DC9 Tug crew depart aircraft with covered up fuselage damage.

[Alwaysairbus]

Just read this on the web..

DC-9 depressurised after ramp crew covered up tug strike (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/12/15/320149/dc-9-depressurised-after-ramp-crew-covered-up-tug-strike.html)

A very good reason for all airlines and handling companies to run a no blame culture to help prevent incidents/accidents rather than making people feel they have to cover up any human errors for fear of losing their jobs... within reason of course.

[AltFlaps]

If this is true, the tug crew should be jailed for knowingly endangering an aircraft :mad:

[Capot]

The expression used in aviation is, "Just Culture", within which the real root cause(s) of errors are determined methodically (MEDA, Kaizan etc etc).

If that exhaustive investigation shows that the error was the result of a deliberate violation, the person responsible will, quite rightly, be disciplined.

The newspaper report says:

In a probable-cause statement on the event, the National Transportation Safety Board says: "The senior ground agent then advised, 'Don't say anything' to one of the other ground agents who was working the flight with him."Whatever the root cause of the error that led to the damage was, the senior ground agent seems to have subsequently committed a serious violation and should be fired forthwith as being demonstrably unfit for his task.

A "No Blame Culture" is ridiculous; it simply means that if an irresponsible fool endangers safety, he or she will, perhaps after a group hug, be allowed to carry on as before.

[Admiral346]

I think the "No Blame" culture here would have helped, in the sense that the ground crew would not have anything to fear reporting a mishap like this one.

Of course neglecting the need to report something should have drastic consequences, as it endangeres lives.

The story is actually hard to believe - how can someone in their right mind ignore stuff like that!!!

Nic

P.S: It figures that the thread about the Flybe turning back to Cardiff recieves much more attention...

[SLFguy]

A "No Blame Culture" is ridiculous; it simply means that if an irresponsible fool endangers safety, he or she will, perhaps after a group hug, be allowed to carry on as before.

[x] Doesn't understand what a 'no blame culture' is.

[Fireboy]

There was a similar incident at STN involving an Aer Lingus 146. The baggage loaders always positioned the baggage trolleys very close to the hold. I can't remember if it was the front or rear hold but to cut a long story short the loaders pushed the trolley to fast and it struck the aircraft piercing the skin. The aircraft pushed back from B21 with all four engines running when one of the loaders involved informed someone of the hole and the aircraft returned to stand.

I remember one of the loaders involved left the company, not sure about the other chap. I'm sure if they had just informed someone about the accident they would have been given a warning or something similar. This probably took place around 1999/2000.

[IGh]

the key factor in this case, as in several similar, is CONTRACT workers from an outside company. The airline's safety culture isn't applicable to outside, unlicensed employees.

NYC07LA121 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20070601X00676&ntsbno=NYC07LA121&akey=1)
"...while at SYR, contract ramp personnel ... loaded the baggage for the flight...
"... the contractor’s ground agents ... The senior ... decided to use a luggage tug to push the belt loader away ... with the ... tug from ... the upper right-hand side of the tug’s cab contacted the fuselage. The senior ground agent [contract labor] then advised “don’t say anything” ..."


More CONTRACT [ramp] damage:
From the _P-I_:
5Jan06 at SeaTac, Menzies contract ramp services

******* Press Rpts ********

"Safety review planned after another Alaska Airlines plane damaged

"The company responsible for Alaska Airlines ramp services at Sea-Tac Airport is bringing in a team of safety experts for a 90-day “top-to-bottom” review of its operations there after another of the airline’s jets was damaged in a ground incident Thursday [5Jan06]....
"... the second such incident by an employee of Menzies Aviation in 10 days...."
"... jet’s right engine cowling hit the baggage loading machine, she said, and the passenger entry door on the left side of the plane hit the jetway...
"...Alaska hired the British firm Menzies Aviation to provide baggage handling and other ramp services at Sea-Tac Airport in May 2005 after laying off nearly 500 unionized ramp workers. Alaska said the move would save it about $13 million a year...."

