Sikorsky battling major quality control problems
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ?
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sikorsky battling major quality control problems
Sikorsky battling major quality control problems
(WTNH, Nov. 29, 2006 11:15 PM) _ There are startling new indications that quality control problems at Stratford based Sikorsky Aircraft are resulting in defective parts getting onboard U.S. military helicopters. For the first time Senior Sikorsky officials are sitting down with News Channel 8 to talk about the problem on camera and on the record.
* by Team 8 Investigator Alan Cohn
Sikorsky's Vice President for Quality, George Klug, tells Team 8 the company is being very aggressive at trying to track down defective parts. But as you're about to see one recent scary incident underscores the problem and the concern.
This internal Sikorsky document from earlier this month describes a harrowing incident on board a U.S. Navy Seahawk flying cross country.
The document says that the aircraft "experienced an unusual vibration" and "upon landing" they found a piece of the tail rotor had fallen off. A Navy Flight Safety Board determined the tail rotor blade had a "manufacturing defect."
How serious was this incident? We asked Sikorsky.
"If it failed would there be a big problem?" asks Alan Cohn.
"A total failure of any flight critical part would be an issue, absolutely," says Klug.
In fact, a top aerospace expert tells us that the crew was "very lucky to get back."
When the Navy inspected other Sikorsky built Seahawks it discovered 41-other suspect blades.
"The obvious question is how did 41 tail rotor blades with some kind of defect make it onto aircraft that are flying?" asks Cohn.
"In this particular case we're not happy they got out there," says George Klug. "This is an on going investigation right now."
But it's not an isolated incident. Also this month, the Army issued a warning after discovering the walls were too thin on "main gear box housings" on Blackhawk helicopters.
Tail rotors, main gear box housings, the most critical kinds of flight safety parts on helicopters, a top aerospace manufacturing expert tells us. The fact these defects were not caught by Sikorsky's supplier or the company, is "embarrassing" and "sloppy."
We began investigating reports on quality control problems at Sikorsky three years ago and we continue to receive reports those problems persist.
For the first Sikorsky is willing to sit down and talk to us about it on camera. George Klug is Sikorsky's Vice President for Quality.
"No manufacturing system is perfect we strive for perfection we don't always reach it so getting people to identify the issues to address is what we're about here," says Krug.
But sources inside Sikorsky point out the company has reduced the number of its quality inspectors at its Stratford plant from 70 down to eight.
The company says it's simply relying on its suppliers to perform quality inspections.
"We've also added inspectors at our supply base," says Klug. "It is more effective to take those resources and put them where the parts are made than check them on the way into the factory here."
But according to these internal company charts, since 2004 quality problems at Sikorsky have gone up 8-fold.
"It sounds like a recipe for disaster," says Nick Schwellenbach, POGO.
Nick Schwellenbach is an investigator at the project on government oversight in Washington. He echoes other experts stating the company's apparent inability to fix its quality control problems may be endangering U.S. troops.
"Obviously, Sikorsky hasn't prioritized the safety of American soldiers who are flying these helicopters who depend on every single part in this highly complicated flying machine to work properly under stressful conditions," says Schwellenbach.
Klug says,"Our safety record is better than ever so from an end standpoint, the aircraft is performing magnificently in the toughest environment in the world."
Sikorsky says it doesn't believe the defective edge on its tail rotor blades are what caused part of the tail rotor to fall off that Navy aircraft in flight.
As for what impact the company's quality problems have had on business, that's hard to say. While the Pentagon is ordering new Blackhawks to replace those being worn out in Iraq, in the recent past Sikorsky has lost the contract to build the new Marine One, the Comanche, and in the last month, it lost a $15-billion Air force contract to Boeing to replace the Sikorsky built Pave Hawk helicopter.
[source]
(WTNH, Nov. 29, 2006 11:15 PM) _ There are startling new indications that quality control problems at Stratford based Sikorsky Aircraft are resulting in defective parts getting onboard U.S. military helicopters. For the first time Senior Sikorsky officials are sitting down with News Channel 8 to talk about the problem on camera and on the record.
* by Team 8 Investigator Alan Cohn
Sikorsky's Vice President for Quality, George Klug, tells Team 8 the company is being very aggressive at trying to track down defective parts. But as you're about to see one recent scary incident underscores the problem and the concern.
This internal Sikorsky document from earlier this month describes a harrowing incident on board a U.S. Navy Seahawk flying cross country.
