremets for all tanks
Wings are not under your passenger compartment
@@stevesmoneypit6137that is not quite true. Center wing spar is. And the tank on the wing closest to the passager conparment effectivly is under.
@@stevesmoneypit6137wing tanks are. So are center tanks.
Why don't use ACT first to fuel the jet engine?
That would help, but accidents can still occur on takeoff or early into the flight before the tank is drained...
The could also be weight and balance implications to using that tank first
They will. The vast majority of accidents happen on takeoff or landing.....
FAA cannot tackle Boeing so now they are after Airbus.
The FAA loves more Boeing than Airbus....
Sounds like additional risk is possible with this new RCT design.
I love that faa I why didn’t they say this in the initial design phase
Hope this doesn't make carriers cancel their orders
5 minutes sounds too little.
Not really, consider that the fully loaded aircraft can be evacuated in 90 seconds.
Engineers base safety on what it “sounds like” to non engineers.
What could possibly go wrong.
Is the FAA Boeing subsidiary ? Certainly ;-)
Tire blowout may puncture the tank and cause major fire like the concorde
The tank is positioned behind the wing. The wing tanks are in risk of tire debris and are protected against such.
FAA could have brought this up much earlier, not when the aircraft is almost in operation.
This was already brought up by the Europeans last year and is fixed.
EASA has already identified this issue and Airbus has addressed it.
Airbus has to show proof while in the meantime Boeing certifies itself.
DER isn't self-certification.
The "Last week tonight" piece about Boeing is pretty funny and eye opening!
The others MUST have something...
Sounds very sensible. I was at Haneda when the A350 caught fire and it burned very very quickly.
What's your point?
It didn't burn quickly, in fact traditional materials burn faster.
@@ulrichschenk8202them Airbus aircraft burn like Roman candles.
The A350 burned slower than what was actually expected of the composite fuselage and did its job protecting passengers and crew from the fire underneath the aircraft so they could safely evacuate.
It did actually burn very slowly but it took ages before they initiated the evacuation. The composite materials burning trough much slower than aluminium fuselage is what saved the passengers there.
Worked so well on Concord. 🤦♂️
😂😂😂
yes it worked until mcdonalt douglass ruined it with their dc-10
Actually concord didn’t have any protection
Slightly different problem - it was the access panels in the wing being too easily punctured by debris that led to the tank being ruptured.
This is old news…..first airframe to be delivered in the third quarter of this year.
Eh nope! Nobody has the XLR yet.
@@davidkavanagh189 He didn't say that anyone has the XLR yet
deathtrap inbound.
@@davidkavanagh189The third quarter of 2024 has yet to happen. It occurs between July and September.
FAA's Boeing fanboys trying to exert revenge on EASA for keeping the 777x on the drawing board.
Boeing will install comformable external tanks on the max -10 to counter airbus
Oh so now the FAA worries about security because it's Airbus.
Gotta make something up to take the heat off of Boeing.
Boeing’s dollar contributions to the FAA now being diverted away from approving dangerous aircraft and towards disapproving competitor’s designs - nice
Gotta keep Boeing in the running
The FAA is just concerned about literally everything these days:
The Max obviously
A321XLR
787
United Airlines
Starship
Like literally everything
FAA balancing act to safeguard Boeing debacle.
Well well well
How cold is the passenger cabin directly above the fuel tank going to get? The fuel itself can easily be -20 or -30C. If the top of the fuel tank is right under the cabin floor, then it might get really cold for the passengers above it.
There is this stuff called "insulation". You already often fly directly atop fuel tanks anyway.
I totally get what they’re doing with the structure and why they’re doing it. Strength. But fuel sitting directly under seats and walls that are the actual fuselage skin no thanks.
The center tank is already under the seats, so exactly what is your problem?
Concorde circulated fuel around the fuselage to keep the cabin comfortable during supersonic cruise...
OH! Now the f a a wants to scrutinize it all, why did that not do that when
349 people were unalive?
People died on Airbuses too. Educate yourself before embarrassing yourself in the comments
FRRRRR SO ANNOYING THESE BOEING HATERS RIGHT?@@davidkavanagh189
it was those same FAA regulations that forced Boeing to* add MCAS. Look up stick force regulations by the FAA.
I'm done flying. Any questions?
