DOCSLIB.ORG

Boeing 787–8 Design, Certification, and Manufacturing Systems Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Boeing 787–8 Design, Certification, and Manufacturing Systems Review BOEING 787–8 DESIGN, CERTIFICATION, AND MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS REVIEW BOEING 787–8 CRITICAL SYSTEMS REVIEW TEAM March 19, 2014 Prepared for Ms. Dorenda D. Baker Mr. Daniel P. Mooney Director, Aircraft Certification Service Vice President of Boeing South Carolina Federal Aviation Administration Design Center Washington, DC Boeing Commercial Airplanes Seattle, Washington BOEING 787–8 CRITICAL SYSTEMS REVIEW TEAM Michael Kaszycki, Co-chair Rich Ptacin, Co-chair Manager, Transport Standards Staff Director, 787 Deputy Chief Project Engineer FAA Aircraft Certification Service Boeing Commercial Airplanes Christopher B. Bergen Stephen P. Boyd Manager, Phoenix and Van Nuys Manager, Airplane and Flight Crew FAA Manufacturing Inspection District Offices Interface Branch FAA Transport Airplane Directorate TJ Ginthner Jerome R. Hulm Sr. Manager, Regulatory and Quality Associate Technical Fellow System Oversight Boeing Commercial Airplanes Boeing Commercial Airplanes James Mitchell Christopher R. Parker Technical Fellow, Flight Control System Design Aerospace Engineer, Transport and Rotorcraft Boeing Commercial Airplanes Program Manager FAA Seattle Aircraft Certification Office Bradford A. Moravec Brett E. Portwood Chief Engineer, Mission Assurance Technical Specialist for Safety and Integration Propulsion Systems Division FAA Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office Boeing Commercial Airplanes Jeff Shario Michael H. Song Chief Engineer, Propulsion Safety Director, Quality Engineering and Airworthiness Boeing Commercial Airplanes Boeing Commercial Airplanes Ian Y. Won Aerospace Engineer Airframe/Cabin Safety Branch, FAA Transport Airplane Directorate CSRT Program Support: Kristin Grimlund, Airplane Programs Business Operations, Boeing; and Matthew Bentley, Airplane Level Integration, Boeing Boeing 787–8 Critical Systems Review Team Report Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... vii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Scope of This Review .......................................................................................... 2 1.3. CSRT Membership and Activity ......................................................................... 2 1.3.1. CSRT Meetings .............................................................................................. 3 1.3.2. CSRT Phased Approach ................................................................................ 3 1.3.3. Review of Airplane Design and Design Processes ........................................ 4 2. CSRT Review Analysis—Key Messages ..................................................................... 7 2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7 2.2. B787 Entry Into Service—Comparison to Other Boeing Airplane Models ........ 7 2.2.1. Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 8 2.2.2. Summary ...................................................................................................... 10 2.3. Component Removals ........................................................................................ 11 2.4. Novel Technologies ........................................................................................... 11 2.5. Business Model .................................................................................................. 12 2.5.1. B787 Systems and Equipment ..................................................................... 12 2.5.2. Manufacturing/Quality ................................................................................. 13 2.5.3. FAA Certificate Management of Large Production Approval Holders ....... 14 2.6. Design Requirements ......................................................................................... 15 2.6.1. Background .................................................................................................. 15 2.6.2. Requirements Issues..................................................................................... 15 2.7. Inspection Delegation ........................................................................................ 17 2.8. Regulatory Oversight—FAA Review and Acceptance Policy .......................... 18 2.9. FAA Engineering Conformity ........................................................................... 19 3. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 21 3.1. B787 Met Expectations in Service ..................................................................... 21 3.2. Improvement Needed ......................................................................................... 22 3.2.1. Manufacturing/Quality Business Model ...................................................... 22 3.2.2. Design requirements .................................................................................... 22 3.2.3. Inspection Delegation .................................................................................. 23 Boeing 787–8 Critical Systems Review Team Report Page iii 3.2.4. FAA Regulatory Oversight .......................................................................... 23 4. FAA Recommendations .............................................................................................. 24 Appendix A—Deep-Dive Review Summaries .............................................................. A‒1 A.