The document says that the aircraft "experienced an unusual vibration" and "upon landing" they found a piece of the tail rotor had fallen off. A Navy Flight Safety Board determined the tail rotor blade had a "manufacturing defect."
How serious was this incident? We asked Sikorsky.
"If it failed would there be a big problem?" asks Alan Cohn.
"A total failure of any flight critical part would be an issue, absolutely," says Klug.
In fact, a top aerospace expert tells us that the crew was "very lucky to get back."
When the Navy inspected other Sikorsky built Seahawks it discovered 41-other suspect blades.
"The obvious question is how did 41 tail rotor blades with some kind of defect make it onto aircraft that are flying?" asks Cohn.
"In this particular case we're not happy they got out there," says George Klug. "This is an on going investigation right now."
But it's not an isolated incident. Also this month, the Army issued a warning after discovering the walls were too thin on "main gear box housings" on Blackhawk helicopters.
Tail rotors, main gear box housings, the most critical kinds of flight safety parts on helicopters, a top aerospace manufacturing expert tells us. The fact these defects were not caught by Sikorsky's supplier or the company, is "embarrassing" and "sloppy."
We began investigating reports on quality control problems at Sikorsky three years ago and we continue to receive reports those problems persist.
For the first Sikorsky is willing to sit down and talk to us about it on camera. George Klug is Sikorsky's Vice President for Quality.
"No manufacturing system is perfect we strive for perfection we don't always reach it so getting people to identify the issues to address is what we're about here," says Krug.
But sources inside Sikorsky point out the company has reduced the number of its quality inspectors at its Stratford plant from 70 down to eight.
The company says it's simply relying on its suppliers to perform quality inspections.
"We've also added inspectors at our supply base," says Klug. "It is more effective to take those resources and put them where the parts are made than check them on the way into the factory here."
But according to these internal company charts, since 2004 quality problems at Sikorsky have gone up 8-fold.
"It sounds like a recipe for disaster," says Nick Schwellenbach, POGO.
Nick Schwellenbach is an investigator at the project on government oversight in Washington. He echoes other experts stating the company's apparent inability to fix its quality control problems may be endangering U.S. troops.
"Obviously, Sikorsky hasn't prioritized the safety of American soldiers who are flying these helicopters who depend on every single part in this highly complicated flying machine to work properly under stressful conditions," says Schwellenbach.
Klug says,"Our safety record is better than ever so from an end standpoint, the aircraft is performing magnificently in the toughest environment in the world."
Sikorsky says it doesn't believe the defective edge on its tail rotor blades are what caused part of the tail rotor to fall off that Navy aircraft in flight.
As for what impact the company's quality problems have had on business, that's hard to say. While the Pentagon is ordering new Blackhawks to replace those being worn out in Iraq, in the recent past Sikorsky has lost the contract to build the new Marine One, the Comanche, and in the last month, it lost a $15-billion Air force contract to Boeing to replace the Sikorsky built Pave Hawk helicopter.
[source]
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to know that the Quality/Cost/Delivery game is standard across industries. There is always an incentive to put more reliance on suppliers for quality confirmation, but when they too are attempting to keep cost down then the only guarantee is inhouse inspection. Then the game becomes how do you justify the cost of inhouse inspection, unless you keep tally of all faults captured hence costs avoided...
Mart
Mart
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an AP story over the weekend:
In a letter last month to Sikorsky President Jeffrey Pino, the Defense Contract Management Agency demanded "immediate action" to mitigate "mounting risk," and gave the company 30 days to produce a plan for addressing its failures.
"The bottom line is that quality is deteriorating, schedule is not getting better in the short term, and the seriousness of the errors that are occurring ... are becoming untenable," wrote Navy Capt. Dorothy J. Freer, commander of the agency's office in Stratford, the Hartford Courant reported Friday.
In a June 30 letter to Freer, Pino assured her the company was taking the concerns seriously by focusing on communication, process improvement, management standards and training.
Ironically a few months ago:
Navy Capt. Dorothy Freer, commander of DCMA-Sikorsky Aircraft, agreed with the Sikorsky president that the new “Mike” model Black Hawk is a helicopter “worthy of the aviators and soldiers whose lives will depend on it for decades to come.”
Even though in early 2004, DMCA ordered that the military temporarily stop taking deliveries of Blackhawks after an inspection found problems at the company's Stratford plant.
