View Full Version : Air Force finds another problem with Boeing’s KC-46 tanker
OldnGrounded
13th Sep 2019, 12:50
I don't think this has been discussed here yet.
The U.S. Air Force has indefinitely barred the Boeing-built KC-46 from carrying cargo and passengers (https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2019/09/11/air-force-restricts-kc-46-from-carrying-cargo-and-personnel/), the trade publication Defense News reported Wednesday.The decision followed an incident in which the cargo locks on the bottom of the floor of the aircraft became unlocked during a recent flight, creating concerns that airmen could potentially be hurt or even killed by heavy equipment that suddenly bursts free during a flight, Defense One reported.An Air Force spokesman said that “until we find a viable solution with Boeing to remedy this problem, we can’t jeopardize the safety of our aircrew and this aircraft.” The Air Force issued a Category 1 deficiency report on the problem, signifying a serious technical issue that could endanger the aircrew and aircraft or have other major effects, Defense One reported.
More (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/air-force-finds-another-problem-with-boeings-kc-46-tanker/)
ATC Watcher
13th Sep 2019, 13:42
Am looking in dismay at the bad news cycle surrounding Boeing , where basically every type they build is being described as having major flaws, I am starting to wonder if this is indeed the failures of a Major old manufacturing company, or just the result of the way 21st century news are being made and delivered. Basically are those flaws something new, or were they always there but did not make world breaking news before?
OldnGrounded
13th Sep 2019, 13:54
Basically are those flaws something new, or were they always there but did not make world breaking news before?
Probably some of each. Certainly, the number and types of problems being reported from Everett, Renton and Charleston are not consistent with what we would have expected in years past. At the same time, the 24-hour digital news cycle, with its intense competition for page views and clicks, makes the reports much more visible to a much wider audience.
It's also likely the case that the Seattle Times, which is uniquely positioned to produce in-depth reporting on B, finds itself driven by the particular market forces of this period to take advantage of that position.
DaveReidUK
13th Sep 2019, 13:56
the failures of a Major old manufacturing company
I would be very surprised if the cargo locks are manufactured by Boeing.
BDAttitude
13th Sep 2019, 14:26
I would be very surprised if the cargo locks are manufactured by Boeing.
The fact that they have recourse against a Tier 1 supplier doesn't mean that they are not respnsible as OEM.
PPRuNe Towers
13th Sep 2019, 14:44
The extended and very painful story of the KC-46a can be seen in all its glory over on the Mil Forum.
Rob
A desperation by Chicago to minimise all costs and maximise the price, to suit Wall Street.
Rick777
13th Sep 2019, 22:15
Yet another example of a company run by bean counters instead of engineers. Sad that Boeing used to be a great complany.
Dave Therhino
13th Sep 2019, 23:33
The biggest concern with the cargo coming loose is not people getting injured directly from shifting cargo, but rather it is having the cg shift due to the cargo all moving aft on rotation and resultant loss of control, like the 747 accident at Bagram AFB.
krismiler
14th Sep 2019, 00:55
Problem with narrow body - B737 MAX MCAS
Problem with wide body - B777X Door blow out
Problem with defence division - KC 46 Cargo locks
One could be misfortune, two could be coincidence, three looks like carelessness.
Jet Jockey A4
14th Sep 2019, 02:35
Isn't the Army also refusing to accept the Apache helicopter because of issues.
Longtimer
14th Sep 2019, 21:25
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/apache-deliveries-sharply-lower-pending-safety-fix-452550/
Boeing anticipates delivering 34 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters this year, nearly 30% less than planned, due to the US Army's refusing delivery of aircraft in February after a critical safety issue was found.
Am looking in dismay at the bad news cycle surrounding Boeing , where basically every type they build is being described as having major flaws, I am starting to wonder if this is indeed the failures of a Major old manufacturing company, or just the result of the way 21st century news are being made and delivered. Basically are those flaws something new, or were they always there but did not make world breaking news before?
The 747-800 has been spared major blunders so far, hasn't it, in spite of being developed cuncurrently with the MAX and the 777X.
Spooky 2
18th Sep 2019, 15:40
The 747-800 has been spared major blunders so far, hasn't it, in spite of being developed cuncurrently with the MAX and the 777X.
First of all there is no such airplane as a 747-800. (747-8) I know this naming is confusing so I'll cut you some slack. I do believe there is/was issues with tail vibrations that caused the fuel in the horizontal fuel tank to be made unavailable. Not sure if this is a permanent solution or just an interim fix. (12,490 Liters), This applies to the Intercontinental version only.