"... a series of ramp incidents have focused attention on the work being done by those Menzies employees at Sea-Tac. The most serious mishap occurred Dec. 26. That day, an Alaska Airlines MD-80 headed for Burbank, Calif., experienced a sudden loss of cabin pressure at 26,000 feet. After an emergency dive to lower altitude, the jet returned to Sea-Tac Airport, where a foot-long hole was found in its fuselage. The next day, a Menzies employee admitted that he accidentally hit the jet with a baggage loading machine and did not report the incident ..."
Safety review planned after another Alaska Airlines plane damaged (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/254686_alaska05ww.html)

IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 625AS Make/Model: B737 ...
Date: 01/05/2006 Time: 2030 ...

Event Type: Incident ...
Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
City: SEATTLE State: WA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N625AS, AN ALASKA AIRLINES, ASA808, BOEING 737 ACFT, WHILE PARKED AT THE GATE, TUG PULLED FORWARD SCRATCHED THE FUSELAGE, NO INJURIES REPORTED, SEATTLE, WA

SEA06LA033 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051229X02026&key=1)
... A new (approximately one week on the job) ground baggage handler, who was driving a tug towing a train of baggage carts, ... but had to maneuver around another train of carts to get close to the belt loader. ... After loading the carts with baggage, he attempted to drive away. He said that he turned the tug's wheels as far as possible. He stated, "I was hoping to make it out, but I felt my tug going against something. ... glanced at the body [in moderate rain] of the aircraft to see if there was any damage. It was a quick glance and I did not see any damage." He said two other ground personnel came to assist him in maneuvering his tug away from the airplane. He did not report the incident to anyone.
... the probable cause...: The ground personnel baggage handler failed to maintain clearance from the aircraft with cargo handling equipment during ground operations and inadvertently damaged the airplane's pressure bulkhead which subsequently decompressed during climb to cruise.

Note that in the above case [26Dec05] the NTSB failed to mention the element of CONTRACT LABOR, and the lack of any link with the airline's strict safety culture.

[TUGNBAR]

There was a similar incident at STN involving an Aer Lingus 146. The baggage loaders always positioned the baggage trolleys very close to the hold. I can't remember if it was the front or rear hold but to cut a long story short the loaders pushed the trolley to fast and it struck the aircraft piercing the skin. The aircraft pushed back from B21 with all four engines running when one of the loaders involved informed someone of the hole and the aircraft returned to stand.

I remember one of the loaders involved left the company, not sure about the other chap. I'm sure if they had just informed someone about the accident they would have been given a warning or something similar. This probably took place around 1999/2000.

I remember this an the guy I pleased to say no longer works in the Aviation industry, we dont need idiots like that, but unfortunately with the cost cutting in Ground Handling safety and the airlines paying peanuts to the handling agents these monkeys will be handling your aircraft.

[Capot]

SLFGuy

For an understanding of what's wrong with the idea of a "No Blame Culture", and why it has been discarded in favour of the "Just Culture", try the many pieces of work that have been done about this, before launching posts like [x] Doesn't understand what a 'no blame culture' is. You could start with a Flight Safety Foundation paper, Roadmap to a Just Culture (http://www.flightsafety.org/gain/just_culture.pdf); the Foreword sums the case against a "No Blame Culture" quite well.

[zalt]

Capot Well said.

In a just culture if inadvertant damage is done while trying to cope with circumstances and is reported it may result in some extra training etc

In a just culture if inadvertant damage is done while trying to cope with circumstances and is NOT reported it would result in termination

So what do you do with the junior guy who is told to keep quiet?

IGh Thats why an airline has to take an interest in the SMS & culture of their suppliers.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

I don't quite understand the argument here.

Fact is that;

Ground crew make mistake, they admit it and are fired. If they don't then there may be an accident and they may be prosecuted.

Air Crew make a mistake, they are completely immune to any discipline due to the "no blame" culture.