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... A‒1 A.2. Systems ........................................................................................................... A‒2 A.2.1. Selection Process Summary ...................................................................... A‒5 A.2.2. Observations Summary ............................................................................. A‒5 A.2.3. Conclusions ............................................................................................. A‒11 A.3. Propulsion ..................................................................................................... A‒12 A.3.1. Scope of Subteam Review ...................................................................... A‒15 A.3.2. Selection Process Summary .................................................................... A‒15 A.3.3. Observations Summary ........................................................................... A‒15 A.3.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................. A‒17 A.4. Structures ...................................................................................................... A‒17 A.4.1. Selection Process Summary .................................................................... A‒18 A.4.2. Observations Summary ........................................................................... A‒19 A.4.3. Conclusion .............................................................................................. A‒19 A.5. Manufacturing/Quality .................................................................................. A‒20 A.5.1. Selection Process Summary .................................................................... A‒20 A.5.2. Observations Summary ........................................................................... A‒21 A.5.3. Conclusion .............................................................................................. A‒26 A.6. CSRT Deep-Dive Review Summaries—Observations and Recommendations .................................................................................. A‒27 Appendix B—Acronyms ................................................................................................ B‒1 Cover image ©2013 Boeing. All rights reserved. Boeing 787–8 Critical Systems Review Team Report Page iv LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Table 1. CSRT Supplier Visits........................................................................................... 5 Figure 1. Schedule Reliability............................................................................................ 8 Figure 2. B787 vs. B777 EE–1s Since Entry Into Revenue Service.................................. 9 Figure 3. 14 CFR § 21.3 EIS Reporting........................................................................... 10 Figure A–1. B787 Components/Systems Selected for Deep-Dive Review .................. A–1 Figure A–2. Electric Power Generation & Start System .............................................. A–3 Figure A–3. Spoiler Electromechanical Actuators ....................................................... A–4 Figure A–4. Elevator Actuator ...................................................................................... A–4 Figure A–5. Valve Actuator Micro-Switches and Position Indication ....................... A–13 Figure A–6 Main Wing Fuel Tank Access Door Types and Locations ...................... A–14 Figure A–7. Full Flexible Coupling ............................................................................ A–14 Figure A–8. Horizontal Stabilizer and Aft Fuselage Sections 46, 47, and 48 ............ A–18 Figure A–9. Boeing 787 Value Stream Review.........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The A320's Success Continues to Accelerate and Its Customer Base Is
    38 I MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING The A320’s success continues to accelerate and its customer base is widening. The oldest aircraft in the fleet have reached maturity. The aircraft has a well-earned reputation for low maintenance requirements, although its schedule still requires operators to compromise. A320 maintenance cost analysis ith the oldest A320s prevention and control programme out in the aircraft’s maintenance completing their first nine- (CPCP) is an integral part of its airframe planning document (MPD), are at each year structural checks, checks. So far, there have not been any FC, every 24 hours and every seven days. A320 family aircraft being ageing aircraft service bulletins (SBs) or The intervals for the daily and weekly Woperated by the majority of the world’s Airworthiness Directives (ADs). checks have been extended by some major carriers, and aircraft having been Apart from airframe checks operators operators to between 36 and 48 hours involved in used aircraft transactions, an only have to consider line maintenance and eight days. These three checks can all analysis of the A320 family’s and the usual removal of heavy be performed on the ramp and incur maintenance costs is essential. components, line replaceable unit (LRU) minimal downtime. All elements of the A320’s components and interior work. Work included in the transit or pre- maintenance, apart from engine-related The A320 differs to older types of flight check includes a review of the items, are examined here. The A320 is similar size, such as the 737 and MD-80, aircraft’s technical log, inspection of the oldest member of the family.