DaveReidUK
18th Sep 2019, 17:28
First of all there is no such airplane as a 747-800. (747-8) I know this naming is confusing so I'll cut you some slack.
It's even more confusing than you might think - there may not be a 747-800, but Lufthansa's aircraft are 747-830s, Cathay's are 747-867Fs, etc.
Only the last 20 or so aircraft built are actually certificated as 747-8 or -8F, i.e. without the traditional Boeing customer suffix.
UltraFan
18th Sep 2019, 19:10
USAF is now looking at all those A330MRTT flying around the world without a hitch and thinking, DAMN, we should've chosen that. Or maybe thinking, we should be picking our equipment instead of those DC appropiation committees. To which I completely agree!
UltraFan
18th Sep 2019, 19:21
The 747-800 has been spared major blunders so far, hasn't it, in spite of being developed cuncurrently with the MAX and the 777X.
Yep. Except for longeron cracks due to fuselage stretching. And wing flutter that required a new wing. And inboard aileron flutter. And structural flutter. And the fact that the development that was planned to cost $500mil cost ten times that. Oh, and nobody wanted to buy it. Other than that, it's a winner! :)
tdracer
18th Sep 2019, 20:38
Yep. Except for longeron cracks due to fuselage stretching. And wing flutter that required a new wing. And inboard aileron flutter. And structural flutter. And the fact that the development that was planned to cost $500mil cost ten times that. Oh, and nobody wanted to buy it. Other than that, it's a winner! :)
I don't normally respond to trolls, but Ultra, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. :ugh:
Spooky, there was a flutter issue related to stab fuel that prevented it being used at EIS of the passenger version - naturally resulting in a reduction of max range. The fix was identified and certified about 2 years after EIS and I believe all passenger aircraft have now been modified. Stab fuel is not used on 747 freighters (it's usually deactivated when a freighter conversion is performed and purpose built freighters never get it), so the problem didn't affect the freighter.
DR, the TCDS only says 747-8 and 747-8F.
Weapons Grade
18th Sep 2019, 20:44
USAF is now looking at all those A330MRTT flying around the world without a hitch and thinking, DAMN, we should've chosen that. Or maybe thinking, we should be picking our equipment instead of those DC appropiation committees. To which I completely agree!
I do seem to recall that at the time of letting the KC-46 contract, there was a great deal of angst that the Airbus bid had been the winning bid, until "Uncle" Ted Stevens (R. AK), who at the time was the chairman of the US Senate Transportation Committee required both Boeing and Airbus to re-submit their bids. Surprise! Surprise! Boeing got the contract, and the US taxpayer got stung with a modified B767 and a huge and unnecessary increased bill.
DaveReidUK
18th Sep 2019, 21:14
DR, the TCDS only says 747-8 and 747-8F.
No, the TCDS also lists the variant applicable to each MSN:
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/423x243/747_8_msns_0e6dbcae28443153c080836a727b88c01a26dddb.jpg
tdracer
19th Sep 2019, 01:34
scrubbed by a mod. I you can't be civil, step away from the keyboard
What's your source of your 'facts'? Something you saw on the internet (because we all know everything on the internet is true :ugh:)?
Because I was there, lived through it, and know for a fact that 90% of your post is hogwash. The new wing was planned from day one, as were new flaps. Most flutter issues, with the exception of the previously mentioned stab fuel, were identified and corrected during the design phase - those that came up during flight test were minor and readily rectified. Yes, we went well over budget, but your numbers are laughably wrong. As far as no one wanting it - I happen to know the numbers of what Boeing expected to sell when they launched the program. The 747-8 is easily on pace to meet those projected numbers - something that can't be said for it's primary competition...
Grebe
19th Sep 2019, 03:15
From reading a many many posts on the KC46 subject and others, and having spent more time at ' the lazy B ' than most posters, ( now retired ), and followIng other boeing - 737 - MAX NG threads for several months, I have to agree with tdracer and fdr and a few others- they do know what they post. As a newbie here I cannot of course post links.
But I can state the real story not shown here re history of KC46 ( KCX-767 ) starts way back in 1999-2000 and pushed as a lease in aftermath of 2001 as 767 line was running down at the time. And of course the mcDonnell douglas jack welch crowd involvement, a few club fed types, etc.
