Eurofighter, deburred holes (insufficiently)
I collected a couple of brand new F3s from Warton. The RAF used to put them through a Minor servicing immediately on receipt. I questioned the ginger beers as to why, and received a list of horror stories. Most recently they had found bolts loose on the cockpit floor, held in place by the paint which had been sprayed over them. A JP was found with a fuselage panel missing; the full paint job had been applied over the paper that covered the hole when the panel had been removed during build...etc, etc.
Just curious what exactly the original problem was on the F3 - was it a repair or 'upgrade'?
british aerospace | 1993 | 1278 | Flight Archive
1996 | 2690 | Flight Archive
Later confirmed in the Tornado Airworthiness Review Team (TART) report and other ARTs. The RAF Chief Engineer had issued instructions that documentation was not to be maintained, and pulled funding. Airworks would not have known this as the reports were only released recently. That policy meant that it was madness to let any such contract on anyone but the Aircraft Design Authority.
However, the terms "good engineering practice" and "tools of the trade" come to mind.
However, the terms "good engineering practice" and "tools of the trade" come to mind.
If it was a modification, there must have been a mod leaflet (even if it was only a draft one) or some form of technical instruction to allow the task to be carried out. The Flight article on my last post states that the modification came out of the country where the centre section was built (i.e. Germany). Was the error(s) introduced in the writing of the MoD instructions, or did they exist in the documentation that came out of DASA.
but not skilled at structural work, which really is a specialist trade
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,372
Received 117 Likes
on
84 Posts
think you'll find that the majority of the guys were ex airforce......... but not skilled at structural work, which really is a specialist trade
"anybody posted to an MU had to do specialist training "
True, in part, but not entirely.
I left Valley in the August, arrived on 431 MU and in September had gone from happily bolting bits of Gnat back together, to working on Primary and Secondary structure on the Lightning. No training given, only a very basic rehash of how to read a drawing and become reacquainted with air tools etc,
Tends to focus the mind a bit. Thereafter, you learnt as you went along.
The cunning plan the RAF relied on was, that, once you had done an MU tour, you were awarded, without being informed, an "x " annotation.
This was compounded with the timeless and, at the time, valid claim, that you were simply doing your basic trade skills.
A classic mismanagement "gotcha !" in fact.
Consequently, when required, such as with a mod. programme at Bruggen on the Jags, a little team was formed from the various Sgns and invited for tea and biccies no less! ....alas, once the spiel had commenced, to four stony faced engineers, one of our number commented as to the fact that we all, quelle surprise had MU experience.... and this was a stich up.
The tea and biccies were withdrawn at this point and normal RAF "communication" skills resumed.
On 71 MU, you had to do a trade test, then were let loose on the world.
In the real world, the guys who do the skin work are specialists on the conny circuit and there are some very, very good operators out there because I have met them. Most however, came from a manufacturing background for obvious reasons.
As for the debacle with the Tornado, it was I understand, another form of the well known Swiss Cheese.....an ingredient missing so far was the involvement of the sub-parasitic human malignancy known as recruitment "consultants", whose so called sourcing skills, were akin to their intellect and personalities.
"anybody posted to an MU had to do specialist training "
True, in part, but not entirely.
I left Valley in the August, arrived on 431 MU and in September had gone from happily bolting bits of Gnat back together, to working on Primary and Secondary structure on the Lightning. No training given, only a very basic rehash of how to read a drawing and become reacquainted with air tools etc,
Tends to focus the mind a bit. Thereafter, you learnt as you went along.
The cunning plan the RAF relied on was, that, once you had done an MU tour, you were awarded, without being informed, an "x " annotation.
This was compounded with the timeless and, at the time, valid claim, that you were simply doing your basic trade skills.
A classic mismanagement "gotcha !" in fact.
Consequently, when required, such as with a mod. programme at Bruggen on the Jags, a little team was formed from the various Sgns and invited for tea and biccies no less! ....alas, once the spiel had commenced, to four stony faced engineers, one of our number commented as to the fact that we all, quelle surprise had MU experience.... and this was a stich up.