    [Show full text]
  • N 8900.570 NOTICE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Effective Date: National Policy 11/18/20 Cancellation Date: 11/18/21
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION N 8900.570 NOTICE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Effective Date: National Policy 11/18/20 Cancellation Date: 11/18/21 SUBJ: Boeing 737-8 and 737-9 Airplanes: Return to Service 1. Purpose of This Notice. This notice provides policy, information, and direction to certain Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees regarding the maintenance actions required for operators to complete prior to returning the Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 (referred to collectively as the 737 MAX) airplanes to service. The FAA has identified the required return-to-service activities for operators of the 737 MAX and heightened surveillance and tracking of those related activities for aviation safety inspectors (ASI). 2. Audience. The primary audience for this notice is principal inspectors (PI), ASIs, and other Flight Standards (FS) personnel who are responsible for the oversight of certificate holders operating or maintaining 737 MAX airplanes under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 91, 121, 125, and 129. The secondary audience includes the FS Safety Standards and Foundational Business offices. 3. Where You Can Find This Notice. You can find this notice on the MyFAA employee website at https://employees.faa.gov/tools_resources/orders_notices. Inspectors can access this notice through the Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS) at https://fsims.avs.faa.gov. Operators can find this notice on the FAA’s website at https://fsims.faa.gov. This notice is available to the public at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices. 4. Applicability. This notice applies only to 737 MAX airplanes that received FAA Airworthiness Certificates and export Certificates of Airworthiness prior to the date of issuance of the Rescission of Emergency Order of Prohibition (November 18, 2020).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Foreign EASA Part-145 Approved Organisations
    EASA-IFP - List of Valid Foreign Part 145 organisations (WEB) List of valid Foreign Part-145 organisations This list contains valid approvals, including limited and partially suspended ones. Approved organisations EASA ap​proval num​ber Cer​tifi​cate ad​dress Coun​try - Status of Approval: Patially Suspended (3) EASA.145.0469 NW TECHNIC LLC RUSSIA EASA.145.0547 ONUR AIR TASIMACILIK A.S. D/B/A ONUR AIR TURKEY EASA.145.0660 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ''UTG DOMODEDOVO'' T/A UTG AVIATION SERVICES RUSSIA - Status of Approval: Valid (334) EASA.145.0003 GOODRICH AEROSTRUCTURES SERVICE (CENTER-ASIA) PTE Ltd. SINGAPORE EASA.145.0005 CHROMALLOY (THAILAND) LTD. THAILAND EASA.145.0007 ''UZBEKISTAN AIRWAYS TECHNICS'' LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UZBEKISTAN EASA.145.0008 KUWAIT AIRWAYS COMPANY KUWAIT EASA.145.0010 ABU DHABI AVIATION UNITED ARAB EMIRATES EASA.145.0012 AEROFLOT RUSSIAN AIRLINES RUSSIA EASA.145.0015 AIR ASTANA JSC KAZAKHSTAN EASA.145.0016 AI ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED t/a AIESL INDIA EASA.145.0017 AIR MAURITIUS Ltd. MAURITIUS EASA.145.0018 AIRFOIL SERVICES SDN. BHD. MALAYSIA EASA.145.0019 GE AVIATION, ENGINE SERVICES - SING PTE. LTD. SINGAPORE EASA.145.0020 ALIA - THE ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES PLC CO (ROYAL JORDANIAN) JORDAN EASA.145.0021 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING CORPORATION, BEIJING (AMECO) CHINA EASA.145.0022 AMSAFE AVIATION (CHONGQING) Ltd. CHINA EASA.145.0024 ASIA PACIFIC AEROSPACE Pty. Ltd. AUSTRALIA EASA.145.0025 ASIAN COMPRESSOR TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CO. LTD. TAIWAN EASA.145.0026 ASIAN SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD SINGAPORE EASA.145.0027 AEROVIAS DEL CONTINENTE AMERICANO S AVIANCA S.A. COLOMBIA EASA.145.0028 BAHRAIN AIRPORT SERVICES BAHRAIN EASA.145.0029 ISRAEL AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES, Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Boeing 737-300, 9H-ABT
