Stupid Design Award

[jetfueldrinker]

Recently I had to replace a TAI pop out indicater on a 757. The formentioned beast is situated on the engine intake at about the 3 o'clock position. The access panel is big enough to get one hand in comfortably, but ideally you need two hands and your head in. Removal presented no problems. You undo one pipe and remove the indicator's mounting bracket which is held on by two bolts which in turn go into anchor nuts; but refitment was a nightmare. Getting the brackets' bolts started proved to be difficult as you cannot see what you are doing, and trying to line everything up with a podger helped, but the holes still were still slightly off. After a while my supervisor suggested I go and have a coffee, and let someone else have a go. I suggested that this had got to the personal pride stage and I would see the job through, but not in those words. I did get the job finished, but on reflection I could see that there was plenty of scope to drop something down the inside of the intake, but how would you recover it? Certainly there are two access panels situated at the bottom of the intake, but they are riveted on for goodness sake. Just how many 757's are there flying round, I wonder, with a tub or two of PRC dumped inside them in the vain hope that something that has been dropped down and cannot be retrieved won't rattle round too much? (I bet that bit of maintenance wouldn't get recorded)

So for me, the RB211 intake designer gets the award for 'I designed it but I will never work on it' Stupid Design Award

Unless you know better.

Civi Aviation only for this one please as we all know that military aircraft were only ever designed to be shot down, not fixed.

[cotos]

If you don't like nasty jobs on 757's, do not volunteer to change the right hand IP check valve!! That is unless you have top gaenacology skills. (I think that's how you spell it)

[redtail]

Careful what you wish for. If it was easy, the pilots could do it.

Don't you like how Boeing has problems getting the access panels lined up with the component being accessed, or vice versa?

[as,I,see,it]

Have you ever carried out the titanium to improved stainless steel pipe and 'P' clip modification on the A320 V2500 engine. That must really get an award. It is more like a complicated chinese puzzle, than anything to do with engines.

[spanners]

Try a Tristar HP Duct clamp fit after an eng change.
Grown men with pry bars and planks of wood reduced to tears on this one.

[TwoDeadDogs]

Hi,Guys
Mainwheels on 146s.Eight pieces of wirelocking.Jesus wept!
On small stuff,some of Lycoming's designers must be Gynaes at heart.Vacuum pump comes to mind.
regards in scarred knuckles!!
TDD

[Lu Zuckerman]

Boeng has listened to the complaints of the mechanics and service personnel and have tried to eliminate those problems on the B777. They created Integrated Product Teams (IPT) and on each major system and component installation there was a line mechanic and a Maintainability Engineer on the team. Final approval of the design could only be signed off by the Mechanic and the Maintainability Engineer. Did they get it right, only time will tell.

On all modern aircraft from the 727 onward there have been Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety engineers involved in the design. However, there was always an adversarial relationship between the Product Assurance engineers and the design engineers who fought tooth and nail to reject the input of the Product Assurance engineers. There are human factors manuals that identify the problems indicated in the first post in this thread. The manuals set up the work space access and the tool access as well as the visual access for maintenance. The design engineers refuse to work to those manuals as they are not applicable to the design. They say that the contract specifies the manuals to be used by product assurance to verify the design. But when they
bring the design deficiencies up to the designers they are told to piss off.

------------------
The Cat

[redtail]

A show of hands, please, for all who have gone to the point of panic with a 747-100/200 cowling. Did you save it, or did it get loose?

[This message has been edited by redtail (edited 02 October 2000).]

[spannersatcx]

redtail, you mean the good old JT9 cowls...
lift it up just a touch moore....look out...crash...another cowl hits the floor with everyone running for cover.....
No never did that!

[Blacksheep]

To me the Stupid Design Award was awarded permanently to Shorts for the Belfast CMk1.

All of it. But especially the engine cowlings .. "oh God chiefy not again pleeese chief, sob,sob...Gimme a VC10 just this once."

I have visions of Republican designers working away into the wee small hours cackling with glee -- "Sure and begorrah dis'll sort out dem British Air Force b*ggers when it gets to the squadrons..."

I still have the scars to prove it.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[SchmiteGoBust]

Has anybody out there had the pleasure of working on an ATP.(Advanced Tater Pie-as it is known at Woodford)Surely the whole aircraft warrants a stupid design award!!!!

[Blacksheep]

I know the man who did the emergency exits very well. He's a very decent fellow and certainly not stupid. He did some really good design work in our office anyway. Do you suppose some of those Shorts chaps went to work on the rest of the ATP?

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[JetFixer]

The ATP is also nominated by me. Who designed those stupid doors that never close properly. Even worse the thing got a type cert.

It has other horrors too numerous to mention.

[spanners]

Blacksheep ref your Shorts comments.
I didnt know they spoke with that accent in the north of Ireland!
Also Shorts is most defintely not a republican company, being in the province!

(I know I know, nit picking.......)

