ANA fire extinguisher wiring faults
Re Boeing checks & operator checks
ISTR Boeing would donate full tanks gratis if purchaser turned up and flew new jet away. An employer of Bas declined and it was worth it in the long run to get all minor snags fixed quickly there and then than to have the hairyplane out of service when scheduled to operate.
I don't have enough info to suggest that would have uncovered such a component defect.
I don't have enough info to suggest that would have uncovered such a component defect.
FB Assembly
Looks like an error by the vendor. The fire bottles have two discharge heads, combining the electrical and plumbing connections for one squib each. These are practically identical but have different part numbers to account for different keying of the electrical connector. It appears that the vendor switched them at assembly. Upon installation, the Halon plumbing would be installed by mechanical fit. That is; the head in the Left Engine position on the bottle would be plumed to the left engine and vice versa. The electrical connectors however are keyed, so the Left Engine cable would only fit the discharge head keyed to fit it. Due to the proximity of the heads, it would not take much slack in the cables for the installer to move the electrical connector to the head that it fit on (the one plumbed to the opposite engine).
Now for the blame. At assembly, there should probably be some check for the proper head P/N installation. A visual check of part numbers can be done, but could be overlooked if the Q/A people were in a rush. A continuity test jig could be built (or modified) to fix the proper mating connectors in place physically, making a switch just to get the test passed difficult or impossible.
But the root cause might come down to people doing the assembly and/or installation process not having an understanding of the system. The discharge heads look the same, so what's the big deal? There's enough slack in the cables to get them to fit either side. So we can get the thing installed and check it off the job list. Its the mentality of me doing my little job and going home at quitting time. That and the thinking that everyone else up and down the line got their job done correctly. So why bother looking again?
Now for the blame. At assembly, there should probably be some check for the proper head P/N installation. A visual check of part numbers can be done, but could be overlooked if the Q/A people were in a rush. A continuity test jig could be built (or modified) to fix the proper mating connectors in place physically, making a switch just to get the test passed difficult or impossible.
But the root cause might come down to people doing the assembly and/or installation process not having an understanding of the system. The discharge heads look the same, so what's the big deal? There's enough slack in the cables to get them to fit either side. So we can get the thing installed and check it off the job list. Its the mentality of me doing my little job and going home at quitting time. That and the thinking that everyone else up and down the line got their job done correctly. So why bother looking again?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the mentality of me doing my little job and going home at quitting time. That and the thinking that everyone else up and down the line got their job done correctly. So why bother looking again?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geee, I honestly hope airplanes are not really built like this nowadays. Are you an informed insider on Boeing subcrontractors or are you just guessing ?
Factory assembly line "droids" invariably clock on and switch off...."i'm paid to make xxxx , not to think" is the ruling mentality.
Those with a higher IQ ,invariably move on. It's always been so,in a repetitive production environment.
Geee, I honestly hope airplanes are not really built like this nowadays. Are you an informed insider on Boeing subcrontractors or are you just guessing ?
I've seen a few instances where Boeing bought off on vendor acceptance testing without understanding the scope of the tests run or their limitations. A few acceptance test procedures were defined as "plug unit under test into ACME model 1000 tester, press the execute button and verify that the green 'pass' light illuminates". As a new engineer given the task of approving such a test, I got slapped down by Boeing management when I asked for the details on what the ACME 1000 actually measured. No time for that. The ATP needs to be approved to meed schedule.
I can only hope that tings have changed since I left. Subsequent evidence seems to indicate otherwise.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: redmond
Age: 88
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assembly line mentality- management
eengr is correcte when he describes how things work.
Boeing is typical - I know- been there- done that as an engineer.
While things generally have improved in some areas over a few decades, there are still way too many bean counters and power point rangers that drive the bus.
Its the ' when we want your opinion- we will tell you what it is " or ' I want A way to do it - cannot afford the time or $$ to ' do it better"
even so- most of the workers are dedicated and try to do the right thing, but ultimately it still comes down to self preservation.
The better- experienced workers that make it to AOG crews are absolute wizards and VERY dedicated. But they cost a bit- and are retireing at a significant rate.
Boeing is typical - I know- been there- done that as an engineer.
While things generally have improved in some areas over a few decades, there are still way too many bean counters and power point rangers that drive the bus.
Its the ' when we want your opinion- we will tell you what it is " or ' I want A way to do it - cannot afford the time or $$ to ' do it better"
even so- most of the workers are dedicated and try to do the right thing, but ultimately it still comes down to self preservation.
The better- experienced workers that make it to AOG crews are absolute wizards and VERY dedicated. But they cost a bit- and are retireing at a significant rate.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 75
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DWS
most of the workers are dedicated and try to do the right thing, but ultimately it still comes down to self preservation.
The better- experienced workers that make it to AOG crews are absolute wizards and VERY dedicated. But they cost a bit- and are retiring at a significant rate.
The better- experienced workers that make it to AOG crews are absolute wizards and VERY dedicated. But they cost a bit- and are retiring at a significant rate.
Almost all individuals I met were capable people trying very hard to get the job done right. What let things down was I am afraid to say, a very flawed management structure and lack of coherent process. What utterly depressed and astonished me in turns was how this did not seem to be recognized and sorted.
Although no longer part of the program, I continue to try and understand how that could be and keep coming back to the conclusion that the vast, serried ranks of 'MBA wielding' middle management just lived in their own happy world where all the power-points and spreadsheets lined up elegantly and the fact that they bore no relation to reality (past, present or future) simply did not occur to them.