Although there are very good reasons to drop flying (especially environmental ones, in Europe, where the railway alternatives are usually quite competitive), finding problems in pre-production planes should encourage you to trust airplane's safety. It is NOT finding problems before planes start to crash (e.g. Boeing 737MAX) that should worry you. The airplane industry has always taken whistleblowers and security very seriously and that's why flying is very much safer today than in the past.
I'm confused.
faa??? The ones who certified the max?😂
What about testing MCAS before approved the 737Max?
Boeing still paying FAA wages it seems
Hypocrites!! Why didn't they do the same with Boeing??
FAA: How to make Boeing looks safer and more competitive? Let’s scrutinize AirBus
That’s so funny cause EU regulators had the exact same concern last year. Yall are goofy
Test. It seems this channel is banning my comments from view.
Trying to save boeing?
Airbus has already resolved the case, for sure.
Wrong
@@stevesmoneypit6137they basically have already. This was brought to their attention last year.
For good reason
Really.. what is the good reason?
@@matsv201 It's in the video
@@davidkavanagh189 no its not
@@matsv201 It literally is. They're not happy with the fuselage skin being part of the fuel tank...
I feel, that FAA should concentrate on Boeing's obsolete technologies and safety instead of criticism to Airbus, which is on peak in safety. EASA should have final word. Not FAA. Safety is 1st thing in aviation, but why so late US reaction? Why now? At the end of certification process? That is my opinion. You needn't to share.
Never mind if its Boeing or airbus safety is safety or do you not want to fly safely.
@@markdonovan6810 Quite right. I fear there are some keyboard warriors who want to deify Airbus. Thank goodness safety is being considered by all the Certification Authorities for all manufacturers.
FAA = Boeing 🤡
Fair call. Keep on it, FAA. GOOD JOB
Not the FAA putting any extra barriers in the way of non-US aircraft manufacturers.......
that's it im building my own plane
Airbus is the safest airplane there is
I thought it was already certified?
Nope probably not before 2027 if at all
@@stevesmoneypit6137what? It will be certified this year... These requirements here have been already implemented, because the EASA already issued the very same requirement last year.
You thought wrong.
@@stevesmoneypit6137 Did they let you out of the locked ward again?
@@stevesmoneypit6137 If the XLR is not certified, no Boeing airplane ever will be able to be... The safety and design standards between the 2 companies couldn't be further apart.
I remember when Boeing commented that they had concerns about this. Nobody cared what Boeing thought.
Worked well for Concorde AF4590.....
AND TWA800
too bad they can't do what Boeing does and just hoodwink the FAA!
delayed till next year
Who wants to ride on top of fuel tank?
LOL If you have issues flying on top of fuel tanks, you may want to look more into both automobile and aircraft history than you have.
@@DataRew interesting that you are comparing historic data for automobiles vice certification for new aircraft. Thanks for self-identifying.
@@vincentsutter1071most aircraft, past, present and future, you ride on top of fuel tanks. Nothing new in that regards.
In the Boeing 747 the center wing tank is right under your feet. Worked well so far (with exception of TWA flight 800, but her problem was the tank was empty)
@@peterparker219 are you that Friendly Neighborhood guy?
America regulations double standards 😂
Good job, FAA! Making Airbus safer than Boeing!
They are making both safer!
Both are statistically very safe.
Don't worry. EASA has already identified this issue and Airbus has addressed it.
Airbus too???
FAA: "Yeah MAX is sure, let it fly. Let also Boeing make their own evaluation"
Also FAA: "This plane is not safe at all"
Business is business.
FAA please worry about Boeing first. Fix your in-house issues before worrying about European products.
Now the FAA cares about safety? 🤔🤔🤔 If Boeing it would have been safe
FAA to boeing: okay good you put wings on it, does it fly?
Gvvmmm
Lobbying at its best. Way to go Boeing. Smh
Boeing lives in your head rent free.
BOEING IS GREATEST 🙏🏻
FAA = Boeing
TWA 800...
Concorde...
Sounds political agenda.
😊❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤😅
The anti Boeing remarks simply display the ignorance of many.
Omg anew simplenpalenz has njsur released
ok that's it i'm flying embraer now .
i'll be walking
Nah imma just flap my hands real hard and start flying myself.
I’ll be biking
I'll teleport.
I'll take the train!