Eurofighter, deburred holes (insufficiently)
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@his dudeness: Somewhere I've heard, that vdL and her associates might be responsible themselves for some or even all of the "accidental" leaks which are popping up all over the media right now. She can easily point fingers at her predecessors, and at the same time prepare both fellow politicians and the public for the budget increases that have to come now.
IF (and that's a big if) that's true, it would be pure genius. So I'm somewhat in doubt ...
Maybe she or her team just started to look at military matters more intensely, in light of all the fuss that has been going on lately (Ukraine, IS, Gaza).
Regarding the Eurofighter problems, they are grossly exaggerated by some (not all) media.
IF (and that's a big if) that's true, it would be pure genius. So I'm somewhat in doubt ...
Maybe she or her team just started to look at military matters more intensely, in light of all the fuss that has been going on lately (Ukraine, IS, Gaza). Regarding the Eurofighter problems, they are grossly exaggerated by some (not all) media.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.de/
In the blog regarding this problem( ukarmedforcescommentary, of which the original link seems to have disappeared) the author writes that the costs of mitigating BAE's cockup should not come out of the defence budget. Well, good luck with that one UK taxpayers.
We know, of course, that when Nimrod was cancelled that the resulting redundancy and other cancellation costs were paid, not by BAE, but the UK taxpayer.
You can be fairly sure that the Luftwaffe will pass the costs of this one back to the manufacturers, question is, will the UK taxpayer have to carry the cost of fixing the German aircraft too?
In the blog regarding this problem( ukarmedforcescommentary, of which the original link seems to have disappeared) the author writes that the costs of mitigating BAE's cockup should not come out of the defence budget. Well, good luck with that one UK taxpayers.
We know, of course, that when Nimrod was cancelled that the resulting redundancy and other cancellation costs were paid, not by BAE, but the UK taxpayer.
You can be fairly sure that the Luftwaffe will pass the costs of this one back to the manufacturers, question is, will the UK taxpayer have to carry the cost of fixing the German aircraft too?
In the blog regarding this problem( ukarmedforcescommentary, of which the original link seems to have disappeared) the author writes that the costs of mitigating BAE's cockup should not come out of the defence budget. Well, good luck with that one UK taxpayers.
We know, of course, that when Nimrod was cancelled that the resulting redundancy and other cancellation costs were paid, not by BAE, but the UK taxpayer
We know, of course, that when Nimrod was cancelled that the resulting redundancy and other cancellation costs were paid, not by BAE, but the UK taxpayer
Essentially, the issue is this. While a contract exists between MoD and the contractor, most designs are "Under Ministry Control" (as opposed to Under Contractor Control). Therefore, there are crucial dependencies MoD are responsible for. It has been claimed earlier there was incorrect/incomplete documentation in this case. Maintaining up to date documentation is part of that UMC obligation.
This has not been MoD policy since 1991. It is one of the "savings at the expense of safety" confirmed by Haddon-Cave, although he omitted to say who implemented it.
If the company can demonstrate any such failure of obligation, then MoD are liable to a large degree. If it went to court (it seldom does) that degree of liability might be part of the judgement.
The same applied to Nimrod, where the issue was exactly the same. The primary output of this process is the Safety Case. It was not MoD policy to have a valid Safety Case therefore they could not meet their obligation to deliver Qty (x) Nimrod MR2s in to the conversion programme at an airworthy, known and maintained build standard. Notwithstanding any error on BAeS's part, MoD didn't have a leg to stand on, on perhaps the most fundamental component of operating an aircraft. I imagine BAeS would have enjoyed their day in court, although it would have lasted about 2 minutes. Especially when it became known the Nimrod office had been warned in 1994, and at regular intervals thereafter.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evidence relating to this was given to both Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip.
Aircraft XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006 and the Chinook Mull of Kintyre crash.
So far as we know no crashes have yet been attributed to the QA failure at BAE. Or is there a hint of such?
One things for sure. The uncritical British press, which can barely tell a rivet from a privet in anycase, won't be uncovering anything. Too bad Britain hasn't got a few papers like the Spiegel, which ironically was founded by the British in 1945. (although admittedly they cut it free when the Spiegel started to embarrass the occupying powers)
So, I take it that you are referring to the RAF Nimrod MR2
Aircraft XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006 and the Chinook Mull of Kintyre crash.
So far as we know no crashes have yet been attributed to the QA failure at BAE. Or is there a hint of such?
Aircraft XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006 and the Chinook Mull of Kintyre crash.
