FAA Proposes Safety Requirements for Airbus A321XLR Amid External Fuel Fire Concerns

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a notice of proposed special conditions addressing the A321XLR’s integral rear center tank (RCT). According to the regulator, the aircraft will have an unusual design feature compared to the airworthiness standards for commercial aircraft.
Article: simpleflying.com/faa-proposes...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyingnews
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflyingnews
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: [e-mail]

[@eduardocarrilloalbor9459]

Just imagine if the FAA being this strict with Boeing...

[@bst1623]

My first thought.

[@timkono5645]

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.

[@danharold3087]

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.

[@noway9880]

LOL! YEAH!!!!!!!!!

[@MAdyS-bc4ry]

THANK U!!!

[@miks564]

FAA? Aren't those the same guys that approved the Max ...twice?

[@zmanzd8413]

The maxs design is completely safe now. The problem is Boeing building them right

[@JackieO_LAX]

@@zmanzd8413so then they’re not completely safe if the problem of Boeing not building them right still exists

[@zmanzd8413]

@@JackieO_LAX I said design not final product

[@FlyByWire1]

@@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.

[@user-ng8ue6xf1m]

Yeah !!! 😮

[@kenoliver8913]

Isn't this old news? They've already redesigned the RCT to accommodate this - it is what delayed the 321XLR's entry into service.

[@mandandi]

These were raised years ago, delaying the plane. They were incorporated into the design.

[@nikmwh]

I thought this had been dealt with some time ago?

[@WolfpackOne]

​@@nikmwhThey were, and they'd been redesigned to comply to these regulations.

[@Angus.MacGyver]

Looks like Boeing is still successfully lobbying the FAA to delay and add further weight to their competitor's new aircraft model.

[@mistritzlp]

Seems like Boeings HQ relocation to Arlington starts to pay off...

[@bazoo513]

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.

[@tjanson1]

Old news, they have already redesigned the RCT

[@r12004rewy]

I'm sure Airbus will will resolve these issue to the satisfaction of the FAA, the travelling public deserve the highest level of safety.

[@smoketinytom]

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.

[@matsv201]

Is FAA job to push down Boeing competitors?

[@grandnagus5851]

Isn't it more like 90 seconds?

[@roadie4360]

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?

[@SloppySalad]

@@roadie4360 and get fire crews to the crash site before the aircraft detonates itself... hence the 5 minutes.

[@Eduard.Popa.]

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.

[@nikmwh]

I thought this issue had been dealt with, and that Airbus had made engineering changes?

[@NovejSpeed3]

The biggest insult is it was Boeing who called the FAAs attention to this in the first place! 😂

[@bernardfrancis3080]

EU regulators have the same concerns

[@hakanevin8545]

Had. Airbus and EASA already agreed on the requirements and test aircraft is already flying for months.

[@bernardfrancis3080]

@@hakanevin8545 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?

[@ZootoursUK]

That’s another delay 😒

[@lawrencepll76]

Not at the fault of Airbus, but OF FAA

[@ZootoursUK]

@@lawrencepll76 yeah I know man I’m just annoyed

[@MrSchwabentier]

@@ZootoursUK 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.

[@jessicafusio8865]

​@@MrSchwabentierBut didn't the EASA already approved this issue when Airbus resolved it?

[@MrSchwabentier]

@@jessicafusio8865 yes, that’s the point. The FAA just clarified they’re using the same rules

[@anthonyxuereb792]

Safety first...always.

[@usakousa]

FAA's points make sense. So it's further delay then.

[@NikonF5user]

Not addressed in this video is whether Airbus has already considered this requirement, and what tests they have already performed for EAA approval...

[@MrSchwabentier]

no, that should be no further delay. These requirements are identical to the ones the EASA issued last year.

[@Negotiator_ZA]

@usakousa no sir, the FAA is taking last minute instructions from Boeing executives

[@acrodrigues1]

@@NikonF5user It's EASA on the other side of the pond.

[@NikonF5user]

@@acrodrigues1 Yep! I mistyped! Thanks for the correction...

[@bazza945]

What could possibly go wrong.