From Flight this week:
Sikorsky works on Black Hawk quality
Manufacturing Sikorsky is correcting manufacturing quality problems on the UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter after the US Department of Defense issued a 22 November request for immediate corrective action request giving it 30 days to act. Sikorsky has outsourced manufacture of subassemblies to focus on final assembly as production of new US Army UH-60Ms and Black Hawk export sales increase. The company declines to comment, but the problems are thought to involve work outsourced to Florida-based L-3 Crestview Aerospace.
Do these guys work on the S92?
I see that Sikorsky have sued to stop data release under the FOIA on DMCA ordered corrective actions:
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...kys_rever.html
A major defense contractor has sued the Defense Department (DOD) to prevent documents responsive to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from going public. According to the reporter who made the request, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) "tells me this is the first time a major defense contractor has sued DOD to prevent the results of a FOIA from going public." (late update--ed.'s note: After speaking with a knowledgeable lawyer on the topic of Reverse FOIA suits and looking through a number of cases of such suits, POGO has found that there are actually a number of cases where contractors have sued DOD and other agencies. Nonetheless POGO feels this is an important topic, in fact it is even moreso with the discovery that Reverse FOIA suits occur often.)
New Haven, Connecticut WTNH News Channel 8 reporter Alan Cohn made a FOIA request on March 4, 2004 to the DCMA for Corrective Action Requests (CARs). CARs are requests to contractors by the DCMA to fix the causes of recurring problems that put the contractor out of compliance with its contract with the military.
After a series of appeals, first between Cohn and DCMA and later between Sikorsky and DCMA, it was decided by the DCMA in a letter dated December 1, 2005 to grant Cohn's FOIA request in part and to deny it in part. DCMA notified Sikorsky the next day that it would release the redacted CARs on December 13, 2005 unless Sikorky filed a "reverse" FOIA suit in a US District Court before then.
It did. Sikorsky filed suit against the DCMA and DOD in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on December 12, 2005 on four counts: 1) Confidential Business Information--Exemption 4 of FOIA; 2) Trade Secrets Act; 3) Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action; and 4) the Declaratory Judgment Act. Sikorsky has argued that if CARs sent to Sikorsky are turned over to the public, then it may cooperate less with the DCMA in correcting problems, dispute the DCMA's opinion more often and share less information with DCMA.
Though there clearly is an interest in protecting true proprietary secrets, Sikorsky's attempt to stifle information that may reflect poorly on their aircraft is something else. It is a move characteristic of a company seeking to avoid public accountability and to hide deficiencies in the aircraft we entrust will transport our men and women in uniform safely, securely and effectively.
In a letter last month to Sikorsky President Jeffrey Pino, the Defense Contract Management Agency demanded "immediate action" to mitigate "mounting risk," and gave the company 30 days to produce a plan for addressing its failures.
"The bottom line is that quality is deteriorating, schedule is not getting better in the short term, and the seriousness of the errors that are occurring ... are becoming untenable," wrote Navy Capt. Dorothy J. Freer, commander of the agency's office in Stratford, the Hartford Courant reported Friday.
In a June 30 letter to Freer, Pino assured her the company was taking the concerns seriously by focusing on communication, process improvement, management standards and training.
Ironically a few months ago:
Navy Capt. Dorothy Freer, commander of DCMA-Sikorsky Aircraft, agreed with the Sikorsky president that the new “Mike” model Black Hawk is a helicopter “worthy of the aviators and soldiers whose lives will depend on it for decades to come.”
Even though in early 2004, DMCA ordered that the military temporarily stop taking deliveries of Blackhawks after an inspection found problems at the company's Stratford plant.
From Flight this week:
Sikorsky works on Black Hawk quality
Manufacturing Sikorsky is correcting manufacturing quality problems on the UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter after the US Department of Defense issued a 22 November request for immediate corrective action request giving it 30 days to act. Sikorsky has outsourced manufacture of subassemblies to focus on final assembly as production of new US Army UH-60Ms and Black Hawk export sales increase. The company declines to comment, but the problems are thought to involve work outsourced to Florida-based L-3 Crestview Aerospace.
Do these guys work on the S92?