And it all has bearing on the current mess
tdracer
19th Sep 2019, 03:40
No, the TCDS also lists the variant applicable to each MSN:
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/423x243/747_8_msns_0e6dbcae28443153c080836a727b88c01a26dddb.jpg
OK, we're probably arguing minutia here, but on the first page of the TCDS, it lists:
A20WE
BOEING Revision 60
747-100 Series
747-200B Series
747-200F Series
747-200C Series
747SR Series
747SP Series
747-100B Series
747-300 Series
747-100B SUD Series
747-400 Series
747-400D Series
747-400F Series
747-8F Series
747-8 Series
It matters to the FAA. If you submit FAA paperwork (e.g. 8110-3 forms), if you list 747-800 as the affected model it'll get rejected - it must say '747-8' and/or '747-8F' (years ago I actually got one rejected for listing "747-SP" instead of 747SP as there is no 'dash' on the TCDS :sad:).
stilton
19th Sep 2019, 06:09
The biggest concern with the cargo coming loose is not people getting injured directly from shifting cargo, but rather it is having the cg shift due to the cargo all moving aft on rotation and resultant loss of control, like the 747 accident at Bagram AFB.
While CG shift was a factor in that accident
the direct cause was the military vehicle breaking loose from its restraints then penetrating the rear pressure bulkhead and
striking the stab trim jackscrew with enough force to disable it and the elevators
The crew had no means of controlling pitch through the primary flight controls
The reported fault on the KC-46 may affect the aircraft operation, but am not aware that BAC is the OEM of the locks etc, I would have expected those to be mission equipment provided by OEM's such as Ancra etc.
Post Max, there seems to be no reticence in blaming BAC for issues that arise in the operation of their products. Would we blame them if the coffee cup doesn't say "HOT LIQUID", as coffee is an item that surely deserves it's own ATA in the MEL,
Or not... No coffee, no go...
DaveReidUK
19th Sep 2019, 08:06
The reported fault on the KC-46 may affect the aircraft operation, but am not aware that BAC is the OEM of the locks etc, I would have expected those to be mission equipment provided by OEM's such as Ancra etc.
Thanks!
That's the name (Ancra) I've been racking my brains in vain to remember since I posted a similar thought (above) a week ago. They were certainly the go-to company for cargo restraints in the days when I dealt with such matters - good to see that they are still active, whether or not on the KC-46.
Anilv
19th Sep 2019, 08:53
I used to work with Lufthansa Cargo around the time they brought the MD11F into service. After around 2 years of operations (thereabouts) they introduced a new SOP where any void ULD (pallet or container) position in front of loaded ULDs would need to be filled with an empty ULD. This was the result of a spate of incidents where locks were discovered in the down position on arrival. The rationale was that if one of the locks failed it was not an issue with an empty ULD but the ULD will prevent the locks behind it (in front of the loaded ULDs) from unlocking. Part of that procedure was that all such incidents were to be reported and the actual lock identified.
We were told that the locks failed due to the fact that the locks get hammered during loading due to the fact that the pallets accelerate to the back during loading, this is due to the nose-up attitude of the aircraft while on ground (most of the damaged locks were at the rear). The ground staff should have controlled the speed but those lazy buggers (me included!) usually choose to help the pallet on its way! The hammering the locks received caused to them to unlock themselves.. the solution was to inspect the locks more frequently. Not sure if the design was changed later as I left around 2005.
Anilv
For those with productive input, the Mil Forum thread is here (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/550230-more-kc-46a-woes.html).
First of all there is no such airplane as a 747-800. (747-8) I know this naming is confusing so I'll cut you some slack. I do believe there is/was issues with tail vibrations that caused the fuel in the horizontal fuel tank to be made unavailable. Not sure if this is a permanent solution or just an interim fix. (12,490 Liters), This applies to the Intercontinental version only.
Would this translate into sideways swaying? I have made the JFK - FRA trip three times in the -8, once in 2017 and twice this year. On the first and third trip I was stitting very far in the back, but only in this last trip I had the impression that the plane was wagging its tail all the time.
tdracer
19th Sep 2019, 19:40
Would this translate into sideways swaying? I have made the JFK - FRA trip three times in the -8, once in 2017 and twice this year. On the first and third trip I was stitting very far in the back, but only in this last trip I had the impression that the plane was wagging its tail all the time.
Unlikely - stab fuel is not needed or used unless you're approach the max aircraft range (which is much further than JFK-FRA), and then it's used early in the flight. The 747-8 doesn't try to do any CG management with the stab fuel.
Sounds more like a yaw damper problem.