There is something very wrong with this.

[framer]

Air Crew make a mistake, they are completely immune to any discipline

Cargo Clown is an appropriate name. You're not one of those 'us and them' types are you? You know the ones, when the pilot says ' g'day mate, hows ya day goin?' and they grunt and look like a bulldog chewing a wasp before walking away.

You might have picked up a few whiffs of diesel exhaust I reckon, maybe try standing upwind of the tug.

[Old Fella]

Seems to me that no one here seems to have mentioned the one ingredient required no matter what "culture" or whatever fancy name is put on it. A SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY is what is required, surely. It is a fairly simple system, taking responsibility for one's actions that is. It doesn't matter whether it involves aircrew or groundcrew, does it?

[42psi]

Surely it doesn't matter what name you give it ...?

In all aircraft handling there has to be a system where everyone quickly and without fail reports anything which they see or do that may impact on safe operation.

Having an accident should not mean a disciplinary investigation follows - it should mean an investigation ensues to establish what happened and why.

A "no blame" culture (or possibly the better named "just culture") does not mean negligence goes undealt with ...

Causing a/c damage and knowingly not reporting it should result in disciplinary action - i.e. the accident itself becomes somewhat remote - it's the act of failing to report damage that is the subject of action.




There are two seperate things here ... having an accident and failing to report an accident/aircraft damage.

:confused:

[Wod]

I'm sorry if I fall into the trap of "in my day" rose-tinted glasses, but there really was a time when we were proud to be members of the industry, with a primary responsibility to Aviation and a secondary responsibility to our employer.

Seems to me that if you contract out some aviation activity, you require the successful contractor to demonstrate, and allow independent scrutiny of, an employee induction programme which requires emphasis on the safety of flight.

[mccdatabase]

In my humble opinion part of the problem lies with the handling companies who fail to properly educate their handlers and loaders about the possible consequences of damage however slight it may appear, a lot of these guys simply do not appreciate or understand the implications of even the smallest dent or scratch on an aircraft skin. Ground handling companies tend cut their costs to a bare minimum and that includes the training of their staff

[BEA 71]

I fully agree, 42psi, we are all bound to make mistakes, the point is how you deal with it. I have never seen anyone being punished who discovered having made a mistake as long as he/she took proper action.

[liquid sunshine]

In my experience some ground handling agents are very quick to sack people following an incident, hence the reluctance for people to speak up. People should be able to come to work in the knowlege that if they have a genuine accident they can report it without having to fear for their job. After all that is why all parties have fairly hefty insurance policies. Until handling agents stop being hire & fire merchants and have a more open reporting policy then the situation will regretably never change.

[tigger2k8]

agreed with whats being said, until handling firms get rid of the hit a plane and ur fired attitude then some employee's wont report...

during training i was always told "hit a plane and your down the road"

[makintw]

At least with metal skins the damage, be it dents, scratches, scrapes is visible.

What's going to happen with plastic skins where that "little bump" shows nothing on the outer surface?

[Tempsford]

A 'no blame' or 'just cause' culture will only work if the country/company in which it is being used understands what a 'no blame/just cause' culture' is. In the UK we regulalry find damage to aircraft that can only have been done on the ramp at the UK airport, and is not reported. In many cases, the perpetrators simply get away with it. Should the 'no blame' apply to such people?
We also get aircraft returning to the UK with un reported damage inflicted down route. Areas round pasenger and cargo doors are favourite.

Some one has done it. Some knows about it. Someone is responsible, but it still happens. 'Ramp Rash' is one the biggest causes of Technical Delays because once damaged, the repair can take a 'long time'.

To willingly know that an aircraft is damaged, to say nothing and the to allow the aircaft to depart in such a condition with no rectifiaction action is not acceptable behaviour for the majority of us.

However there is a minority who do not care or understand and the words 'no blame', just cause, human factors, aircraft safety, duty of care etc etc do not mean a thing to them.


