Slashdot Mirror


Mechanic's Mistake Trashes $244 Million Aircraft

Hugh Pickens writes "An accident report is finally out for the Air Force E-8C Joint Surveillance Targeting and Attack Radar System that had started refueling with a KC-135 on on March 13, 2009 when the crew heard a 'loud bang throughout the midsection of the aircraft.' Vapor and fuel started pouring out of the JSTARS from 'at least two holes in the left wing just inboard of the number two engine.' The pilot immediately brought the jet back to its base in Qatar where mechanics found the number two main fuel tank had been ruptured, 'causing extensive damage to the wing of the aircraft.' How extensive? 25 million dollars worth of extensive. What caused this potentially fatal and incredibly expensive accident to one of the United States' biggest spy planes? According to the USAF accident report, a contractor accidentally left a plug in one of the fuel tank's relief vents (PDF) during routine maintenance. 'The PDM subcontractor employed ineffective tool control measures,' reads the report. Tool control measures? 'You know, the absolutely basic practice of accounting for the exact location of every tool that is used to work on an airplane once that work is finished.' Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz just told Congress, 'there is a JSTARS platform that was damaged beyond economical repair that we will not repair.' So, if this is the one Schwartz is talking about, then one mechanic's mistake has damaged a $244 million aircraft beyond repair."

428 comments

  1. Shit Happens by rotorbudd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been an A&P for over 35 years and I've seen worse.
    (by pilots and mechanics)

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    1. Re:Shit Happens by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      yes - they are lucky no-one died. I've seen tool control related accidents (fod) and other problems due to maintenance issues go a lot further south than this - though the dollar total is impressive.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:Shit Happens by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2

      oh - reading the executive summary (3rd link) it says damage was 25 million.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The damage caused puts the aircraft beyond repair. Thus $25M of damage has written off a $244M plane.

    4. Re:Shit Happens by WillRobinson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The electronics package is 200 mill put it in another plane. So saying its a total loss is bs. The plane is basicly a kc-135 they have plenty of spares including whole wings.

    5. Re:Shit Happens by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite as simple as that. You've got to rip the gear out of the dead plane as salvage and then install it in a new one. Part of the $200 mil is not the gear itself but it's installation, calibration, etc.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    6. Re:Shit Happens by Suki+I · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've been an A&P for over 35 years and I've seen worse.
      (by pilots and mechanics)

      In Chuck Yeager's biography he talked about an assembly mechanic who was installing a bolt the wrong way, even though his instructions said the right way to do it. Resulted in numerous fighter plane crashes and almost killed Yeager when he was test flying one of the planes to see what was causing the crashes.

    7. Re:Shit Happens by Garybaldy · · Score: 5, Informative

      I remember reading that as i have repeated the story many times. The women on the assembly line could not grasp why you would stick a bolt in upside down. Always being taught to put it in facing down. So if the nut ever came loose the bolt would not come out. Even though as you said the instructions said to put it in upside down.

      The reason being the head of the bolt was shorter and would not interfere with a control cable.

    8. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What puzzles me, is that a small mistake can be promptly pinpointed to the mechanic. But trashing the economy cannot be easily pinpointed to the bankers. I guess it's easier to find the culprits down in the hierarchy, rather than up.

    9. Re:Shit Happens by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      But there are a lot of cheap, pre-owned and calibrated spares out there now. I'm going to start checking my local surplus store frequently now.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    10. Re:Shit Happens by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      She knows clearance issues are why you install a shorter bolt Again, engineering design failed, miserably, so a way to blame the peon.

      If you insist on putting the brake pedal on the right foot and accelerator on the left, it doesn't matter how loudly you blame the driver, its still a design failure.

      This specific incident was hashed out in one of those freshman "intro to engineering ethics" classes I had to take a long time ago. Still remember it. It was a huge design failure, although you could claim it was also a huge management and PR success to put all the blame on some poor chick. Was used as an object lesson for how management picks the winner and loser, sometimes engineering gets it, sometimes operations/factory floor gets it, and part of being an engineer is "toughening up" that you're going to be involved in corporate BS like that, so get used to thinking about it.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    11. Re:Shit Happens by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I'd say she shares some blame, by making a design decision at assembly time rather than bring the matter to the attention of her supervisor.

      But yeah, bad design. If bolt orientation is so critical, you need to make the design idiot (or self-declared assembly expert) proof. I suspect "shorter bolt" wouldn't have worked - and in any event, having one bolt shorter than the others might be asking for trouble as well. But even something as simple as stamping or stenciling "bolt head down!" might have averted the situation.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:Shit Happens by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Really? In a mechanics story? Are you that single-minded? A few years ago it was Bush hating in every thread, no it's "the bankers".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Shit Happens by vegiVamp · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What I don't get is, if you say there's 25M of damage, isn't that supposed to mean it would cost 25M to repair? If you have an estimate for the repair, that means you can repair it; so why is it written off, instead?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    14. Re:Shit Happens by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or if you're going to intentionally violate international standards of assembly, management needs to hire a QA/QC guy who's sole job is to make sure things are put together the wrong way. Unless of course he failed in this case, but he was someone important's son, so he can't be blamed...

      There's always a way to design something the "right" way. If clearances are that tight, g-loading of the frame would have screwed it up eventually, or a tiny piece of shrapnel could take down a plane... A "combat" style repair during an emergency on a distant island could cause the loss of a plane, this isn't just a manufacturing problem.