When reality did catch up, as it does in life, the response was usually to blame the engineers or the supplier or the production folk rather than the lack of process or management that allowed the thing to go pear-shaped in the first place.
Very sad, because in that time, I met so many smart, dedicated, hard working folk who really cared and were proud of being part of Boeing who were, in my view at least, let down by the system.
I would add that for the last three years I was the on-site support for a critical system, covering production and flight-line and with one or two exceptions perhaps, I do not recognise the 'don't care I just do my shift and leave' description of the folks working the 787 that I have seen on this thread. Most wanted to get the job done and done right and were very engaged when it came to sorting problems.
Last edited by fenland787; 3rd Sep 2013 at 17:07. Reason: Lost the last para...
I would add that for the last three years I was the on-site support for a critical system, covering production and flight-line and with one or two exceptions perhaps, I do not recognize the 'don't care I just do my shift and leave' description of the folks working the 787 that I have seen on this thread. Most wanted to get the job done and done right and were very engaged when it came to sorting problems.
I worked on a system that gave shop floor technicians access to QA procedures including requirements for 'out of sequence' work and systems check out. The sorts of things that one has to do in the event systems need to be taken apart, debugged and reassembled. Our group was a great supporter of the 'give then everything they need' philosophy. However, we butted heads with management that didn't want anything that allowed deviation from 'the plan'. Needless to say, we got a lot of support from the shop floor, but not from management. When it came time to retire our system and repace it with management's 'preferred process', some of the techs proposed a race between our system and the incoming one. With ours, test procedures could be located and printed within a few seconds. The new system required shop floor personnel to locate one of the few managers in possession of the proper login authority to access out of sequence procedures. It took them about 40 minutes to locate such a person.
I'm not sure how things were finally settled, as I didn't hang around for much longer.
Paxing All Over The World
I think that EEngr says what I have thought - as an outsider. I have worked in commerce since 1978 and first saw outsourcing in 1988 at the HQ of the American merchant bank in NYC for whom I was then working in telecommunications. I did not like it then and nothing has substantially changed my mind.
BUT the current fashion in mgmt is spreading globally and must run it's course. One can easily understand that a big corporation can throw away 30 years of progress in pursuit of more profit, because lots and lots of companies do it all the time. Of course they think they are making things better and often act in good faith.
The UK goverments of the 1990s and 2000s made a hash of things - when they started outsourcing functions and making policy with too many mgmt graduates, rather than people who actually understood the job and the circumstances.
The financial crash of 2008 was but one consequence of this kind of thinking but it's way too late to stop it now. Like most things in humans, it will run through.
BUT the current fashion in mgmt is spreading globally and must run it's course. One can easily understand that a big corporation can throw away 30 years of progress in pursuit of more profit, because lots and lots of companies do it all the time. Of course they think they are making things better and often act in good faith.
The UK goverments of the 1990s and 2000s made a hash of things - when they started outsourcing functions and making policy with too many mgmt graduates, rather than people who actually understood the job and the circumstances.
The financial crash of 2008 was but one consequence of this kind of thinking but it's way too late to stop it now. Like most things in humans, it will run through.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osamu Shinobe, President & CEO, All Nippon Airways
» Interview
16/09/2013
ATN: How much affected you the grounding of 787? Do you intend to ask for a compensation from Boeing?
OS: The financial impact of the grounding on sales revenue was approximately ¥15 billion. We are currently negotiating compensation with Boeing and cannot make any further comment for confidentiality reasons.
Since restarting flights, 787 operations are stable.
» Interview
16/09/2013
ATN: How much affected you the grounding of 787? Do you intend to ask for a compensation from Boeing?
OS: The financial impact of the grounding on sales revenue was approximately ¥15 billion. We are currently negotiating compensation with Boeing and cannot make any further comment for confidentiality reasons.
Since restarting flights, 787 operations are stable.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the "stable" operations comment just diplomatic words or fact ?
Once in a while they publish dispatch reliability statistics - you can look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions.
Also ANA is not the only operator of the 787, is United for example writing angry letters to Boeing complaining about 787 unacceptable dispatch performance? They once did, in 1996, it then made headlines, United was bitterly complaining about 777's poor performance, still too many problems in the 2-nd year after its introduction to United's fleet, clearly United was unabashed and did not hide behind diplomatic words. Now the same 777 is the epitome of reliability among jetliners.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@cockney_steve:
I've got to throw my hat in with EEngr, DWS and fenland787. The problems are far more likely to be management-related than on the shop floor.
I have no trouble whatsoever believing that most of the workforce are as they describe, i.e conscientious and hard-working, and situations like that described by EEngr, where it took 40 minutes to find a manager capable of performing the task would try the patience of a saint.
The explosion in managerialism (and sorry PAXboy, but the rot really took hold in the '80s) is a far more widespread issue than simply outsourcing. Even in-house, you can have teams that can have communications issues when everything has to go through management, and managers don't necessarily understand the problems.
I've got to throw my hat in with EEngr, DWS and fenland787. The problems are far more likely to be management-related than on the shop floor.
I have no trouble whatsoever believing that most of the workforce are as they describe, i.e conscientious and hard-working, and situations like that described by EEngr, where it took 40 minutes to find a manager capable of performing the task would try the patience of a saint.
The explosion in managerialism (and sorry PAXboy, but the rot really took hold in the '80s) is a far more widespread issue than simply outsourcing. Even in-house, you can have teams that can have communications issues when everything has to go through management, and managers don't necessarily understand the problems.
