On-wing engine wire harness repairs

[GEnxsux]

Hi,

I'm after a bit of line maintenance experience here. If possible, could I get some general feedback on on-wing harness repairs (engine specific)?

1) What's the most common defect/repair?
2) What's the most difficult repair?
3) Can heat guns be used on-wing?

Other general info is most welcome also.

Thanks!!!

[winglit]

In my experience CFM and Pratt & Witney make the best electrical harnesses. I don't think I've ever had to repair one. They are solidly built and are almost completely enclosed in heatshrink with bonded boots.

Rolls Royce on the other hand their wiring is pretty poor in comparison. Numerous chafing wires, badly routed harnesses and little protection in the way of heatshrink and boots.

Having said that, if you were to get a wiring fault on a CFM or P&W, a repair in-situ is almost impossible, you would have to replace that section of harness. On a Roller you can easily do repairs. EGT harnesses are tricky to repair due to the fact that it has to be a continuous loop. In line splice repairs are not allowed.

A heat gun can be used on wing provided it is not a naked flame type. I have used one in the past that used a nitrogen supply and a halogen heat source that was approved for in-situ use.

[connector]

Hey

Could you be more specific about, what A/C you are working on.
Spotheaters are good to make a soldersleeve, but warming up a boot?
The A/C Manufacturs are not following their own rules.
The WDM chapter 20 rules.
Boeing + Bombardier is what i am thinking about.:rolleyes:

[IFixPlanes]

ATA 70-71 rules too :ok:

[GEnxsux]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I'm interested in the V2500 if anyone has any specific info.

[connector]

I have worked on A-320 with V-2500 + CFM.
Not much splicing to do, for en Avionic.
Of course firewarning is the same ****
as on other aircrafts.
Especially the hot section strips.
They are ending up in kind of a box below the pylon.
For engine disconnect.
That box is of course often filled with water.
To troubleshoot that, you have to use a capacity tester.
Not a megger.
Hhmm.. I read in a book some years ago, that resistance
and capacity, in princible is the same:D.
Yes: "Viva la resistance"!.
The fwd FW are gasloops.
Easy to troubleshoot.
Often oil in the connector at the pressure tx.
Other faults?
Vib. system. Use a low voltage megger.
My question to Airbus:
You want me to use an AC- or a DC- megger?
They never explain why!
Takes a week, to read it up.
Other faults?
Thrust reverser.
But that mostlly ends up to be "mechanically".
Time for the Avionic, to find his couch,
and see the last two episodes of "Jackass"!:rolleyes:

[winglit]

Well there you go, you learn something new every day!

But you're quoting the A/C SWMP and not the engine repair manual. Sometimes they do contradict each other. I was lead to believe that RR do not permit ILS in thermocouple harnesses, but that's only my recollection. If in doubt go with the engine manual.

[connector]

But what about the thermocouple terminals?
On aged A/C like Douglas/Dehavilland,
you are allowed to solder them.
It`s a process, where you use 5 different chemicals.
But takes ten minutes.
First time our company bought the chemicals,
they bought so much,
that we can supply the rest of the free word (including China)
for the next 50 years.
But there must be a way, to crimp these bastards.
We have these terminals in stock.
But what about the crimp tool?
Ohh, the engine-manufacturer says, they have to be soldered.
But you are allowed to use splice in the thermocouple system.
What`s the difference?:D

[Vortechs Jenerator]

Any contradiction in repair authorisation can be verified by tech query with the manufacturer then remedied by tech publication amendment. Ignoring these things doesn't help the next guy and perpetuates any confusing instructions?

I know when the ERJ 145 came into service - a load of us practically rewrote the maintenance manual for Embraer, it was such a confused little collection of books!

[Blacksheep]

But you're quoting the A/C SWMP and not the engine repair manual. Sometimes they do contradict each other. They serve different purposes. In general, the SWMP applies when the engine is "On-Wing", the engine manual applies on the cradle. In 'On-Wing' cases that aren't covered by the SWMP, the engine manual may be applied.

You must also bear in mind that in many cases the wiring harness on a QCE is an 'aircraft part', designed and produced by the aircraft manufacturer and not the engine manufacturer.

The same applies to other major components such as APU or landing gears.

[winglit]

I remember when we had a fault on our RR Trent Airbus 330. The EGT was causing erroneous indications. We traced the fault to a chafed wire on the egt harness onto the CNA. It was the green one and I can't remember it that's alumel or chromel.