So far as we know no crashes have yet been attributed to the QA failure at BAE. Or is there a hint of such?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While a contract exists between MoD and the contractor, most designs are "Under Ministry Control" (as opposed to Under Contractor Control).
"Under Ministry Control" or not, cannot the buyer at least assume that the supplier is capable, as the other posters here have suggested, of meeting the most rudimentary of airframe fabrication skills? Or is it assumed that MoD must inspect and endorse every stage of the manufacturing process?
Should this actually be the case I would say there is something very wrong with the UK defence procurement process.
"Under Ministry Control" or not, cannot the buyer at least assume that the supplier is capable, as the other posters here have suggested, of meeting the most rudimentary of airframe fabrication skills? Or is it assumed that MoD must inspect and endorse every stage of the manufacturing process?
Should this actually be the case I would say there is something very wrong with the UK defence procurement process.
Should this actually be the case I would say there is something very wrong with the UK defence procurement process.
Jim, you are absolutely correct.
UMC is a formal status. MoD can choose not to bring a design UMC, but must make alternative materiel and financial provision for it to be managed UCC. The problem, as ever, arises when staffs do not understand that SOMEONE must control it. Too often the transfer has been cancelled as a savings measure by someone who doesn't understand the significance, but no contract let with industry to retain it UCC. This was a significant factor in, for example, 4 of the 7 Sea King ASaC crew (2003) having the wrong standard helmets, and neither aircraft having the specified comms system; both contributing to the Cause - loss of Situational Awareness). THAT is one of the major breakdowns in the defence procurement process you speak of. By definition, the validity of your Safety Case progressively erodes.
As to whether BAeS "bounce this one back to MoD" I suppose that is up to them, and the degree of liability on each side. Goodwill is a factor, and sometimes it is wise to take the hit. My point is that, in my experience, most companies are well aware they have a standard defence. MoD flatly refuses to follow its own regulations or meet its legal obligations.
I don't know what occurred in this case, only that a claim has been made of poor documentation. Given MoD policy, it would surprise me if the documentation was correct! But, as I said earlier, poor docs are no excuse for poor engineering practice. Who is responsible for ensuring this doesn't happen? MoD no longer has a viable Quality Assurance department. Resident QARs are a rarity, if they haven't all gone already. MoD no longer exercises its right of veto on company appointments. (Find me someone who knows they have this right!) You could go on, and deeper, until you get to a lack of proper engineering apprenticeships and basic training. MoD don't believe in that either, being content to permit non-engineers to make engineering design and safety decisions. BAeS may have inadvertently screwed up. MoD do it as a matter of policy!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh isn't it also true that with Eurofighter the old MoD/supplier model no longer holds?
In this case it is NETMA, representing the purchaser interests of the 4 main participating nations, (and Saudi) dealing with Eurofighter .
While you are obviously well informed I struggle to see how this leaves the UK MoD so exposed and the manufacturer with, apparently, so little liability.
In this case it is NETMA, representing the purchaser interests of the 4 main participating nations, (and Saudi) dealing with Eurofighter .
While you are obviously well informed I struggle to see how this leaves the UK MoD so exposed and the manufacturer with, apparently, so little liability.
Jim
I do not claim to know too much about EFA contracting. When they were recruiting, I stayed well away because they were one of the first teams to acknowledge (to be fair to them) that MoD no longer wanted technical project managers. (Clearly there were exceptions; I was interviewed by an EFA structural engineer on a promotion board in 1992). They employed a raft of consultants who took them to the cleaners. Sometimes your outlook is tainted by first impressions. In 1996 all aircraft offices at AbbeyWood were invited to a seminar run by EFA, to announce a major new phenomenon. Electronic Component Obsolescence. Their team leader on the subject was some professor they'd hired. He rambled on for an hour or so and then asked for questions, but admitted he may not be able to answer as so little was known. I tabled MoD's mandated regulations on the subject (2 Def Stans, both now cancelled without replacement) and recommended they ask the Chief Engineer to rescind his 1993 policy that obsolescence shall NOT be addressed. No more seminars. At least, none we were invited to.
Managing Obsolescence is one of the 17 core components of Maintaining the Build Standard, which is what you do when the design is under your control. The output of the process is the Safety Case, based on that maintained standard. If you get even one of the components wrong, it tells you something far worse is wrong with the organisation as a whole. That the entire edifice is rocking. In 1992 the RAF Chief Engineer decreed Build Standards shall NOT be maintained. Therefore, regardless of the niceties of programme structure and contracting, the risk of something very serious going wrong is always high.