Also another Tristar cherub, the rudder fine steering actuator wire locking. Done by feel bent over backwards over a load of avionics.
Brilliant.

[This message has been edited by spanners (edited 09 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by spanners (edited 09 October 2000).]

[somefokker]

Hello All,
I was never a When-We, but I have to nominate the DC 10 as one of the most engineer friendly aircraft I have ever worked. Typically liked things such as the cowlings on number two opening to form a work platform, and the steps up behind the F.E's panel. You won't see that on the tri-heap. Also found similar nice touches on other Mc Donald Duck airplanes, such as the two footrests in the nose wheel well on the MD 80 that allows access to the V.G.'s and rear of the Centre instrument panel.
Speaking of Instrument panels, I remember the Shorts 330 centre instrument panel had quick release clamps on the indicators, unfortunately they only worked one way. You could remove the instrument easily enough, but the clamp would lock up when you tried to slide a new indicator in, and you would then have to remove the hard wired glareshield (lots of in-line splices required afterwards) in order to free the "quick release clamp" and get the indicator in.
I'm also a great fan of Airbus aircraft, but I can't believe thay still use that stupid rubber tube to hold up the P.S.U.'s etc.
Still if they were easy to fix the bean counters would have the trained monkey's in doing our jobs.
Regards,
SomeFokker :)

[HateThe8]

Hi all,

My vote goes to the DC8 main hydraulic resevoir. They built the a/c around it.

[This message has been edited by HateThe8 (edited 13 October 2000).]

[Christian Veit]

In reply of Lu Zuckerman's message I have to say that the B777 is a very engineer friendly aircraft indeed. Boeing did a nice job there. I simply love working on it

[Flying Banana]

747-200 / JT9 Epr transmitter has to be the worst job I've done in a while.

Boeing's design philosophy seems to be: Install part with as many lose nuts/brackets/inaccesible fasteners as possible, install access panel approx 1/8" bigger than component to be removed then move it at least a foot away from said component. Just to give the engineers a real challenge then put the fire bottle just close enough to the access hole to prevent the removal of the txmtr without MR Rubik's guide to aircraft maint!

[Macdu]

This may sound simple to some but I think changing those faucet assemblies on the A320's proved challenging. I reckon Airbus was experimenting on a new assembly method whereby the fauctes were suspended on thin air and built the airplane around it.

Like Somefokker said?!, I must agree that the Death Cruiser 10 was Engineer friendly. The platform was smart, but you don't want to be up there when it's -30C and the wind howling like crazy.

[redtail]

Macdu, you neglected to mention the character building aspect of being in the crow's nest of a DC-10 when it is raining, everything is covered in oil, and you are cranking cowlings (fan and core) open with your speed handle.

Other moments of fun have been:
- 747-200s with P&W Q engines (where'd that leak really originate from?)
- 727 MLG brakes: do they really need all of these bolts to hold them on?
- 747-100/200s P&W engine, anything under the inner fan cowl.
- Convair 580 generators
- Fuel tanks where you have to remember the exact number of twists and turns to exit that you used to enter (usually exiting by doing a handstand)
- Position sensors (LVDTs, pots, etc) that require two people to adjust, or positioning your hands in tight areas while hydraulic power is on.

And my favorite: Sweringen (Fairchild Metro) ground power receptacles that are mounted in line with the arc of the propellers.

[Maint99]

Award would have to go to all the folks who design where to put terminal blocks, and connectors on just about every airframe known to man. As an avionics type, I have the distinct pleasure of trying to find and access afore mentioned items.

Design Engineer: " Lets not put an access panel here, that way,the poor sod who needs to get to the wing root disconnects will have to tear the entire interior apart. (snicker)"

And, who is the genius who decided to put the elevator servo , for a Dash-8, UNDER the air cycle machine. Next time I call him to replace it!!
--------------------------------------------

"You want it on the gate for when???"


[This message has been edited by Maint99 (edited 18 October 2000).]

[redtail]

I forgot another one. The WIU (Wire Integration Unit) on the 747-400. Ugh. Has anyone else had to go in and change wire wraps for an upgrade? Has anyone else found unseated pins in the back of this marvel? How do you like torqueing a four inch diameter wire bundle in order to gain access? This is another area Douglas got right with the DC-10 and its use of terminal blocks.

[HateThe8]

redtail,

Your post brought back bad memories. A few years ago, I went to change a 727-100 brake on a quick turn, and after I pulled the tire off, there was 2 crescent shaped safty bars holding the heads of the bolts. All the bolt heads were safety wired to the bar. This brake was all bolts (12 I think), no guide studs. Needless to say, there was a mx delay on that one.

[This message has been edited by HateThe8 (edited 18 October 2000).]

[Dozy Bell]

727 pre-cooler inboard clamp in the stub wing has got to be a contender for this award. One hand access so not only have you got to try to get the clamp together you have to try and get the nut on it one handed. Nightmare.