I see that Sikorsky have sued to stop data release under the FOIA on DMCA ordered corrective actions:
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...kys_rever.html
A major defense contractor has sued the Defense Department (DOD) to prevent documents responsive to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from going public. According to the reporter who made the request, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) "tells me this is the first time a major defense contractor has sued DOD to prevent the results of a FOIA from going public." (late update--ed.'s note: After speaking with a knowledgeable lawyer on the topic of Reverse FOIA suits and looking through a number of cases of such suits, POGO has found that there are actually a number of cases where contractors have sued DOD and other agencies. Nonetheless POGO feels this is an important topic, in fact it is even moreso with the discovery that Reverse FOIA suits occur often.)
New Haven, Connecticut WTNH News Channel 8 reporter Alan Cohn made a FOIA request on March 4, 2004 to the DCMA for Corrective Action Requests (CARs). CARs are requests to contractors by the DCMA to fix the causes of recurring problems that put the contractor out of compliance with its contract with the military.
After a series of appeals, first between Cohn and DCMA and later between Sikorsky and DCMA, it was decided by the DCMA in a letter dated December 1, 2005 to grant Cohn's FOIA request in part and to deny it in part. DCMA notified Sikorsky the next day that it would release the redacted CARs on December 13, 2005 unless Sikorky filed a "reverse" FOIA suit in a US District Court before then.
It did. Sikorsky filed suit against the DCMA and DOD in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on December 12, 2005 on four counts: 1) Confidential Business Information--Exemption 4 of FOIA; 2) Trade Secrets Act; 3) Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action; and 4) the Declaratory Judgment Act. Sikorsky has argued that if CARs sent to Sikorsky are turned over to the public, then it may cooperate less with the DCMA in correcting problems, dispute the DCMA's opinion more often and share less information with DCMA.
Though there clearly is an interest in protecting true proprietary secrets, Sikorsky's attempt to stifle information that may reflect poorly on their aircraft is something else. It is a move characteristic of a company seeking to avoid public accountability and to hide deficiencies in the aircraft we entrust will transport our men and women in uniform safely, securely and effectively.
Last edited by sox6; 11th Dec 2006 at 20:47.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T&C seems to be right. News from the HAI web site today:
Sikorsky Executive With Link to Parts Quality Debacle Moves Sideways to Pratt & Whitney
An executive who was assigned a key role in Sikorsky's response to government criticism of its quality control processes has taken a new position at Pratt & Whitney.
Both Sikorsky and Pratt are subsidiaries of United Technologies Corp.
Tom Hutton, formerly Sikorsky's vice president for operations, has taken a job as Pratt's vice president for global parts repair services.Neither Sikorsky nor Pratt would say whether Hutton's move was related to scorching criticism of Sikorsky from a high-ranking Department Of Defense official in Stratford.
Hutton's departure from Sikorsky, announced last week, followed a Nov. 22 letter from Navy Capt. Dorothy Freer to Sikorsky's president, Jeffrey Pino, in which she said the company's response to her complaints of the previous summer had been inadequate.
Pino had previously written to her that Hutton was instructed to "share customer concerns regarding quality" with the company's operations executives. Hutton was also supposed to arrange "communication sessions" that would convey her concerns to "frontline office and factory workers."
More at: http://www.rotor.com/rotor/Homenbsp/...1/Default.aspx
Sikorsky Executive With Link to Parts Quality Debacle Moves Sideways to Pratt & Whitney
An executive who was assigned a key role in Sikorsky's response to government criticism of its quality control processes has taken a new position at Pratt & Whitney.
Both Sikorsky and Pratt are subsidiaries of United Technologies Corp.
Tom Hutton, formerly Sikorsky's vice president for operations, has taken a job as Pratt's vice president for global parts repair services.Neither Sikorsky nor Pratt would say whether Hutton's move was related to scorching criticism of Sikorsky from a high-ranking Department Of Defense official in Stratford.
Hutton's departure from Sikorsky, announced last week, followed a Nov. 22 letter from Navy Capt. Dorothy Freer to Sikorsky's president, Jeffrey Pino, in which she said the company's response to her complaints of the previous summer had been inadequate.
Pino had previously written to her that Hutton was instructed to "share customer concerns regarding quality" with the company's operations executives. Hutton was also supposed to arrange "communication sessions" that would convey her concerns to "frontline office and factory workers."
More at: http://www.rotor.com/rotor/Homenbsp/...1/Default.aspx
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear that the hidden agenda behind this whole series of events is the failure of a massive overhaul that the previous Sikorsky President (Steven Finger) had attempted. Folks on the inside say that Finger tried to use a six-sigma type "lean" approach everywhere, rearranging the factory space willy nilly, closing departments and also out-sourced many fuselage components enmasse, with very disasterous results. They say the old factory hands were driven to exasperation by this mess.
