
Stress-testing airplane wings - CarolineW
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/g2428/7-airplane-wing-stress-tests/
======
jedberg
I was talking to someone in this industry, and he was lamenting the fact that
there is revolving door between Boeing and the FAA, who runs these tests.

He said the consequence is that the testing is less stringent for Boeing
planes than for Airbus planes, since it is often their friends (and sometimes
their own design!) being tested.

You would think these tests have a fixed set of outcomes, but it turns out
there is a lot of flexibility allowed by the testers. Which makes sense since
they make the rules and want to make sure those Boeing planes are passing.

They justify it by saying that it's only fair since Airbus is funded by the
government (not realizing how much Boeing is subsidized by the government
too).

It's made me wary of flying on Boeing equipment.

~~~
nether
Same coziness goes on with EASA certifying Airbus aircraft. And then EASA
gives Boeing a harder time with this understanding. This is why
countries/regions have their own aviation regulators that perform their own
independent evaluations of new aircraft headed for their country. FAA
certification is good within the US only. It took us six years to get EASA
cert after FAA; it took our euro competitor the same time for the opposite.

------
fourmii
I remember watching the documentary series on the design and making of the
Boeing 777. I remember seeing this segment on how far the wings actually
flexed upwards. But most of all, I remember the genius of dampening the toilet
seats so they don't bang when let down. They did it because bangs and loud
noises scare passengers.

If you're interested in the documentary, it's a 5 part PBS series from the
90's. You can find it on Youtube.

~~~
csours
Another interesting thing: that documentary was part of Alan Mulally's plan to
make Boeing play nice internally. [1]You can't be as nasty if there's a film
crew watching.

1\.
[https://books.google.com/books?id=18idhw_C4xgC&pg=PA61&lpg=P...](https://books.google.com/books?id=18idhw_C4xgC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=mulalley+overcame+it+by+inviting+a+documentary+film+crew&source=bl&ots=cdak8gLVeJ&sig=j9HUwEi_xAzFdPYCPpdwhkQVwEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH_dCMlMbKAhUCKCYKHc84ByAQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=mulalley%20overcame%20it%20by%20inviting%20a%20documentary%20film%20crew&f=false)
American Icon, page 61,62

------
saddestcatever
I'm surprised at how old the footage appears to be. Goes to show that
commercial flight hardware remains largely similar in the past decade or two.

~~~
ubernostrum
New airliner _types_ are actually pretty uncommon. New _models_ of existing
types happen more often, and are typically incremental improvements on the
basic design, and usually do not rebuild/redesign the wings or other major
flight-oriented components of the airframe.

Consider that in the past 15 years only three new types (Airbus A380 and A350,
and Boeing 787) have entered service from the two major manufacturers, while
the same time period has seen nine new models of pre-existing types from those
manufacturers (the A320neo, the high-takeoff-weight variant of the A330, the
737-900, 747-8, 777-200LR, 777-300ER and the 787-9).

------
Gravityloss
Being serious about reliability is not cheap.