Tempsford

[ferrydude]

"At least with metal skins the damage, be it dents, scratches, scrapes is visible.

What's going to happen with plastic skins where that "little bump" shows nothing on the outer surface?"


the 787 will have imbedded strain gauges to alert of such anomalies

[Shell Management]

Tempsford

A 'no blame' or 'just cause' culture will only work if the country/company in which it is being used understands what a 'no blame/just cause' culture' is.

Are you ghetting confused? Just culture is a recognised term. Just cause is to in a slightly different context. But you seem to be confusing them.


In the UK we regulalry find damage to aircraft that can only have been done on the ramp at the UK airport, and is not reported. In many cases, the perpetrators simply get away with it. Should the 'no blame' apply to such people? We also get aircraft returning to the UK with un reported damage inflicted down route. Areas round pasenger and cargo doors are favourite.

Some one has done it. Some knows about it.


Are you not making an assumption that all the damage was knowingly done? You can't report what you don't know.

[Tempsford]

Hi Shell,

Valid points,


I am saying that just cause may be recognised in some areas, but certainly not all and even with some countries/companies that have accepted just cause, it is ignored.

Also, I am not making the assumption that all damage is known about. That, of course is not the case.

[Double Zero]

I am mere SLF when it comes to airliners, but do have experience on the ground team side of development fighters inc. a lot of carbon fibre.

I agree with the earlier comment that this is a treacherous material, if it takes a hard knock nothing shows externally, but it can be delaminated like plywood inside !

When our development aircraft suffered impacts, it caused mild panic, grounding and much ultrasonic etc examination - the same goes for lightning strikes.

No amount of built in strain guages or instrumentation would convince me it's suitable for airliners, especially any one I & family are in - accept the technological / cost limits, use skilled staff & metal !

I am not in the aviation business now, and certainly not in the pay of Mr. Airbus.

As for the ground handling crew piercing the fuselages of aircraft then keeping quiet, well I agree they should be prosecuted, BUT - while I don't know the position of the damage, on the face of it this doesn't say much for the aircrew walk-round ?

[Capot]

To add a little to Shell Management's comments, you really cannot talk about "no blame" and "just culture" as though they are almost the same. They are totally different; one is discredited and the other works.

But the comment that the organisation must understand it is very valid. Not only understand, but be fully committed to forcing it to work, from the CEO downwards.

And that's where the problems normally start, with CEOs who neither understand or care about the actual operation of the business they run, and believe that "knowing how to run a business" in the same way that a management consultant "knows about business" is adequate.

The worst case is history of that was that idiot in charge of Railtrack when the Paddington crash happened. He regarded is as "obscene", to use his word, that he should be held responsible.

[ferrydude]

"No amount of built in strain guages or instrumentation would convince me it's suitable for airliners, especially any one I & family are in - accept the technological / cost limits, use skilled staff & metal !"

Same baseless fearmongering occured when metal started replacing wood structure.

You and the family had better get used to walking/driving

[Lone_Ranger]

"Same baseless fearmongering occured when metal started replacing wood structure."


I think you just made that up...

[possel]

Re composites, I worked on the Harrier GR5 when new into RAF service, and it was quite a shock to discover just how easily it was damaged (just drop a spanner on the wing...). We were doing metal scab patches to composite wings as it was so difficult to be assured of the repair quality.

I hope things have improved since... If not, ferrydude is being somewhat overcritical of Doublezero

[Double Zero]

Possel,

Thankyou, we have obviously moved in the same circles & may have met !

To my detractor - sorry I am not being insulting but both PC & internal computers are playing up as regards names -

" welcome to the 21st century " is not all that likely to impress me, as my systems recorded the first European AIM 120 release, and various passenger safety systems elsewhere which should not be gone into detail here.

Materials which are convenient to the manufacturer ( and that is in some serious doubt if one really studies the figures ) are rarely convenient to the people on board.