An easy repair would be to cut at the chafe put in in line splice and heatshrink sleeve, a permanent repair as per Airbus chapt 20. However our RR wiring practices manual expressly prohibited in line spice repair on EGT harnesses. We put in a query with our technical service boffins and we were advised to replace the entire harness. A big job on a Trent!

So what would have taken 20mins to fix as per Airbus, took an entire day because of Rolls Royce.

[Blacksheep]

Sounds like you asked the wrong people. A better (and legal) way to handle it would have been an "On-Wing" repair per Airbus process with an outstanding defect or equivalent raised for a wire bundle replacement at next engine removal. Perhaps your "tech services boffins" aren't approved for producing repair schemes? If so, they certainly ain't boffins.

[Vortechs Jenerator]

The fact that RR sells complete and not inexpensive wiring harnesses for their engine has nothing to do with this prohibition of course:}

[winglit]

Blacksheep, that's our problem. Even as licenced engineers we have to submit our repair schemes through tech services which then get signed off by Quality. Tech servs get their nod from Airbus, Boeing, RR etc through either direct from Tolouse, Seattle or Derby.

I feel that this somewhat undervalues our qualifications as licenced guys. After all, we're the ones who sign it off in the log. Having said that, if you sign it off in accordance with a tech services repair scheme, the onus is then on them and Quality. However I wouldn't know the recourse on how that would stand up in court as ultimately it's my signature on the CRS.

[N1 Vibes]

GEnxsux,

the most common repair on our fleet, on the RR side of the house, is the 'overtie' repair - see ATA 70. Very useful. As for splice repairs - if you have to make the wire bigger by splicing and protecting with a sleeve, you can often a) spend more time and effort than an overtie and b) potentially cause clearance issues with the 'thicker' repair area.

As for the CFM vs RR harness issue - it's $30k plus for the RR harness and only about $8k for the CFM......

Regards,

N1 Vibes

[winglit]

Because we don't own our aircraft we lease them. If you've ever done a lease hand back you'll know what an absolute nightmare it is.

The leasing surveyor will go over every repair (structural or electrical) and may insist on "as new condition" What may be considered as a permanent repair for an airworthy issue may not necessarily satisfy the owners. That's why tech services and quality get involved. Sometimes it's cost effective to try and do an "as new" repair over an acceptable one.

From then on it gets political and way over my pay grade. I just do as I'm told!

Also with this EGT issue we had a conflict of manuals as stated before. My inclination would be to go with the engine SWPM over the A/C one on this issue. After all, Rolls Royce made the engine, not Airbus. Rolls obviously have a reason why they prohibit ILS on an EGT harness. I don't know why, maybe it's because of what Vortechs Jenerator said!

My guess is that it upsets the Wheatstone bridge and that you shouldn't be adjusting the bobbin resistors to trim the ballast. (Used to do that on VC10 Conways) When you change the entire harness, you get the ballast resistor value needed with it.


I'm now going to get controversial and state another reason why electrical repair schemes may need prior approval and that's because these repairs are now supposed to be done by an A&C engineer!

I started life as an aircraft electrician but carried on along the B2 route. When I converted my licence to EASA B2, they also gave me a restricted B1 to allow me to carry on being an electrician! Learning about the minefield that is cables and connectors and picking up the required skill to use precision termination tooling (PTT) is not something you can do by subscribing to club66dotcom and sitting a multi-choice exam!

That's how I got the rest of my B1 modules. I am now qualified to do a structural repair. But would I do one? No chance, I would leave that to a proper tin basher.

[connector]

It looks like the FAA is working on an international standard
for repair and installation of wiring ,"the holy bible".
Called F39.
They are talking about a yearly update.
Go to : http:www.astm.org/COMMIT/F39.htm

"And get more confused":confused:.

[N1 Vibes]

winglit,

the overtie repair for the a330 (trent 700) and other RR family engines was put into the Amm by Airbus of course, but this was at RR's recommendation. So it did have blessing from the original OEM mothership.

Regards,

N1 Vibes

[Blacksheep]

Quality being involved tells me that winglit's tech services people aren't design approved. Ordinarily a designated TSE will draft a repair scheme under the airline or MRO's company design approval. The LAE will then carry out the approved repair and certify it in the same way as if they were doing an SB. The paper chase leaves an audit trail and QA's involvement is restricted to auditing organisational compliance with procedures and practices, not individual repairs and modifications.

ASKAP's question: Why do an approved repair when the job is within SWPM (or SRM for structural repairs) limits?

