Having all countries in the EU in the same boat when it comes to vaccines seems like a good thing to me. Now we have this spat between the EU and UK, but if every nation in the EU negotiated by themselves we might have a conflict between EU countries themselves... That's not to say the EU didn't screw up along the way.
I know people at the European Medecines Agency that were angry at Ursula von der Leyen in December because she was always making public announcements (about the beginning and speed of the vaccination campaign) with no regard for the reality of regulatory activities or manufacturing and logistics constraints.
> Boeing actually had a nice thing going for them with the 787.
Recently, maybe. But the 787 program had its fair share of major issues with the significant delays during development and then the battery fires that led to the fleet being grounded.
I have had this talk many times and it usually went something like: "You don't realize how serious it is. We discover issue#13270 during the validation of the FCDC. If it occurs after the primary flight computer had a hardware failure and the pilot is landing with heavy side winds and the thunder strikes, there is a heightened probability of hard landing. Most dangerous aircraft ever. By the way, this weekend I'm taking an Avro RJ100 to go to Brussels; no problem there."
Sure, the older 737s. That's why most of the 737-200s still in service are up in Canada. The high bypass engines on the NGs and newer are too big to easily fit gravel kits on.
Same here. I know / worked with several engineers involved in the development of the Flight Controls of recent Airbus airliners and that often swore that they were going to avoid taking the model they were currently working on (usually based on some "critical" technical concern that turned out to be insignificant a few weeks later).
My answer was usually to mock them and say "so just because you are looking from too close and have lost perspective you prefer to fly an ageing aircraft or trust some random Boeing contractor more than yourself".
And fast forward ten years, the "deathtraps" they were working on - A340, A380 and A350 - turned out to be extremely safe (with fatality-free records).
> Interesting how Boeing and Airbus don't manufacture in China
Airbus has been building aircrafts at a Final Assembly Line in Tianjin since 2009. And many Airbus/Boeing suppliers have formed joint-ventures with Chinese companies to bid on contracts for the C919.
You can read about the fact that there are NO data diodes on the FAA website
> The proposed architecture of the 787 allows connection to and access from external sources (the public Internet) and airline operator networks to the previously isolated Aircraft Control Domain and Airline Information Services Domain.
> Capability is proposed for providing electronic transmission of field-loadable software applications and databases to the aircraft. These would subsequently be loaded into systems within the Aircraft Control Domain and Airline Information Services Domain.
That's a request for comments from before 787 got its type certificate - I'd like to see the result, as I do recall there being a request to redesign the networks due to "not enough separation". Even HN talked about it.
I can't find the "work-in-progress" reports for type certification regarding the network, but the special conditions involve:
> The applicant shall ensure system security protection for > the Aircraft Control Domain and Airline Information
> Domain from access by unauthorized sources external to
> the airplane, including those possibly caused by
> maintenance activity. The applicant shall ensure that
> security threats are identified and assessed, and that
> risk mitigation strategies are implemented to protect the
> airplane from all adverse impacts on safety,
> functionality, and continued airworthiness.
> These systems are entirely separate, including the electricity that controls the systems.
This is not what Boeing said to the FAA 12 years ago when they asked to certify their network architecture
> The proposed architecture of the 787 is different from that of existing production (and retrofitted) airplanes. It allows connection to and access from external sources (the public Internet) and airline operator networks to the previously isolated Aircraft Control Domain and Airline Information Services Domain. The Aircraft Control Domain and the Airline Information Services Domain perform functions required for the safe operation of the airplane.
> It allows connection to and access from external sources (the public Internet) and airline operator networks to the previously isolated Aircraft Control Domain and Airline Information Services Domain.
I believe this contradicts the "systems are entirely separate" statement from the parent comment.
Meanwhile in France, I can do a RT-PCR test paid by the state (around 50$ AFAIK) every other day with no question asked.