    Boeing 737-300, 9H-ABT AAIB Bulletin No: 5/98 Ref: EW/C97/8/3Category: 1.1 Aircraft Type and Registration: Boeing 737-300, 9H-ABT No & Type of Engines: 2 CFM56 turbofan engines Year of Manufacture: 1993 Date & Time (UTC): 1 August 1997 at 0943 hrs Location: On approach to Manchester Airport Type of Flight: Public Transport Persons on Board: Crew - 7 - Passengers - 93 Injuries: Crew - None - Passengers - None Nature of Damage: Nil Commander's Licence: Airline Transport Pilot's Licence Commander's Age: 49 years Commander's Flying Experience: 11,765 hours (of which 7,500 hours were on type) Last 90 days - 255 hours Last 28 days - 96 hours Information Source: AAIB Field Investigation History of flight The crew were operating a scheduled flight, as AMC 202, from Maltato Manchester. For the first part of the flight, the first officerwas the handling pilot. However, the forecast weather at Manchesterindicated that Low Visibility Procedures (LVP) would be requiredand, in accordance with company procedures, this would requirethe commander in the left seat to be the handling pilot. Therefore,towards the end of the cruise, the commander took over the handlingduties and the first officer assumed the normal non-handling dutiesincluding the radio monitoring and response. Prior to flight,the commander had confirmed the serviceability of the aircraftand noted that there were no 'Carried Forward Defects' in theTechnical Log; additionally, he had also confirmed that both thefirst officer and himself were qualified to carry out the expectedLVP approach. Throughout the flight, the aircraft was fully serviceable. Before descent, the crew obtained the airport weather informationand the commander briefed for the expected approach to Runway24 at Manchester.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fond Farewell to Ve Fantastic Eets
    NEWS RELEASE A fond farewell to ve fantastic eets 4/30/2020 Last month, American Airlines announced plans to accelerate the retirement of some older, less fuel-ecient aircraft from its eet sooner than originally planned. As ying schedules and aircraft needs are ne-tuned during this period of record low demand, American will take the unique step of retiring a total of ve aircraft types. American has ocially retired the Embraer E190 and Boeing 767 eets, which were originally scheduled to retire by the end of 2020. The airline has also accelerated the retirement of its Boeing 757s and Airbus A330-300s. Additionally, American is retiring 19 Bombardier CRJ200 aircraft operated by PSA Airlines. These changes remove operating complexity and will bring forward cost savings and eciencies associated with operating fewer aircraft types. It will also help American focus on ying more advanced aircraft as we continue receiving new deliveries of the Airbus A321neo and the Boeing 737 MAX and 787 family. American’s narrowbody eet also becomes more simplied with just two cockpit types – the Airbus A320 and the Boeing 737 families. This benets American’s operational performance through training eciency and streamlined maintenance. American continues to evaluate its schedule and remains committed to caring for customers on life’s journey. These changes will help American continue to provide a reliable travel experience around the world, even during these uncertain times. Here’s a snapshot of the aircraft exiting American’s eet: Airbus A330-300 — Blue Sky News/Pittsburgh International AirportAirbus A330-300 1 Joined the US Airways eet in 2000 prior to joining American’s eet in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THOMAS P. DiNAPOLI, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AS ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC VERSION HEAD OF THE NEW YORK STATE FILED ON: June 30, 2020 AND LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE NEW YORK STATE COMMON RETIREMENT FUND, and FIRE AND POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION OF COLORADO, Plaintiffs, v. C.A. No. 2020-0465-AGB KENNETH M. DUBERSTEIN, MIKE S. ZAFIROVSKI, ARTHUR D. COLLINS JR., EDWARD M. LIDDY, ADMIRAL EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI JR., DAVID L. CALHOUN, SUSAN C. SCHWAB, RONALD A. WILLIAMS, LAWRENCE W. KELLNER, LYNN J. GOOD, ROBERT A. BRADWAY, RANDALL L. STEPHENSON, CAROLINE B. KENNEDY, W. JAMES MCNERNEY JR., DENNIS A. MUILENBURG, KEVIN G. MCALLISTER, RAYMOND L. CONNER, GREG SMITH, J. MICHAEL LUTTIG, GREG HYSLOP, and DIANA L. SANDS, Defendants. and THE BOEING COMPANY, Nominal Defendant. VERIFIED STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT {FG-W0467081.} Plaintiffs Thomas P. DiNapoli, Comptroller of the State of New York, as Administrative Head of the New York State and Local Retirement System, and as Trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, and Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado, stockholders of The Boeing Company (“Boeing,” the “Company,” or “Nominal Defendant”), bring this action on Boeing’s behalf against the current and former officers and directors identified below (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from their failure to monitor the safety of Boeing’s 737 MAX airplanes. The allegations in this Complaint are based on the knowledge of Plaintiffs as to themselves, and on information and belief, including the review of publicly available information and documents obtained under 8 Del.