[HateThe8]

Load control valve on a 727.

[Dozy Bell]

727 apu exhaust duct especially when a new seal fitted to the exhaust panel. Complete nightmare.

[redtail]

727 windshield wiper motors.

I think the whole damn airplane was designed when a large experienced workforce was available and there was more time assigned to turn arounds.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Although this does not relate to aircraft it is applicable to some of the postings on this thread.

Many years ago I was techrep on the Atlas Ballistic Missile. When the launch pads were about to be turned over to the Air Force the Tech Manuals had to be validated.

In the process of doing this, we found that what was in the manuals in no way resembled what was on the launch pad. Also, none of the equipment worked the way is was supposedly designed to do. We brought these problems up to our Air Force superiors and we made a recommendation. The Air Force followed our recommendation and the engineers and tech writers were directed to report to Vandenberg AFB and under our direction they were made to work on the equipment that they had either designed or wrote about in the manuals. This went on for a month and the writers and engineers returned to San Diego and it took several months to get things sorted out.

------------------
The Cat

[redtail]

"Many years ago I was techrep on the Atlas Ballistic Missile."

Lu, that was about the time I was busy being born. I have always heard good things about Convair and their engineering, as well as generally liking the CV580. How did they impress you? Ever go to the Atlas sites in upstate NY?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Red Tail,

As far as engineering at Convair is concerned it went south when they designed the 880 and 990. If you want to address inaccessability, then the Convair Jets are at the very top. When flying on an 880 you might notice that the wing skin is smooth and not pocked marked with access panels. On the return flight you might notice access panels all over the place. On the 880 and I assume on the 990 the designers installed hydraulic drive and other mechanical components for the flight control and fuel systems but there were no access panels for maintenance of these units. If something failed the mechanic had to cut a hole in the wing skin either on the top or bottom and in the process, Convair had to engineer the structural fix to repair the hole that had to be made in order to gain access to the failed component.

On many occasions when they were testing the 880 they would land and when they activated the thrust reversers the engines would blow heavy black sooty smoke and it would be ingested into the two inboard engines shutting them down. These two engines provided the hydraulic power for the brakes and the brakes would not operate very well because they had limited stopping power from the accumulator. Once the aircraft stopped it was towed back to the end of the runway and they would take off again. This problem I assume was solved before the 880 went into service.

Regarding the engineering at Convair Astronautics, the builder of the Atlas, it was pretty good. The management however totally sucked. Convair had four different aircraft programs going when they got the contract to build the Atlas. Those programs were the 880 and 990 and the F102 and F106. They felt that the Atlas would be lower in producing income for the company so the aircraft division unloaded all of the dead wood in their management structure onto the Astronautics division. All four aircraft programs eventually bit the dust and the company laid off all of their management instead of placing them in the Astronautics division and getting rid of the bad managers. When the Astronautics division was founded they Gave the Presidency to a comparitive unknown in the aircraft industry. The main reason he was hired was that the company felt that he would work well with the Air Force. This mans' main qualification was that in WW2 he dropped a bomb on a Japanese Battleship killing a high ranking Admiral. As a manager, he too sucked, and as the program matured the Air Force shared these same feelings.

Although the Atlas had some teething problems it proved to be fairly reliable as Ballistic Missiles are concerned. It turned out that way not because of management but, in spite of management.

Regarding my working at Plattsburg, NY I had the chance and I turned it down for two reasons. I didn't want to work in a hole in the ground and I felt that upstate NY sucked.

Now, I live in Quebec about 80 miles as the crow flies from Plattsburg. I could kick my butt for not taking the oppotunity as the area is fantastic. However if I had done so my life would have changed and I wouldn't be where I am, married to a lovely Quebec lady.

Any more war stories.

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 19 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 19 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 19 October 2000).]

[redtail]

I liked PAFB, and it would have been even nicer if we could have lived on the old base.

SAC will be back.

[Quinke Tube]

Stupid Design Award Nominee:
Beech 1900 windsheild wiper actuator; the maint manual has no resemblance to the actual access. It should read as follows: remove the cockpit bulkhead, remove the seats, lay on your back with your head between rudder pedals, spread your legs, have someone kick you in the crotch (hard), actuator should now be visible, if you had your hands up behind instrument panel prior to receiving kick, you might be able to change the failed actuator.

[Irish Steve]

Getting the batteries out of the hell hole on a Lear 55!

Best done by someone that's not eaten a decent meal for about 6 months!

------------------
"Irish" Steve

[unwrapping the aog]

Any job on a BAC1-11 was a ball ache as I remember, but setting up the emergency trim tab servo position transmitter was a classic piece of british design!

[unwrapping the aog]

somefokker,

Thank you for nominating the DC-10 as a most engineer friendly aircraft, but boy it sure needs to be! One day flying is followed by a days maintenance thesedays.

And have you noticed its always number 2 engine with the defect!