Broken Airbus@MAN (merged)
It may interest you to know that the A319 at MAN is being "worked" by a couple of management grade engineering staff and one avionics technician.
They have been on shift for well over 24 hours!
Now if this isn't an incident waiting to happen................
As for sabotageing BA's attempts at profitability, does it make sense to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds training engineers and then allow them to sit at home on full pay whilst at the same time bringing other engineers from 200 miles away on overtime, lodged in expensive hotels, and dragging a job out for a bit more gobble because they haven't worked the type for years?
Also close down a hangar and then not 4 months later have to hire FLS' hangar to rescue a casualty a/c?
The same thing happened a week ago except thet they were sent up to MAN by taxi after working 3/4 of a 12 hr night shift and then allowed to continue working an ETOPS a/c for a for a further 14 hrs!!!!!
Does the CAA read this site? Do the shareholders? Do they care?
They have been on shift for well over 24 hours!
Now if this isn't an incident waiting to happen................
As for sabotageing BA's attempts at profitability, does it make sense to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds training engineers and then allow them to sit at home on full pay whilst at the same time bringing other engineers from 200 miles away on overtime, lodged in expensive hotels, and dragging a job out for a bit more gobble because they haven't worked the type for years?
Also close down a hangar and then not 4 months later have to hire FLS' hangar to rescue a casualty a/c?
The same thing happened a week ago except thet they were sent up to MAN by taxi after working 3/4 of a 12 hr night shift and then allowed to continue working an ETOPS a/c for a for a further 14 hrs!!!!!
Does the CAA read this site? Do the shareholders? Do they care?
Last edited by HOVIS; 1st Aug 2002 at 17:18.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compulsory is not compulsory when it applies to a large organisation.
Compulsory is compulsory when it applies to an individual or a group of individuals in a weak bargaining position.
Compulsory is compulsory when it applies to an individual or a group of individuals in a weak bargaining position.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Living World
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A319 casualty
Overstress,the reg is G-EUPA......And 6 days later it still aint fixed.Couldnt start replacement engine (FADEC),Then found wiring problem presumably from manufacture.(broken).Requires boxes out and re-wire,unless they get an exemption for one flight (risk burning out another engine) the work will have to be done at FLS opr another 3rd party hangar........Meanwhile 45 staff payed to stay at home ,most with recency and a few with cover are not to be brought in!!!!
Last edited by mrcabbage; 4th Aug 2002 at 16:45.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golden Rivet - I would tend to agree with you. 10/32 is a unified fine thread and 8/32 is a unified course thread, not really very good for holding 'important' bits together . . .
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Behind You
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats what I was hoping for 
. I'm just a lowly mechy fitter, and you have been refering to said bolts as 8/32 and not 8-32. I knew there must be somthing in it as a 10/23 (UNC or UNF) bolt does not exist or at least it's not a nominal size. In addition to another reply I believe the UNF thread was introduced to hold 'important bits together' where an appropriate thread length isn't practical.
. I'm just a lowly mechy fitter, and you have been refering to said bolts as 8/32 and not 8-32. I knew there must be somthing in it as a 10/23 (UNC or UNF) bolt does not exist or at least it's not a nominal size. In addition to another reply I believe the UNF thread was introduced to hold 'important bits together' where an appropriate thread length isn't practical.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Threads without tears
!0/32 / 8/32 bolts ? Also known as 5/16 and 1/4 inch. The common misconception of the UNF 10/32 is that this denotes a size, BAe Filton being one of the worst offenders (I remember when I worked there).
OK here we go :
The Unified series (UNF) 10/ 32 . the 10 is the series Number. Begining at 0 Unified = 60 thau (0.060") each progression of the series is a progression of 13 thau (0.013") therefore 10 x 0.013" = 0.13" + the 60 thau we started with = 0.19"
The 32 is the number of threads per inch (TPI)
N.B the series becomes imperial at 1/4 inch and the progressions from there on are nominal inch fractions
From the above I can tell you that 8/32 Unified is 8 x 0.013 + 0.060
That is 0.164" and 32 threads per inch (the bolt now being smaller 8/32 is UNC)
It would not be possible to use a Unified 8/32 screw / bolt in a Unified 10 /32 nut (it would not pick up).
I believe that the problem with the BAC 1-11 incident (fresh air for the flight crew) may have been caused by a mismatch of old english nuts (BA series) and Unified bolts.
OK here we go :
The Unified series (UNF) 10/ 32 . the 10 is the series Number. Begining at 0 Unified = 60 thau (0.060") each progression of the series is a progression of 13 thau (0.013") therefore 10 x 0.013" = 0.13" + the 60 thau we started with = 0.19"
The 32 is the number of threads per inch (TPI)
N.B the series becomes imperial at 1/4 inch and the progressions from there on are nominal inch fractions
From the above I can tell you that 8/32 Unified is 8 x 0.013 + 0.060
That is 0.164" and 32 threads per inch (the bolt now being smaller 8/32 is UNC)
It would not be possible to use a Unified 8/32 screw / bolt in a Unified 10 /32 nut (it would not pick up).
I believe that the problem with the BAC 1-11 incident (fresh air for the flight crew) may have been caused by a mismatch of old english nuts (BA series) and Unified bolts.