    [Show full text]
  • ICCT Aircraft Efficiency Design Public Draft
    TRENDS IN AIRCRAFT EFFICIENCY AND DESIGN PARAMETERS Mazyar Zeinali, Ph.D. Daniel Rutherford, Ph.D. International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) ABSTRACT Developing an aircraft CO2 candidate metric and subsequent compliance assessment requires an understanding of practices and trends in aircraft design. Historically, fuel burn has been an important consideration for airlines, and manufacturers have responded by developing technologies to improve the efficiency of new aircraft designs. However, market forces also demand improvements in aircraft performance beyond reduced fuel burn. As a consequence, some portion of efficiency gained through improved technology has been devoted to increasing other aircraft design parameters such as range, maximum payload, and speed rather than to reducing emissions on a constant mission. In this paper, we discuss some initial ICCT work on sales‐weighted historical trends in new aircraft design attributes and their influence on aircraft efficiency, using design range as a first area of inquiry. We show that aircraft design parameters that influence fuel efficiency have changed over time, both in aggregate and for specific replacement designs, and therefore need to be taken into account when developing a CO2 certification requirement and stringency scenarios for further consideration. We also present evidence that commercial aircraft are not typically operated near their maximum performance points (i.e. design range and max payload), and therefore setting a CO2 certification requirement and standard at those points may overestimate improvements in future designs. 1. INTRODUCTION Developing an aircraft CO2 candidate metric and stringency scenarios will require knowledge and understanding of a complex system. Proper design choices will not only result in a policy that underscores environmental performance accurately, but also one that minimizes costs, undesirable impacts on competitiveness, and potential standard gaming.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk to Ozone and Ozone-Derived Oxidation Products on Commercial Aircraft Clifford P
    Risk to Ozone and ozone-derived oxidation products on commercial aircraft Clifford P. Weisela Charles J. Weschlera,b Kris Mohana Jack Spenglerc Jose Vallarinoc William W Nazaroffc aEnvironmental & Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University, NJ bInternational Centre for Indoor Environment and Energy,Tech Inst Denmark cHarvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA dDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC, Berkeley, CA Background • At cruise altitude (10000 to 11000 m), ozone levels outside an aircraft are high – typically 200 to 800 ppb • Atmospheric conditions, such as folds in the tropopause, can result in an influx of stratospheric air into the lower atmosphere. Thus even lower flying aircraft can encounter high ozone levels Background • In the 1960s high ozone levels Dr. David Bates placed rubber bands (specially produced without antioxidants) in planes and observed that they cracked in an analogous fashion to a similar set exposed to ozone on the ground. At the same time toxicological symptom associated with ozone was observed occurring in flight attendants • To reduce ozone on planes that cruise at high altitude most wide-body aircraft have ozone filters to remove ~85% of the ozone from the ventilation air • However, only ~ 1/2 narrow-body aircraft remove ozone from the ventilation air Background • In 1980 FAA set an ozone standard in the airplane cabin of 100ppb average for flights exceeded 3 hours and 250ppb maximum – sea level equivalent. (Note ground level standard in 75ppb for 8 hours and 120ppm for
    [Show full text]
  • Preventive Maintenance
    Maintenance Aspects of Owning Your Own Aircraft Introduction According to 14 CFR Part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration, the holder of a pilot certificate issued under 14 CFR Part 61 may perform specified preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot, as long as the aircraft is not used under 14 CFR Part 121, 127, 129, or 135. This pamphlet provides information on authorized preventive maintenance. How To Begin Here are several important points to understand before you attempt to perform your own preventive maintenance: First, you need to understand that authorized preventive maintenance cannot involve complex assembly operations. Second, you should carefully review 14 CFR Part 43, Appendix A, Subpart C (Preventive Maintenance), which provides a list of the authorized preventive maintenance work that an owner pilot may perform. Third, you should conduct a self-analysis as to whether you have the ability to perform the work satisfactorily and safely. Fourth, if you do any of the preventive maintenance authorized in 14 CFR Part 43, you will need to make an entry in the appropriate logbook or record system in order to document the work done. The entry must include the following information: • A description of the work performed, or references to data that are acceptable to the Administrator. • The date of completion. • The signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person performing the work. Note that the signature constitutes approval for return to service only for work performed. Examples of Preventive Maintenance Items The following is a partial list of what a certificated pilot who meets the conditions in 14 CFR Part 43 can do: • Remove, install, and repair landing gear tires.