One supplier in Florida is so bad that Sikorsky has sent 15 inspectors to oversee them (when only one or two is usually sufficient). Timothy Hutton was a Pratt person the Finger hand-selected to run the factory, after Finger ran off all the older hands (who didn't see eye-to-eye with him).
Sikorsky guys say that the disruption while in high rate production tripped up major sections of the factory, and the new President (Jeffery Pino) is trying to get things under control, but the size of the problem makes it hard to fix in a few months.
Since the factory produces almost a hundred Black Hawks and Sea Hawks a year for the US Military, the military has a strong interest in the day to day operations, and has an O-6 Captain at the factory to represent the military. She is the one that is making the move to tighten things back up after the disruption.
One supplier in Florida is so bad that Sikorsky has sent 15 inspectors to oversee them (when only one or two is usually sufficient). Timothy Hutton was a Pratt person the Finger hand-selected to run the factory, after Finger ran off all the older hands (who didn't see eye-to-eye with him).
Sikorsky guys say that the disruption while in high rate production tripped up major sections of the factory, and the new President (Jeffery Pino) is trying to get things under control, but the size of the problem makes it hard to fix in a few months.
Since the factory produces almost a hundred Black Hawks and Sea Hawks a year for the US Military, the military has a strong interest in the day to day operations, and has an O-6 Captain at the factory to represent the military. She is the one that is making the move to tighten things back up after the disruption.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sikorsky get barn door bolted
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-s...lines-business
The Defense Department has closed a formal complaint about quality control problems at Sikorsky Aircraft, the government and the company said Monday.
In a Nov. 22 letter to Sikorsky's president, Jeffrey Pino, a Pentagon overseer stationed at the company's facility in Stratford harshly criticized management for delays and for worsening quality control problems in the production of some Black Hawk helicopters.
U.S. Navy Capt. Dorothy J. Freer also issued a formal complaint, known as a Level III Corrective Action Request, or CAR, that could have led to penalties if Sikorsky failed to respond adequately. Freer, commander of the Defense Contract Management Agency's Stratford office, gave the company 30 days to submit a plan for addressing her concerns.
It did so last week and the agency closed the complaint by the end of the week, a spokeswoman confirmed Monday.
"Sikorsky did respond with a plan to address the government's concern and this plan adequately addresses the issues as stated in the CAR," said Ann Jensis-Dale, a defense contract spokeswoman. Neither the agency nor Sikorsky would release the plan.
A Sikorsky spokesman said the company will set up a training program for employees at a Florida subcontractor that assembles Black Hawks to teach them "our production system."
Sikorsky, a division of Hartford-based United Technologies Corp., will also assemble a team to examine the role subcontractors play in producing Sikorsky's military helicopters, a role that has expanded significantly in recent years.
Sikorsky has already increased the number of quality control inspectors at a Florida subcontractor, Crestview Aerospace Corp., which was recently purchased by L-3 Communications, said spokesman Ed Steadham. The number of inspectors was increased from six to 15, and the company has begun performing extra inspections of some key parts, including flight controls and rotor blade connections, Steadham said.
While Sikorsky's plan has appeased the Pentagon for now, the company remains behind in its production schedule and won't recover until well into 2007.
Speaking in New York last week, UTC's chief executive, George David, blamed Sikorsky's production delays on the convergence of its ambitious growth plan, doubling unit volume from 2005 to 2007; a reorganization of its production process to rely more heavily on subcontractors; and a six-week strike by the company's 3,600 Teamsters last spring.
Rocco Calo, head of Teamsters Local 1150 in Stratford, said he couldn't quibble with David's analysis.
Of course none of this would have affected customers buying a handfull or less of civil helicopters...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To qoute the very first post in this thread about Sikorsky quality:
When the Navy inspected other Sikorsky built Seahawks it discovered 41-other suspect blades.
"The obvious question is how did 41 tail rotor blades with some kind of defect make it onto aircraft that are flying?" asks Cohn
To make one component wrong is unfortunate - to make 41 wrong...
When the Navy inspected other Sikorsky built Seahawks it discovered 41-other suspect blades.
"The obvious question is how did 41 tail rotor blades with some kind of defect make it onto aircraft that are flying?" asks Cohn
To make one component wrong is unfortunate - to make 41 wrong...