The tea and biccies were withdrawn at this point and normal RAF "communication" skills resumed.
On 71 MU, you had to do a trade test, then were let loose on the world.
In the real world, the guys who do the skin work are specialists on the conny circuit and there are some very, very good operators out there because I have met them. Most however, came from a manufacturing background for obvious reasons.
As for the debacle with the Tornado, it was I understand, another form of the well known Swiss Cheese.....an ingredient missing so far was the involvement of the sub-parasitic human malignancy known as recruitment "consultants", whose so called sourcing skills, were akin to their intellect and personalities.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worked on F3's in the 90's. The story was Airworks hired "unskilled" local labour who went about removing the Jo- bolt heads with chisels fitted in pneumatic tools....ended up with severe elongated holes....but they got the Jo-bolts out...ouch!
Also remember when I was on the Nimrod NMSU a painter removed a load of "bobbles" in the paint on the upper fuselage to a nice flush finish....unfortunately for him they were dome head rivets.....happy days!
Also remember when I was on the Nimrod NMSU a painter removed a load of "bobbles" in the paint on the upper fuselage to a nice flush finish....unfortunately for him they were dome head rivets.....happy days!
MAINJAFAD
Sorry, don't know the detailed answer in this case, but you are correct in what you say.
The point I would make, which is directly relevant, is that in the preceding years (early 90s) the Chief Engineer had denuded MoD of engineering experience in this field and, in June 1993, the oversight committees responsible for technical accuracy and viability of such modification schemes were finally disbanded. (I chaired the last Avionic one, and had to seek another job as there was no more airworthiness work possible as funding had been pulled). For some time prior to this, throughout 1991/2, the mandated requirement for independent oversight and scrutiny was widely ignored because Eng Authorities knew the HQMCs were being disbanded, so they were allowed to scrutinise and approve their own work; contrary to all known regs. The regulations still invoke this process, as no-one dare remove references to it as it is mandated by Secy of State. Senior staffs instruct juniors to sign to say it has been implemented, but they never seem to sign themselves!
The breakdown of this fundamental process featured heavily in the evidence to Lord Philip, as it explained why the Chinook FADEC was (illegally) approved for use without a Certificate of Design. Again, relevant, as both events occurred at the same time under the same leadership.
Tuc
If it was a modification, there must have been a mod leaflet (even if it was only a draft one) or some form of technical instruction to allow the task to be carried out. The Flight article on my last post states that the modification came out of the country where the centre section was built (i.e. Germany). Was the error(s) introduced in the writing of the MoD instructions, or did they exist in the documentation that came out of DASA.
If it was a modification, there must have been a mod leaflet (even if it was only a draft one) or some form of technical instruction to allow the task to be carried out. The Flight article on my last post states that the modification came out of the country where the centre section was built (i.e. Germany). Was the error(s) introduced in the writing of the MoD instructions, or did they exist in the documentation that came out of DASA.
Sorry, don't know the detailed answer in this case, but you are correct in what you say.
The point I would make, which is directly relevant, is that in the preceding years (early 90s) the Chief Engineer had denuded MoD of engineering experience in this field and, in June 1993, the oversight committees responsible for technical accuracy and viability of such modification schemes were finally disbanded. (I chaired the last Avionic one, and had to seek another job as there was no more airworthiness work possible as funding had been pulled). For some time prior to this, throughout 1991/2, the mandated requirement for independent oversight and scrutiny was widely ignored because Eng Authorities knew the HQMCs were being disbanded, so they were allowed to scrutinise and approve their own work; contrary to all known regs. The regulations still invoke this process, as no-one dare remove references to it as it is mandated by Secy of State. Senior staffs instruct juniors to sign to say it has been implemented, but they never seem to sign themselves!
The breakdown of this fundamental process featured heavily in the evidence to Lord Philip, as it explained why the Chinook FADEC was (illegally) approved for use without a Certificate of Design. Again, relevant, as both events occurred at the same time under the same leadership.
