General > General Technical Chat

And now the Boeing 777...

<< < (9/15) > >>

Gyro:
I remember a documentary a few years ago about Rolls Royce (the aircraft engine make, not the car maker).

They have a monitoring centre that monitors telemetry all the engines they have in service whilst in flight. Presumably other manufacturers have the same (otherwise it would be a compelling reason to buy RR!). They provide constant monitoring data to the airlines about the state of their engines, real time information on any developing problems - vibration profiles, pressure abnormalities etc. together with immediate technical support.

In this respect, the engines are in-flight manufacturer supported entities in their own right - rather unlike a component in a TV.

drussell:

--- Quote from: coppercone2 on February 27, 2021, 07:09:43 pm ---so the explanation I read in this thread makes me think the profession I took is way too complicated because it seems easier to pick a plane engine then a damn single resistor. I can't even do that. I can still fuck a resistor choice in a way that they will blame me.
--- End quote ---

Really?

You want to live in the aerospace world where each specific unit of each model of crimper that you use to make connections to pin terminals, even in some non-vital connector, must be sent out for calibration checks and re-certified every year and you have to track the serial numbers of every batch of every wire and every pin and connector housing you use, every other part and piece you use, so that when someone farther up the supply chain fucks up you know where to go to find out where else that same failure might possibly show up?  It is an absolute nightmare when people up above "you" in this kind of highly-documented, high-reliability, traceable-at-every-stage screw up something which is why there is the whole traceability system in there in the first place. 

The fact that improperly re-certified parts are apparently repeatedly being put back into service by Pratt & Whitney when they are going to end up sometimes failing catastrophically before their next inspection being blamed on Boeing (not that Boeing is some perfect saint, mind you) is totally disingenuous.  This one is not Boeing's fault.

The fact that the clueless mass media narrative doesn't ever even attempt to make a distinction in cases like this so that even technically-minded engineer people are so hopelessly misled is frightening.  Tupolev = Tragic, Boeing = Bad, Airbus = Awesome is a shortsighted view of the actual inner workings of the whole, incredibly complex (and astoundingly reliable, highly regulated) industry.

Monkeh:

--- Quote from: drussell on February 27, 2021, 07:56:43 pm ---Airbus = Awesome

--- End quote ---

AF447.

floobydust:
The plane had flown under 3,000 cycles which is less than half before blade inspection is due at 6,500 cycles. It seems like a very long time between inspections. That engine has bigger, fewer turbine blades, hollow so maybe they pushed the tech too far and gave unicorn and rainbow inspection frequency to make the engines seem cheaper to maintain.
It could also be a manufacturing issue- nothing to do with engineering.

ve7xen:

--- Quote from: Monkeh on February 27, 2021, 08:14:16 pm ---
--- Quote from: drussell on February 27, 2021, 07:56:43 pm ---Airbus = Awesome

--- End quote ---

AF447.

--- End quote ---

 |O If ever there were an accident where it was appropriate to say 'it was completely pilot error', this is it. There's always blame to go around, and there were some HMI problems identified with the Airbus flight controls, but you really can't blame the airframe or control systems for a pilot continually doing the opposite of what they were trained to do and the procedures say to do for multiple minutes while they fly the plane into the sea. The pilots still have mostly ultimate authority, and if what they are actively doing is going to crash the plane, with the exception of alpha-prot, the airframe isn't going to stop them.


--- Quote ---The plane had flown under 3,000 cycles which is less than half before blade inspection is due at 6,500 cycles. It seems like a very long time between inspections. That engine has bigger, fewer turbine blades, hollow so maybe they pushed the tech too far and gave unicorn and rainbow inspection frequency to make the engines seem cheaper to maintain.
--- End quote ---

This is my thought now that a bit more has come out. Since it's been so many cycles since the last inspection, it's going to be very interesting whether they decide the crack would have been detectable during the inspection or not. If they can figure it out, how it grew is going to play a major part here, but regardless it looks like the inspection window will probably be shrunk significantly if they can't identify and fix a problem with the inspection process itself.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod