Eight B787 pulled from service over structural issues
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pugilistic Animus
Again, I don't know exactly which load case is most critical for the joint in question, but lateral loads caused by the quick initial large movement of the rudder to compensate for assymetric thrust are one of the significant loads. I do know that in the past there was a fitting cracking issue on the 747 at the joint of the aft fuselage to the center wing section where the engine out case was the critical load case.
Again, I don't know exactly which load case is most critical for the joint in question, but lateral loads caused by the quick initial large movement of the rudder to compensate for assymetric thrust are one of the significant loads. I do know that in the past there was a fitting cracking issue on the 747 at the joint of the aft fuselage to the center wing section where the engine out case was the critical load case.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skill set
Now days employers are more interested in qualifications over technical hand skills.
I once witnessed a chap had passed his Part 66 licence and needed to fill out his practical experience in his experience logbook, he filled up his experience logbook in a matter of 3 days as per the requirements of the CAA.
His experience was fabricated.
This I find as a common problem in aviation today, engineers that are very clever with studying and exams but lack handskill and technical ability.
The Charlton whistle blowers were probably long term Boeing employees with a very rare skillset of seeing problems before they present themselves,through years of experience.
I have worked at many different companies UK based, where complacency is an every day norm, tasks are signed off without been done to meet costing and schedules.
With approved maintenance data not being used but signed off in accordance with that approved data.
When the issues are raised one finds themselves being set up to fail and end up being fired with excuses that it is not economically viable for the company to follow approved maintenance data due to cost and downtime.
The customer is non the wiser.
Boeing's biggest problem was their competition with Airbus. The B787 was the beginning of their downfall, due to getting the B787 certified before the Airbus A350. Boeing had a good relationship with the FAA and the FAA trusted Boeing ASB's and SB's were being approved in record time. Boeing took took advantage of this relationship with the FAA and that is when safety started to slide downhill.
The CAA are more interested in making money than safety, I have seen CAA conducting audits whereby they don't know what they are looking for and this comes from qualifications over technical ability ie hands on experience.
Recall the incident whereby the pilots windshield blew out due to the incorrect thread pitch bolts being used to secure the windshield, those bolts were taken from a bin on the hangar floor.
Following this incident the authority decided that quick access parts in bins whereby a requisition is not needed were to be eliminated. But over the years these have reappeared and the CAA walk passed them on audits. Toolboxes are rarely checked and toolbox check sheets are signed off by mates.
No control and we wonder why airplanes fall out the sky.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt_Tech
Unfortunately that is the norm today.
No practical experience but the qualifications look good.
just like the technical pilot that was in charge of the fleet we oversaw, but hadn’t flown the real thing!
Unfortunately that is the norm today.
No practical experience but the qualifications look good.
just like the technical pilot that was in charge of the fleet we oversaw, but hadn’t flown the real thing!
Recall the incident whereby the pilots windshield blew out due to the incorrect thread pitch bolts being used to secure the windshield, those bolts were taken from a bin on the hangar floor.
No bins on hangar floors.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt_Tech
Fantasy logbooks are common place, but not always easy to spot; a few years ago there was the case of a pilot, Korean Airlines, who passes his initial IR in a twin that was under maintainence and had no engines fitted on the date his flight test was signed off.
Fantasy logbooks are common place, but not always easy to spot; a few years ago there was the case of a pilot, Korean Airlines, who passes his initial IR in a twin that was under maintainence and had no engines fitted on the date his flight test was signed off.
TURIN
Also, if this refers to G-BJRT, I am not sure that an accident in 1990 can be used to indict 'recent' engineering recruitment standards. If anything it demonstrates that plus ca change,plus c'est la meme chose.
Also, if this refers to G-BJRT, I am not sure that an accident in 1990 can be used to indict 'recent' engineering recruitment standards. If anything it demonstrates that plus ca change,plus c'est la meme chose.
And actually as I recall the engineer took a bolt from the frame and chose new bolts that matched it. Unfortunately it was an undersized bolt used in the last windscreen replacement 
DaveReidUK
That is a very different scanario to the one represented in our human factors training. In fact the store man giving the bolts to the management grade engineer actually questioned him that these were really the bolts he wanted.
One of us has been given misinformation. I'll do some checking. 👍
That is a very different scanario to the one represented in our human factors training. In fact the store man giving the bolts to the management grade engineer actually questioned him that these were really the bolts he wanted.
One of us has been given misinformation. I'll do some checking. 👍
TURIN
Yes, but that's only part of the story.
The engineer attempted to obtain the bolts from the manned store in the hangar, and the stores supervisor did indeed query the part number requested (in my experience storemen usually know the correct part numbers for pretty well everything
), but he didn't press the point.
In the event, the bin in the hangar stores contained hardly any of the requested bolts, so the engineer then went to the unmanned AGS carousel under the International Pier at BHX, where he picked up the required quantity after identifying them by comparing the bolts in the bin with those he had removed from the aircraft, resulting in the wrong diameter bolts being (re-)fitted.
Yes, but that's only part of the story.
The engineer attempted to obtain the bolts from the manned store in the hangar, and the stores supervisor did indeed query the part number requested (in my experience storemen usually know the correct part numbers for pretty well everything
), but he didn't press the point.In the event, the bin in the hangar stores contained hardly any of the requested bolts, so the engineer then went to the unmanned AGS carousel under the International Pier at BHX, where he picked up the required quantity after identifying them by comparing the bolts in the bin with those he had removed from the aircraft, resulting in the wrong diameter bolts being (re-)fitted.
You could be right, I don't remember reading anything about those sort of AGS Carousels, we didn't have them where I worked.
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Uk
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt_Tech
Sorry but that's complete and Utter nonsense, for starters every line Station has a limited stock of parts that the engineer can access without a requisition as many do not employ a storeman(or woman). Always been the same. The simple fact remains that its the engineer's responsibility to order or use the correct part. If there is a stores person there to issue it they only issue what's been requested anyway.
Ref tool control its tighter now than its ever been in my experience, maybe its being company driven rather than caa driven though I don't know. And yes it's actively encouraged that your kit is checked by someone else to confirm its completion. Seeing as though I only work with a limited number of other employees it tends to be a mate aswell. Doesn't mean it doesn't get checked.
Just out of interest How many aircraft have 'fallen out of the sky' due to part or tooling control?
Sorry but that's complete and Utter nonsense, for starters every line Station has a limited stock of parts that the engineer can access without a requisition as many do not employ a storeman(or woman). Always been the same. The simple fact remains that its the engineer's responsibility to order or use the correct part. If there is a stores person there to issue it they only issue what's been requested anyway.
Ref tool control its tighter now than its ever been in my experience, maybe its being company driven rather than caa driven though I don't know. And yes it's actively encouraged that your kit is checked by someone else to confirm its completion. Seeing as though I only work with a limited number of other employees it tends to be a mate aswell. Doesn't mean it doesn't get checked.
Just out of interest How many aircraft have 'fallen out of the sky' due to part or tooling control?