[@jameshatfield1194]

Is this requirement covered in the EASA requirements or is this on top of that ? So the range could be reduced further

[@MrSchwabentier]

It‘s basically identical to what the EASA requested last year.

[@FireAlarmHowTooGuy]

I’m sure Airbus is taking every safety measure and precautionary approach they can.

[@ohnezuckerohnefett]

The others MUST have something...

[@aerohk]

"One Boeing's behalf, FAA Proposes Safety Requirements for Airbus A321XLR Amid External Fuel Fire Concerns"

[@jgnclvgmng5408]

😁😁😁😁😋😋😋😋

[@DJAYPAZ]

Sounds like additional risk is possible with this new RCT design.

[@340ACP]

If it wasn’t for double standards there would be no standards at all

[@ThePearson1945]

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.

[@tobiwan001]

Legendary American Protectionism.

[@widget787]

So you want to be seated right above the RCT without any additional protection of the RCT?

[@hiteshadhikari]

So you are ok with Planes whos doors were blown apart and saw multiple crashes but this is urgent ? ​@@widget787

[@Negotiator_ZA]

​@@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.

[@killerbees177]

Hope this doesn't make carriers cancel their orders

[@wamusexperience]

You would have thought Airbus would have been liaising with the FAA in the early stages of their integral RCT concept?

[@Luke_Go]

Make the safest airplane even safer. Great idea! So much better than the "Boeing-safe" standards.....

[@AviationAarush1]

Who told you the a321xlr is the safest airplane?

[@Luke_Go]

@@AviationAarush1 A320neo-family airplanes are the safest commecial airplanes.

[@AviationAarush1]

@@Luke_Go so is the 787, 737, a350, and 777

[@nathanbedford3443]

​@AarushNishikanth1 I believe the correct term was "the a320neo is the safest in its class"

[@pradeepsharma_1962]

FAA cannot tackle Boeing so now they are after Airbus.

[@BillElliott94Fan]

Well well well

[@gcorriveau6864]

All passengers seating above the RCT will be issued asbestos boots and fire-hood to wear during evacuations. There ya go! ;-)

[@azeoprop]

Tire blowout may puncture the tank and cause major fire like the concorde

[@se-kmg355]

The tank is positioned behind the wing. The wing tanks are in risk of tire debris and are protected against such.

[@bradmacley2722]

I love that faa I why didn’t they say this in the initial design phase

[@dariusdareme]

I really hope this plane will make low-cost flights across the Atlantic under $300.

[@malvinuku7878]

Sounds like lobbyists forced them to look further in this matter…

[@leonwang6931]

Was looking for this comment

[@Rasscasse]

That was my first thought.

[@davidkavanagh189]

Euro regulators didn't like the design either so so much for your incredible 'theory'.....

[@chris22capt]

EASA has identified this problem earlier and Airbus has started working to fix this since that.

[@zakisaeid9770]

At least were not that guys “Boeing”.

[@mikelurban892]

Why don't use ACT first to fuel the jet engine?

[@ratanvenkatesan5486]

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

[@davidkavanagh189]

They will. The vast majority of accidents happen on takeoff or landing.....

[@danharold3087]

5 minutes sounds too little.

[@psycopirla1]

Not really, consider that the fully loaded aircraft can be evacuated in 90 seconds.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

Engineers base safety on what it “sounds like” to non engineers.

[@FlyingSka]

Is the FAA Boeing subsidiary ? Certainly ;-)

[@petergatzbirle3293]

Looks like, FAA want difficult sell Airbus in USA

[@brookeintheair]

For good reason

[@matsv201]

Really.. what is the good reason?

[@davidkavanagh189]

@@matsv201 It's in the video

[@matsv201]

@@davidkavanagh189 no its not

[@davidkavanagh189]

@@matsv201 It literally is. They're not happy with the fuselage skin being part of the fuel tank...

[@lawrencepll76]

FAA could have brought this up much earlier, not when the aircraft is almost in operation.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

This was already brought up by the Europeans last year and is fixed.

[@barrylenihan8032]

EASA has already identified this issue and Airbus has addressed it.