In fact though I have flown Tiger Moths, it might take a gun to get me into a Fox Moth or a Rapide; still I reckon I could put those down with a fair chance, with the proviso of at least 2 wings on opposite sides - I would prefer an L72 Dural skin, especially leading edges, but if I had to fly something carbon fibre, I would rather like titanium ( & de-iceing ) leading edges.

Now that's 21st century.

If you had seen the snags with carbon fibre which I have photographed in close-up, you might be rather keener on Brunel than Smartarse.

[ZAGORFLY]

so.... no walk around that day?

[ferrydude]

FAA certifies 787 for fewer maintenance inspections

AIA dailyLead | 12/23/2008

The FAA Maintenance Review Board has agreed that high-tech composites used in the airframe of the 787 will allow the plane to be inspected less often than current models. The 787's first required external structural inspection will come after six years of normal operation, compared with three years for the 767. AviationWeek.com (12/22)


Unfortunately, DZ won't be asked for his input:ouch:

[Double Zero]

That's just the thing I was asking; I don't know where the damage was, but find it hard to imagine being over a wing !

So indeed, what did happen to the walk-round ?

I am used to dealing with military groundcrew ( and in a way I was one ) who I have the utmost respect for, but for the chap who's signed for the aircraft carrying either explosives or hopefully if civilian lots of people, I take no insult at all at being regarded a possible idiot or worse and having my work checked.

I would regard it the Captain's duty to regard everyone else an idiot and double-check until proven otherwise - this is known practice on ships or even yachts, and I'm damn sure Test Pilots live to get their pension that way.

[Double Zero]

OK Ferrydude,

If you're happy then great.

For fighters - so in a way much the same thing as an airliner doing X cycles - Lithium alloy was regarded the ultimate material for both immediate stress and for maintenance.

Guess what ? - It requires skilled people, remarkably similar to those laid off in their thousands over the last few years ( no, I'm not one of them ).

Safe travels, but maybe ' think brittle' !

Happy Christmas,

Double Zero & Muttley

[ferrydude]

Not much guessing really, lessons have been learned and your concerns are unwarranted.

In-situ composite repair builds on basics: COMPOSITESWORLD.COM (http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/in-situ-composite-repair-builds-on-basics.aspx)

[StudentInDebt]

To those asking about whether a walkaround was conducted I have no idea in this particular case. However, the external inspection is not necessarily conducted immediately prior to departure, it can be done at any point on the turnaround, sometimes before any ground handling equipment turns up and certainly prior to it being removed. As a result there is a possibility that damage will be inflicted on the aircraft after the inspection has been completed, the pushback team are responsible for doing a quick visual check where I work but this might not be the case at all airlines.

[Double Zero]

I cannot believe what I've just read.

So, airliner pilots responsible for hundreds of lives don't do a visual inspection BEFORE FLIGHT when all the handling types have cleared off ?

I was going to say mounted floodlamps rather than waving a big torch around ( or both ) would be a good idea.

Both my father - engine fitter from WWII on carriers to Harrier GR5 chargehand ( he stuck to what he was good at ) and even self - technical photographer - have on the odd occasion noticed missing panel fastnings etc.

Now it seems from the above that bus drivers take more care - and yes, no wonder Test Pilots usually get to live out their well earned pensions.

I won't be mentioning this to any media, but don't be surprised if this get's out, and though I never thought I'd say this, in everyone's interest it ought to .

[HZ123]

The final walk-round checks @ most UK airports are conducted by the Head set person. To get an on time 'off chocks' the tech crew must have been in the flight deck for some time. At many of the airports worldwide that I have worked on the ramp, this check even by the tech crew is condusted amongst many ground vehicles some still attached to the a/c.
Being emplyed some time ago as a safety auditor the operation and safety check levels of effectiveness are only as good as the inividual, the check is even more fraught when it is dark or the weather inclement. That said I cannot see that there is much more you can do. Someone mentioned the loss of this task as an engineering function, from my experience I doubt their imput or checks were particularly any better. It is a visual check plain and simple.