As a rigger in the late 80’s. I was posted to Abingdon on RSS “repair and salvage flight” or “smash and crash” as it was known. I went onto 1 ARF “aircraft repair flight” Even though I had previously carried out minor airframe repairs on aircraft,
they still wouldn’t let us near anything until we completed 6 weeks airframe repair training at
Abingdon. Does anyone know if the set-up is similar today? And if so where?
they still wouldn’t let us near anything until we completed 6 weeks airframe repair training at
Abingdon. Does anyone know if the set-up is similar today? And if so where?
It always used to make me smile that the Air Officer ratifying an older a/c type AP on the preface page had usually left the RAF decades earlier or was pushing up the daisies.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
431 and all that
I was posted onto 431 in July 1986. I had to do a test piece that was checked out by one of the surveyors before I could do Cat 2 tasks then move onto Cat 3s. 3 years Later , posted directly onto RSS 2ARF.. 6 week Q course was cut to 2 days as I had the X annotation for Cat 3 primary structures repairs.. Now I had the Q as well, purely for the RSS way of documentation. The lad who trashed the F3s was ex air force.. Using a chisel to remove hi loks collars.. Proper way was to use a special easy out socket and an allen key to hold the pin. Saying that the pins should be interference fit on a hi lok.. Sheeties in Civvy street do tend to have a higher skill set that what was trained in the RAF because they would be taught fabrication skills that were the demarcation of the Station Work Shop guys, blue suit side and were taken away from riggers. Coltishall Loved it.. I was on RSS from 89 to end ex at Abo.. Where you on 1 then?
Think the thing to remember is how the trade training was dumbed down from what it was previously. So witness a contract agency recruiting 'tornado experienced' guys probably didnt know what a FLM was.............
I was Abbo around 86-87. Can't remember if I was 1 or 2 flt but spent most of my time at bzn. On I seem to remember 103 or 106? vc-10 "it was in base hangar for ages, lost so much weight in removing corrosion!" And tailplane cx. Think it was north south split? between 1 & 2?
Anyway : Station Work Shop guys: They were the boys, made us riggers look like numptys. Double curvature/piccolo? on a alli sheet. We thought they we talking French! They were very skilled and in the time I was serving, were payed less than us, and can see why they were a bit miffed
Anyway : Station Work Shop guys: They were the boys, made us riggers look like numptys. Double curvature/piccolo? on a alli sheet. We thought they we talking French! They were very skilled and in the time I was serving, were payed less than us, and can see why they were a bit miffed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amusing to see that a thread about an aircraft problem that is now all over the German mainstream media has become, on pprune, a ramble about nothing in particular.
The British media says, well nothing.
Yesterday, in a televised statement a German military spokesman, with typical Deutsch candor stated. -- "And this is because of a quality control problem by the manufacturer, BAE." .
The British media says, well nothing.
Yesterday, in a televised statement a German military spokesman, with typical Deutsch candor stated. -- "And this is because of a quality control problem by the manufacturer, BAE." .
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onceapilot
Memories going but definitely happened on one of the many 'frames I have worked on!. Also it was the collars removed by the chisel on the F3's and not the heads as I stated, but I'm pretty sure it resulted in elongated/ damaged holes......but watch out I'm thread drifting......
Memories going but definitely happened on one of the many 'frames I have worked on!. Also it was the collars removed by the chisel on the F3's and not the heads as I stated, but I'm pretty sure it resulted in elongated/ damaged holes......but watch out I'm thread drifting......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..but watch out I'm thread drifting......
But back on Eurofighter here's a link
Neue Materialmängel bei der Bundeswehr: Weniger Flugstunden für Eurofighter | tagesschau.de
which leads to a downloadable video from last nights TV news.
And just to show that not all German politicians look like Merkel here's a picture of Ursula modelling body armour.
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/ph...ke-119558.html
A blog on the net says that the issue is on the Stage 1 assembly of the Rear Fuselage. I would put the link up, but for some reason it will not work (the link that is).
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this is because of a quality control problem by the manufacturer, BAE."
The upside is, us German taxpayers save a lot on fuel...
@Jetex Jim: vdL is the prime example of what a politician should not be. OTOH its clear that she is not responsible for this desaster, one that repeats itself in the German military ever since the beginning of time.