To: Nick Lappos
1) I find your point of view insulting and inflammatory, and at odds with my intimate knowledge of the Westland and Agusta folks who work in my profession. That anyone would assert that such folks as Jerry Tracy (Westland Test Pilot) or Rafael Longibardi (Agusta Chief Test Pilot who perished in the rotor brake fire accident) would participate in some kind of white wash is offensive and does not serve this forum at all. When you state that these accidents would not have happened if they had only followed your instructions is absurd. While your posts seem erudite to the less experienced members of this forum, you don't fool me a bit!
Where in my post did I state that your friends at Agusta and Westland had anything to do with a cover-up of problems? You have limited knowledge of what transpired at Agusta during the design phase of the A 129 and the EH 101. There was absolutely no cooperation between the product support department and engineering. The product support department was denied access to the engineering mainframe computer and as a result they purchased an NCR computer that was not compatible with the IBM mainframe. Because of this the product support department had no access to the FMEAs for either aircraft and could not develop comprehensive trouble shooting guides. The tech manuals were minimalist because the Product support department did not have direct access to the drawing system, which was on the mainframe computer. My last six months at Agusta were spent trying to establish a level of cooperation between engineering and product support. This lack of cooperation stemmed from the bad blood between the engineering manager and the manager of the product support department. This bad blood existed since the development of the A109 ten years earlier. By that time both departments changed management at least two times and still the cooperation was non existent. When I left, the two departments were paying lip service to the Idea but nothing changed. Regarding the accidents not happening if the FMEAs had not been emasculated I can’t honestly say but where do you get off challenging my word as if to say I am lying.
1) For all those who look to this forum for straight from the shoulder knowledge to make them better at their craft, let me categorically state that the manufacturers of the machines we fly are populated with people of high integrity and expertise. Even though I consider the EH-101 to be a prime competitor of the aircraft we make, I have very high regard for the technical integrity and capabilities of the people who make it.
It is true that aircraft manufacturers are populated with high minded and dedicated employees. However no matter how high minded and dedicated these individuals can be over ridden when schedules and money are concerned. That is the main problem when it comes to Reliability and Maintainability because any change to improve either will impact design schedules and cost money. I Identified 27 different R&M problems on the Apache and none of them were incorporated because of two things. Engineering had no use for R&M and Engineering did not want to change the design. All 27 of these items have manifested themselves during the life of the Apache. Now, regarding Agusta the one thing that they had that no other helicopter company had was their employees were all Italian and as such possessed a great deal of machismo that was threatened if a suggestion to change the design was implemented.
2) From your egotistical attitude and willingness to slur those others that might disagree with you, I fully understand why you are only a temporary consultant, and even as such why they let you go.
How have I expressed an egotistical attitude? And, when did I slur or take a shot at anyone that disagreed with my point of view? Regarding my position as a consultant short term contracts are the norm. Some last for a week and some for three years and all of that pays a hellova lot of money. I’m 70 years old so no company will hire me as a permanent employee. I have been let go from several jobs but not for incompetence. For example I was let go from Boeing because I kept telling them that the reliability of the hydraulic system would be severely diminished because of the design of the proprotor. Hydraulics. Does that ring a Bell?
3) Your previous posts, which held that the US Army and Marines lied about the capabilities of their aircraft, come to mind, too. For the rest of the readers of this forum, please try to separate Lu’s technical opinions from the polemics that slip into his posts.
“I” didn’t state that the Army lied I stated that the information was provided by an investigator from the Government Accounting Office who was generating a scathing report on the unreliability and poor maintainability of the Apache. I have the greatest respect for you and what you do however I really don’t care to be judged by someone that does not understand what I do and what I stand for. Read my bio. It states that I am interested in flight safety and crew safety. That is why I post what I do. To provide an understanding by the pilots and mechanics of the aircraft the fly in and work on.