Originally Posted by
A and C
Back in the 80’s & 90’s I did some composite repair courses, these courses had been based on data from heavy aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing and are totaly unsuitable for primary structure repair in gliders. I have to ask if these composite repair courses you talk of were gilder specific or generic ?
A&C - Firstly, my sincere apologies for taking so long to reply - I've been on a short break and haven't been checking PPrune thoroughly for a while now.
The composite repair courses I attended were associated with the Swanton Morley based NDT course I was doing back then. The (excellent) techs at the NDT school were working on how to check composite structures and any repairs to them - this was aimed (at the time) mainly at the GR5 wing, but as good people, they were making sure that they understood the wide range of potential composite structures and repairs that the NDT techs might encounter. So, no, the courses weren't glider specific.
I do know that other special composite repair courses were being delivered to the RAF, both generic and type specific. I sat through any number of presentations from senior RAF engineers setting the courses out and telling the RN how far ahead the RAF was in being able to repair and test composite structures.
As far as the RN was concerned, their artificers were being trained on both generic and specific repairs for composites, starting around 1982 with the arrival of the first composite Main Rotor Blades on Sea King and other composite items planned for incoming aircraft.
As an Air Engineer Officer, I was extensively trained on composite technology and applications, as well as repair principles, so that I could properly direct and manage my skilled workforce.
Of course, all these courses were designed to allow us to carry out the approved schemes set out in the Repair Manuals, using the composite repair kits that arrived with the composite structures. If, in emergency, we had to carry out a non-standard composite repair, we would have been expected to scheme it, seek approval from our Engineering Authority (who would have got approval from the DA) and then carry it out, making sure that it was fully recorded on the Airframe Log Card as well as the Work Orders.
The point I've laboured here for some time, and I make no apologies for repeating it, is that it appears probable that the RAF introduced a large fleet of composite aircraft with inadequate support arrangements. Moreover, there appears to have been institutional failings in the management of the maintenance of the ATC fleet. This is now being (successfully) covered up.
It's a scandal, and should not stand.
Best regards as ever to those sorting this out at the coal face - they don't deserve this.
Engines