I do not claim to know too much about EFA contracting. When they were recruiting, I stayed well away because they were one of the first teams to acknowledge (to be fair to them) that MoD no longer wanted technical project managers. (Clearly there were exceptions; I was interviewed by an EFA structural engineer on a promotion board in 1992). They employed a raft of consultants who took them to the cleaners. Sometimes your outlook is tainted by first impressions. In 1996 all aircraft offices at AbbeyWood were invited to a seminar run by EFA, to announce a major new phenomenon. Electronic Component Obsolescence. Their team leader on the subject was some professor they'd hired. He rambled on for an hour or so and then asked for questions, but admitted he may not be able to answer as so little was known. I tabled MoD's mandated regulations on the subject (2 Def Stans, both now cancelled without replacement) and recommended they ask the Chief Engineer to rescind his 1993 policy that obsolescence shall NOT be addressed. No more seminars. At least, none we were invited to.
Managing Obsolescence is one of the 17 core components of Maintaining the Build Standard, which is what you do when the design is under your control. The output of the process is the Safety Case, based on that maintained standard. If you get even one of the components wrong, it tells you something far worse is wrong with the organisation as a whole. That the entire edifice is rocking. In 1992 the RAF Chief Engineer decreed Build Standards shall NOT be maintained. Therefore, regardless of the niceties of programme structure and contracting, the risk of something very serious going wrong is always high.
Ooop at 't werrks, Old Seth had heard 't news on 't wireless and was reet upset. So off he scuttled off to see 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space....
"Master, master, there's trouble at mill", announced Seth.
"Nay, nay lad. Don't fret thee sen'", muttered 't Baron, "Them boche boogers are moaning about 't holes in 't Eurofighterr. Nowt' wrong wi' em - 't lads used biggest hammers in 't werks an' a few hobnails off 't clogs to make 't holes. Allus werrks reet gradely, tha' knaws".
And dismissing Seth, t' Baron settled down to a nice plate of ram's testicle tart, whilst dreaming wistfully of his late, eternally flatulent whippet, Boogeroff.
"Master, master, there's trouble at mill", announced Seth.
"Nay, nay lad. Don't fret thee sen'", muttered 't Baron, "Them boche boogers are moaning about 't holes in 't Eurofighterr. Nowt' wrong wi' em - 't lads used biggest hammers in 't werks an' a few hobnails off 't clogs to make 't holes. Allus werrks reet gradely, tha' knaws".
And dismissing Seth, t' Baron settled down to a nice plate of ram's testicle tart, whilst dreaming wistfully of his late, eternally flatulent whippet, Boogeroff.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Why has Baron Waste o Space got a Yorkshire/Nottinghamshire accent???
"Nay, nay Duck.......'"
Ooop at 't werrks, Old Seth had heard 't news on 't wireless and was reet upset. So off he scuttled off to see 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space....
"Master, master, there's trouble at mill", announced Seth.
"Nay, nay lad. Don't fret thee sen'", muttered 't Baron, "Them boche boogers are moaning about 't holes in 't Eurofighterr. Nowt' wrong wi' em - 't lads used biggest hammers in 't werks an' a few hobnails off 't clogs to make 't holes. Allus werrks reet gradely, tha' knaws".
And dismissing Seth, t' Baron settled down to a nice plate of ram's testicle tart, whilst dreaming wistfully of his late, eternally flatulent whippet, Boogeroff.
"Master, master, there's trouble at mill", announced Seth.
"Nay, nay lad. Don't fret thee sen'", muttered 't Baron, "Them boche boogers are moaning about 't holes in 't Eurofighterr. Nowt' wrong wi' em - 't lads used biggest hammers in 't werks an' a few hobnails off 't clogs to make 't holes. Allus werrks reet gradely, tha' knaws".
And dismissing Seth, t' Baron settled down to a nice plate of ram's testicle tart, whilst dreaming wistfully of his late, eternally flatulent whippet, Boogeroff.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
He says "sen" apparently, that's Notts matey.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the Eurofighter problems, they are grossly exaggerated by some (not all) media.
Really? So halving the life of the airframe is trivial.
(BTW do feel inclined to say who you work for?)
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cut in hours is/was a temporary measure which Airbus believes will soon be lifted.
Airbus: Eurofighter-Fehler ärgerlich, aber ungefährlich - news.ORF.at
The fault was in relation to some of the machines holes not being sufficiently cleaned.
Airbus: Eurofighter-Fehler ärgerlich, aber ungefährlich - news.ORF.at
The fault was in relation to some of the machines holes not being sufficiently cleaned.
The fault was in relation to some of the machines holes not being sufficiently cleaned.