[@jukkaaho7962]

Don’t most fires occure when wing tanks errupt? So why would this be more dangerous? Same requiremets for all tanks

[@stevesmoneypit6137]

Wings are not under your passenger compartment

[@matsv201]

​@@stevesmoneypit6137that is not quite true. Center wing spar is. And the tank on the wing closest to the passager conparment effectivly is under.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

@@stevesmoneypit6137wing tanks are. So are center tanks.

[@jchirhart]

Worked so well on Concord. 🤦‍♂️

[@rc70ys]

😂😂😂

[@user-gi7vi9gm4t]

yes it worked until mcdonalt douglass ruined it with their dc-10

[@ralphe5842]

Actually concord didn’t have any protection

[@tjfSIM]

Slightly different problem - it was the access panels in the wing being too easily punctured by debris that led to the tank being ruptured.

[@carloscenfa]

Faa is so strict to airbus. Thats good if it was with boeing in the past...that would be also better

[@barrylenihan8032]

EASA. takes its role seriously and has already identified this issue.

[@user-uc8kr1pl6b]

The "Last week tonight" piece about Boeing is pretty funny and eye opening!

[@desabc221]

This is old news…..first airframe to be delivered in the third quarter of this year.

[@davidkavanagh189]

Eh nope! Nobody has the XLR yet.

[@StopMediaFakery]

@@davidkavanagh189 He didn't say that anyone has the XLR yet

[@perfectman3077]

deathtrap inbound.

[@barrylenihan8032]

​@@davidkavanagh189The third quarter of 2024 has yet to happen. It occurs between July and September.

[@TheCodeHunter]

that's it im building my own plane

[@davidhodgson977]

I'm confused.

[@nickg9876]

The FAA is just concerned about literally everything these days: The Max obviously A321XLR 787 United Airlines Starship Like literally everything

[@patrickpeters2903]

The FAA loves more Boeing than Airbus....

[@DataRew]

Hmm, I wonder if some entities are trying to DISTRACT from the many glaring issues with Boeing?

[@Michael0697]

Well considering this is old news, Simple Flying covering this is absolutely them trying to distract from Boeing.

[@celebrityrog]

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.

[@montgomerymcferryn1542]

The center tank is already under the seats, so exactly what is your problem?

[@brentboswell1294]

Concorde circulated fuel around the fuselage to keep the cabin comfortable during supersonic cruise...

[@alicelund147]

I thought it was already certified?

[@stevesmoneypit6137]

Nope probably not before 2027 if at all

[@MrSchwabentier]

@@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.

[@davidkavanagh189]

You thought wrong.

[@gerhardma4297]

@@stevesmoneypit6137 Did they let you out of the locked ward again?

[@jgnclvgmng5408]

@@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.

[@none941]

I'm done flying. Any questions?

[@alphanet72]

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.

[@spotty1666]

Worked well for Concorde AF4590.....

[@GigaChadMain69420]

AND TWA800

[@stanshelton3309]

OH! Now the f a a wants to scrutinize it all, why did that not do that when 349 people were unalive?

[@davidkavanagh189]

People died on Airbuses too. Educate yourself before embarrassing yourself in the comments

[@AviationAarush1]

FRRRRR SO ANNOYING THESE BOEING HATERS RIGHT?​@@davidkavanagh189

[@lebaillidessavoies3889]

Boeing will install comformable external tanks on the max -10 to counter airbus

[@mvasconcellostube]

Airbus has already resolved the case, for sure.

[@stevesmoneypit6137]

Wrong

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

@@stevesmoneypit6137they basically have already. This was brought to their attention last year.

[@justinxie9969]

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.

[@kenoliver8913]

There is this stuff called "insulation". You already often fly directly atop fuel tanks anyway.

[@pandaDotDragon]

Airbus has to show proof while in the meantime Boeing certifies itself.

[@marcmcreynolds2827]

DER isn't self-certification.

[@LebronCCP]

Gotta keep Boeing in the running

[@user-qn6yt3zx3w]

Boeing’s dollar contributions to the FAA now being diverted away from approving dangerous aircraft and towards disapproving competitor’s designs - nice

[@freak0057]

Gotta make something up to take the heat off of Boeing.

[@jj161173]

Not the FAA putting any extra barriers in the way of non-US aircraft manufacturers.......

[@henson2k]

Who wants to ride on top of fuel tank?