You don't legally need to as you will have satisfied the airworthiness requirement. Lease return conditions are, as winglit says, another matter. The lease contract will usually specify FAA certification for all repairs although EASA is often accepted these days. So, if you certify all repairs with an FAA 8110-3, the leasing surveyor can argue all he likes about it, that's an "as new" condition. When you buy a brand new aeroplane the delivery docs will be full of variations and production line repair data; There's no such thing as a perfect airframe.

If you repair engine wiring on wing, repairs given in the SWPM repairs are derived from the airframe manufacturers drawings and the audit trail will lead right back to the Type Certificate Data Sheets. A spare engine on a stand in storage is a different matter and the engine manual is the reference document.

[Perrin]

Boy its well seeing that things have changed, a/c down in remote or mil a/c which needed to fly, in those days a splice did and 99 out off 100 checked out on e/r. Like was said the engineer signing for it has better idea than the suits and somedays like I said you can't wait a week or so for answer. Remember doing about 20 splices on B52 where hot air did some damage to engine wiring and the show had to go on. Oh this hindsight is so good once retirement kicks in!!!

Keep them up safe boys I use them on my hols.

Peter :cool:

[Vortechs Jenerator]

I'm now going to get controversial and state another reason why electrical repair schemes may need prior approval and that's because these repairs are now supposed to be done by an A&C engineer!

I started life as an aircraft electrician but carried on along the B2 route. When I converted my licence to EASA B2, they also gave me a restricted B1 to allow me to carry on being an electrician! Learning about the minefield that is cables and connectors and picking up the required skill to use precision termination tooling (PTT) is not something you can do by subscribing to club66dotcom and sitting a multi-choice exam!

I was a rigger, then an A Lic' eng' then A&C and then now Full B1 but believe it or not - using a hook up chart or a multi meter is not rocket science:)

[winglit]

No you're right. Anyone who can engage a little diagnostic logic can work out a wiring fault.

But I'm talking about standard wiring practices. The "art" of making harnesses. The complexity of crimping. How to solder correctly. How to make correct repairs that won't fail.

Finding an intermittent fault, now that is rocket science!

[Vortechs Jenerator]

Finding an intermittent fault, now that is rocket science!

How come you all seem to depend on changing every component in "most expensive first" order then move on to "pot luck" then?:)

[winglit]

How come you all seem to depend on changing every component in "most expensive first" order then move on to "pot luck" then?

Cos that's what most FIMs tell you to do. Chuck in a load of black boxes and if that don't fix it, look at the wiring. It's not my fault that some of these black boxes cost more than a bungalow! But usually (and I say usually) they fail more often than A/C wiring.

Pot luck? Nah! It's skill mate!

[Blacksheep]

...and don't forget, avionics engineers smell nicer too. :}

[Golden Rivet]

Under Part 66, B2 (avionic) engineers shouldn't be going anywhere near engine systems wiring.

[connector]

I agree with winglit.
He is talking about "real" avionics.
They are on a mission from god!:D
Not these B1 guys, passing a B2-course by accident.
I have worked places, where they not even where allowed
to crimp a tag.
The type of guys, who are making temp.repairs all over the airplane.
Repairs, you won`t allow on your Toyota.
I have a nice collection of temp.repaired items.
It`s amazing how a plier can crimp.
And who has to do a "permanent repair" in no time?
"We" are!
Let`s start a movement.

[Blacksheep]

Under Part 66, B2 (avionic) engineers shouldn't be going anywhere near engine systems wiring.That's what scares me.

Apart from engines, the B1s are also responsible for fuel tank wiring. Remind me what SSFR88 is really all about. ?

The ingrained safety consciousness of LAEs is given, we all have good intentions and safety is on all our minds at all times, but is it fair to expect people to start covering a complicated specialisation without suitable training? Compare the size of the SWPM with the SRM and you will get an idea of what I mean. Wiring isn't the "electric string" that A & Cs used to dismiss with contempt. If you don't pay attention to it, wiring faults will bring an aircraft down just the same as any other critical failure.

Swissair 111
United 800
etc.

[Vortechs Jenerator]

I have always maintained that we are naturally inclined to be one or the other.

I don't mind doing basic wiring and LRU/component changes with BITE or simple test (like we always have done) but I'll never be happy tracing complex Avionic defects and as stated - Most B2's who are now B1 would run a mile if asked to replace a fuselage frame or even replacing an engine as a supervisor with a few mechs.

So long as we recognize our limitations and don't stray into unsafe practices because our masters want an ever cheaper and smaller workforce - we'll be ok.

I have a mobile phone full of expert colleagues numbers all over the world when I'm stuck on my own somewhere and a second opinion is worth it's weight in gold too. Contractors stick together:)

[kahuna2go]

Most B1's would run a mile in the opposite direction too....