[Ranger 1]

Returning to some earlier posts on the topic of reporting of incdents it a shocks me to find a culture of if you damage an aircraft you are down the Road end of story:eek:

I have investigated numerous incidents over the years where damage has been caused to aircraft, from an Aerodrome authority position which oversees the airside activities of third parties working airside.
Only one incident I can remember resulted in the dismissal of a member of staff, this was due to the failure to report damage caused to the aircraft to the relevant authorities.

In this current economic climate, almost everyone is concerned about keeping their jobs, supporting a family, possibly with a mortgage, incidents of unreported damage to aircraft in my opinion risk becoming more frequent, especially if people are threatened with dismissal if you damage an aircraft.

Perhaps this was a factor why this DC9 damage was not reported:confused:

The only exception to this may be if you were acting in a reckless manner when it occurred, in which case the person/s would have very little defence.

[Double Zero]

I reckon my theories on doing a walk-round JUST BEFORE take off, and certainly after all ground handling people & vehicles are clear, is common sense and should be factored into the timetable...

A rather good example being the INSIDE wheel fractures posted here recently by an observant Captain on his walkround.

I don't know his name, but would happily fly with him in anything, anywhere - whereas I as a photographer have been led to ask ex- Lightning pilots,( not Dunsfold ) in a light aircraft throttling up for take off, " err, aren't we supposed to have 3 not 2 greens ?"!

[fotoguzzi]

I recognize that the human factor is most important, here, but I wonder if service vehicles could have some sort of dye on the likely points of contact that would rub off on whatever they touched. I could imagine something that resembled a long ketchup pack glued onto the vehicle's upper edges and corners.

[Oldlae]

It's a long time since I was on a long lead and headset seeing an aircraft off, I guess that this job has been downgraded to a member of the tug team, not an engineer. The intention of the engineer on the lead was to ensure that the aircraft was serviceable when it left the ramp and in so doing checking the safe removal of the service vehicles from the aircraft without damaging the structure. The aircrew have to do their checks on accepting the aircraft well before the service vehicles are disconnected.

[Ignition Override]

This happened many months ago, and the media just now discovered it?

We call it outsourcing. This has been the corporate mantra for quite a while.
Here in the US it does not matter if they save a lot of money.

Years ago, only mechanics/engineers were allowed to perform pushbacks.
Even if a jet crashes and many people die, the 'hull loss insurance' absolves the corporation and Upper Mgmt from any blame, in a legal and financial sense.
Too bad that we can't outsource some Upper Managements.
We would save large piles of money.
No 'golden parachutes' with 'zero-zero ejection seats'.

[Alwaysairbus]

In the last week i've had to deal with several incidents of structural damage, one requiring Airbus input. Both caused down route, both during loading. Unfortunately with engineers / mechanics being removed from the headset / final pre push back walkround this type of incident occurs regularly.

On UK departures the push back teams from the hadling companies are very good at spotting any abnormalities but at outstations, for what ever reasons, this is just missed or ignored.

It is no fault of the flight crews. They carry out their pre flight inspection on arriving at the aircraft (longhaul) or as soon as passengers are off (shorthaul turnrounds) due to time constraints on their work in the flight deck. I'm also not sure that the awareness to possible damage present to aircraft structure is taught to flight crews on pre flight checks as much as it could be.

Seems to me that several problems need to addressed by airlines/handling companies/CAA's... better training for all concerned, engineers at each arrival/deprture station and bigger bump strips on steps ang baggage loading vehicles!

Roll on the plastic Boeing with bandaid structural repairs to the fuselage.

[possel]

Thanks Ferrydude - I have looked at the link you gave in #37 about composites, but I would say that concerns ARE still warranted, when even CompositesWorld.com admit: "Damage will occur, however, and when it does, the first step is to assess if and how much internal damage there is within the laminate.... Yet, when a small dent is noticed during visual inspection at the gate...". I wish it was that simple.