    [Show full text]
  • Boeing Debuts 787-10 Dreamliner. the Boeing
    50SKYSHADESImage not found or type unknown- aviation news BOEING DEBUTS 787-10 DREAMLINER News / Manufacturer Image not found or type unknown The Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner, the third member of the 787 Dreamliner family, made its debut at Boeing South Carolina. Thousands of employees at the North Charleston, S.C. site celebrated the event, along with U.S. President Donald Trump and South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster. “What’s happening here at Boeing South Carolina is a true American success story,” said Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing chairman, president and CEO. “In just a few short years, our © 2015-2021 50SKYSHADES.COM — Reproduction, copying, or redistribution for commercial purposes is prohibited. 1 team has transformed a greenfield site into a modern aerospace production facility that is delivering 787s to airlines all over the world and supporting thousands of U.S. jobs in the process.” The 787-10, built exclusively at Boeing South Carolina, will now be prepared for its first flight in the coming weeks. “This airplane, the most efficient in its class, is the result of years of hard work and dedication from our Boeing teammates, suppliers and community partners in South Carolina and across the globe,” said Kevin McAllister, Boeing Commercial Airplanes president and CEO. “We know our customers, including launch customer Singapore Airlines, are going to love what the 787-10 will do for their fleets, and we can’t wait to see them fly it.” Boeing will deliver the 787-10 to airlines in 2018. The airplane has won 149 orders from nine customers across the globe. The 787-10, the longest model of the Dreamliner family, will grow the nonstop routes opened by the 787-8 and 787-9 with unprecedented efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Boeing's Commercial Jetliners Make an Ideal Platform for a Variety Of
    s Boeing commercial jetliners crisscross the globe every Aircraft sees huge potential in modifying the Next-Generation 737 Development. “We must continue to show compelling value day, military and government aircraft based on those platform for a host of other military missions. Boeing also is com- to our customers.” The development of the new 737-based A planes are transporting state leaders, patrolling the skies peting to have its 767-based NewGen Tanker replace hundreds P-8A for the U.S. Navy offers an ideal model for how that can and assisting warfighters. of aging KC-135 tankers operated by the U.S. Air Force. be accomplished, he added. For more than a half-century, Boeing and its heritage companies Meanwhile, the U.S. president and congressional leaders fly The Poseidon team is using an in-line production process— have designed and built more than 1,000 specialized aircraft based on specially outfitted 747s, 757s and 737s. the industry’s first for derivative aircraft—based on the Boeing on commercial airplanes. With growing international demand for Modifying commercial aircraft for military and government uses Next-Generation 737 production system to build P-8 aircraft. military derivatives, and the recent success of the P-8A Poseidon, is not novel. Boeing heritage company Douglas Aircraft produced “It is the most affordable and efficient way to build military deriva- these programs are garnering significant attention. the first airplane used regularly by a president in 1944, when tive airplanes, and no one else in the world has this capability,” “We have a historic window, both domestically and internation- Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina's Competitive EDGE Aerospace Industry
    AEROSPACE INDUSTRY SOUTH CAROLINA TAKES FLIGHT AEROSPACE INDUSTRY 2 Boeing Soars to New ADDING VALUE TO YOUR WORKFORCE Heights in South Carolina The ROI of Military Hires 10 Youth Apprenticeship is a Big Win for Venture Aerobearings Today’s armed forces are a highly trained, motivated workforce. They bring leadership and management skills to the table — soft skills that are hardest to grow. Employers can teach business and industry skills, 12 Lockheed Martin: but service members arrive with the talent and proficiencies needed to take any organization to the next Flying High in SC for level. over 30 Years Active duty or retired, most veterans and service members embody certain core values unique to military service: attributes like discipline, battle-tested leadership, a solid work ethic, trainability, adaptability and 15 GKN: Making Things the ability to thrive under pressure. Fly in SC Employers and hiring managers can access this desirable workforce through Operation Palmetto 18 AMT South Carolina: Employment (OPE), South Carolina’s military hiring initiative. At no cost, OPE supports business owners Discovering the Keys and hiring managers by providing pre-screened military applicants based on your qualifications. There to Success are many opportunities to participate in military-specific job fairs and hiring events statewide. Companies that pledge to hire and retain South Carolina’s transitioning service members can also receive special recognition and training by applying to become a certified Palmetto Military Employer (PME). 21 Building Aerospace Training Capacity Across the State To learn more about how OPE can help increase your human capital, visit OperationPalmettoEmployment.sc.gov or call (803) 299-1713.
    [Show full text]