[@DataRew]

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.

[@vincentsutter1071]

@@DataRew interesting that you are comparing historic data for automobiles vice certification for new aircraft. Thanks for self-identifying.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

@@vincentsutter1071most aircraft, past, present and future, you ride on top of fuel tanks. Nothing new in that regards.

[@bilrobilbo]

FAA balancing act to safeguard Boeing debacle.

[@richjames2540]

Sounds very sensible. I was at Haneda when the A350 caught fire and it burned very very quickly.

[@ulrichschenk8202]

What's your point?

[@jantjarks7946]

It didn't burn quickly, in fact traditional materials burn faster.

[@CaliSteve169]

​@@ulrichschenk8202them Airbus aircraft burn like Roman candles.

[@Hans-gb4mv]

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.

[@MrDiamondFlyer]

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.

[@Rocker4040]

Hypocrites!! Why didn't they do the same with Boeing??

[@Kasirg]

Airbus is the safest airplane there is

[@jgnclvgmng5408]

FAA's Boeing fanboys trying to exert revenge on EASA for keeping the 777x on the drawing board.

[@talaelmakki9094]

Omg anew simplenpalenz has njsur released

[@Tellemore]

Boeing still paying FAA wages it seems

[@aviator346]

faa??? The ones who certified the max?😂

[@jmWhyMe]

TWA 800...

[@richjames2540]

Concorde...

[@hank16e]

What about testing MCAS before approved the 737Max?

[@kevcapoz]

too bad they can't do what Boeing does and just hoodwink the FAA!

[@kaamfinitii]

delayed till next year

[@AnthonyTolhurst-dw1nc]

Fair call. Keep on it, FAA. GOOD JOB

[@hewhohasnoidentity4377]

I remember when Boeing commented that they had concerns about this. Nobody cared what Boeing thought.

[@kantalarski]

Trying to save boeing?

[@gort8203]

Test. It seems this channel is banning my comments from view.

[@Love2Cruise]

Good job, FAA! Making Airbus safer than Boeing!

[@nickolliver3021]

They are making both safer!

[@CaliSteve169]

Both are statistically very safe.

[@barrylenihan8032]

Don't worry. EASA has already identified this issue and Airbus has addressed it.

[@massashihosono]

America regulations double standards 😂

[@victorlaw3821]

FAA = Boeing 🤡

[@tierra6391]

FAA please worry about Boeing first. Fix your in-house issues before worrying about European products.

[@RajeshShelke-zb9ld]

😊❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤😅

[@genotronex8663]

FAA: How to make Boeing looks safer and more competitive? Let’s scrutinize AirBus

[@FlyByWire1]

That’s so funny cause EU regulators had the exact same concern last year. Yall are goofy

[@RocketrywithAnay_2013]

6 min ago!

[@kingleolumaban5415]

.

[@Ashley_London]

Now the FAA cares about safety? 🤔🤔🤔 If Boeing it would have been safe

[@amazedtenthousand4873]

Airbus too???

[@cheeky333]

Gvvmmm

[@ithinkitwaskhamas]

FAA to boeing: okay good you put wings on it, does it fly?

[@user-gi7vi9gm4t]

ok that's it i'm flying embraer now .

[@DrethMa5ter]

i'll be walking

[@aryamaanbh]

Nah imma just flap my hands real hard and start flying myself.

[@ZootoursUK]

I’ll be biking

[@GigachadetteSelene]

I'll teleport.

[@EuropeanRailfanAlt]

I'll take the train!

[@Hashpassion]

FAA = Boeing

[@psycopirla1]

Lobbying at its best. Way to go Boeing. Smh

[@CaliSteve169]

Boeing lives in your head rent free.

[@AviationAarush1]

BOEING IS GREATEST 🙏🏻

[@jstratton]

FAA now doing what ever it can to hamper Airbus from further crushing Boeing.

[@scarecrow108productions7]

Because Boeing bought their way on FAA

[@michaelshore2300]

Does any ine smell Boeing ???

[@robertradmacher3823]

Airbus should retalliate by launching the A220-500 and A220-700 immediately.

[@barrylenihan8032]

No need for retaliation. Airbus is committed to safety and working with regulators.