The point is that dropping a tool onto a wing may well leave no mark - after all the composite is tough - so no walk-round check will find it. However, significant damage may well still have occurred in the load-bearing structure which could endanger safety long before the next Check, when you would still need to NDT the entire wing surface to find it!

So safety with composites is largely reliant on the honesty of individuals, which was the point of this thread in the first place.

I can see that Boeing are indeed doing a lot of work re the repair of composites, but they all seem to be either metal patches on composite, or actually only apply to unstressed panels etc, not primary structure. How do they propose to do quality assurance on the hot-bonded scarf repair in load bearing structure? Are you going to be happy to fly with such a repair, or is ignorance of the damage bliss?

[ferrydude]

I stand by my statement, your concerns are unwarranted. As you noted, ignorance is at play here. There is plenty of info available concerning the advancement of composites beyond what someones grandpa recalls hearing third hand years ago. Simply "what iffing" due to a lack of knowledge.

[possel]

Well, ferrydude, I don't think it's ignorance, nor is it my grandpa's memory. I'm not a commercial pilot but I am a qualified Chartered Engineer with a PPL, a degree in aeronautical engineering and years of experience of aircraft maintenance which specifically includes the problems encountered with the Harrier GR5 on its introduction to service.

I would like to hear if anyone else thinks the concerns of unreported damage are unwarranted. It's bad enough if people do not report visible damage, but when it is invisible I think the concerns are still valid. There is no guarantee that a loader will leave a mark but it could certainly do damage. I always looked at this sort of issue in isolation to the commercial influences, which is why I'm glad I was in the RAF, I guess.

I say again, all of the Boeing "fixes" mentioned in the link on post #37 are just sticking plaster over the real problem which is that damage can be invisible, so must be reported when it happens.

So tell me, what action do you expect if you see a guy drop a spanner on a composite wing or a loader hit the composite fuselage? How do you know it's safe to fly?

[ferrydude]

Did you not read the post mentioning inbedded strain gauges?

Do you actually the think both Boeing and the airlines who have ordered the 787
are not aware of ramp rash and the possibility of unreported damage?

Do you know anything about the extensive use of composites in load bearing structure?

What do suppose happens on existing airplanes and rotorcraft when unreported damage occurs on composite structure? It's not exactly unheard of.

[Double Zero]

Possel,

I'm with you all the way on this one, and would be interested to know what sort of 'strain guages' might detect the sort of sharp impact composites particularly dislike ( and hide ).

Like you, I was involved in the development of the GR5, and even a hint of a strike was enough to cause grounding & ultrasonic testing.

A particular worry was link strikes on the horizontal stabiliser; so we painted the aft fuselage ( yes, the metal bit ) white on ZD319 to show any near misses.

We also had 14 heated cine cameras from various pods,

including wide angle looking forward from the airbrake etc running at 200 frames per second.

This problem soon solved itself, as the 25mm Aden guns proved hopeless so were deleted !

As an Instrumentation/ technical photographer, I also had to go to Wittering one day after a GR5 was in a serious lightning strike - ultra
sound people were all over it scratching their heads...

A recent tv programme was not at all reassuring about carbon fibre & lightning either - a fine material for a fighter requiring top performance, with 'only' 1-2 lives at risk, both with 0-0 seats, but not a great move when transporting hundreds of people whose only protection is the in-flight magazine.

I also helped with a few photo's for an ex- Flight Test chum for his thesis on carbon fibre repair schemes.

I won't say where he works now, but it's a job most of us could only dream of.

I think the dye marker idea sounds quite a good one - and the 'no blame - or very little - regime' if one owns up to a cock-up is common sense.

Otherwise, one is faced with things like the old, supposedly true story about a night security guard in ' a Middle Eastern air force ' who practised fitness pull-ups on a fighter pitot probe - on finding he'd bent it, the solution was simple - he went and bent the probes on the other flight line aircraft so they all looked the same !