      This incident was an hour long seminar in class and at the end of class, there's no way around it, it was an engineering failure but some lowly peon took the hit, with a sub-text esoteric or whatever meaning that even when engineering "wins" in a corporate BS scenario, everyone else really "loses".

      We came up with all manner of solutions like "shorter bolts everywhere not just one shorter bolt", "rivets not bolts", "reroute the cable". One unpopular one was "well, in wartime, you're gonna take losses, just deal with it".

      The funniest, yet best human factors solution, which won the award for the best solution, was to work with human nature, not against it, and make the build fixture upside down. So the plant workers install the bolts right side up, from their perspective. Don't even tell the bolt installer plant workers that they're working upside down. I wish I could say that was my bright idea, but mine was a crappy solution involving spray painting bolt heads and spray painting the holes on the bolt side using a fixture, which got shot down, something about F-ing up corrosion control chromate primer or whatever.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    15. Re:Shit Happens by dtmos · · Score: 1

      The women on the assembly line could not grasp why you would stick a bolt in upside down.

      H'mm. Referring to the assembly line person who put the bolt in incorrectly, my version of the book says "Nobody told him how many pilots he had killed."

    16. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you insist on putting the brake pedal on the right foot and accelerator on the left, it doesn't matter how loudly you blame the driver, its still a design failure.

      ?! If you put the pedals on different feet that's a design failure whichever way round you put them.

    17. Re:Shit Happens by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you insist on putting the brake pedal on the right foot and accelerator on the left, it doesn't matter how loudly you blame the driver, its still a design failure.

      They should take the Apple route and put both functions in one pedal. Simply Genius! (tm)

    18. Re:Shit Happens by Jake73 · · Score: 1

      Maintenance-induced failures are pretty common in the aviation industry. Although a big deal, it's not really news to us.

    19. Re:Shit Happens by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Indeed, when I was in the USAF I spent the 1st 3 years on the flightline, and there was a lot of accidental damage. One poor fellow backed a C5-A into a hangar and did $50 million in damage. He was sweating bullets for a week until the wing walker got the blame. They grounded the fleet when one of the giant buckets they serviced the tails fell over in another base and killed two mechanics. I saw quite a few land without landing gear on a foam runway, and at least one had an engine fall off. I also saw a C-141 with a missing windshield and a lot of blood, a large bird went through the windshield, killing the co-pilot.

      Nobody's perfect, everybody screws up occasionally. Like you say, these things happen.

    20. Re:Shit Happens by Altus · · Score: 1

      Something is wrong with that.

      My car costs, say 20 grand, when it gets damaged they tell me the cost of the damage, if its 10% of the value of the car, 2 grand, then you usually fix the car. They are saying that its not economical to spent 10% of the value of the craft to repair it, unless its more than half way through its viable life span there must be something more going on. The cost of repair has got to be closer to the cost of replacement to make it economically infeasable to repair the plane.

      Maybe they are talking about the costs to re-certify it for flight, but in my world, you know the one the rest of us live in, that would be listed as part of the cost of the repair. My mechanic doesn't just quote me the cost of parts when he tells me what a repair will cost.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    21. Re:Shit Happens by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      As with so many repairs, it's not the parts cost, it's the labor.

      And like your Geo Metro, do you really trust that head gasket repair? Really?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    22. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... maybe the assembly peon was an idiot for not knowing how to put in the bolt the right way... you know... like the design said...

    23. Re:Shit Happens by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I would argue it was a communications failure. I'd say its okay for an engineer to specify a deviation from common practice, with the proper reasons and research behind it. If you are going to do that though you better put lots of circles and bright red arrows in the documentation to draw someones attention to the fact that YES ASSEMBLY TECHNICIAN YOU REALLY DO NEED TO DO SOMETHING UNUSUAL HERE; AND ITS NOT SIMPLY A MISTAKE OR OVERSIGHT!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    24. Re:Shit Happens by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      Someone had to take the loans, the Federal Reserve had to set the low interest rates, the regulators, the public and the politicians had to be complicit in what was going on...etc, etc, etc.

      There is so much blame to go around that it's kind of hard just to pinpoint everything on "bankers".

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    25. Re:Shit Happens by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 1

      Pretty bad to put the blame all on one guy when I'm pretty sure they have jobs in the Air Force called CREW CHIEFS. They are the ones ultimately responsible for these things.

      --
      I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
    26. Re:Shit Happens by MightyYar · · Score: 0

      Don't get me wrong, the design is faulty.

      But the assembly line worker who thought she was smarter than the drawing is also at fault. She shouldn't take all of the blame, but she was the direct cause.

      More than one person can be at fault for something. Complex systems often fail in complex ways.

      To come back more directly on topic, sure this idiot mechanic didn't count his tools. But why was the plane designed such that it would cause $25 million if the fuel tank went over-pressure? Seems crazy that it took out the wing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    27. Re:Shit Happens by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just for a rule of thumb guideline - in the Navy, we never threw anything away without the Captain's permission. Something broke, the responsible parties looked at it, calculated what it would cost to repair, then reported to the Old Man. If the repair cost was greater than 60% of a new replacement, then it was deep-sixed. Otherwise, we repaired.

      And, labor didn't factor into the calculations. With 350 men aboard who weren't going anywhere without the Captain's permission, the cost of labor didn't merit any consideration.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    28. Re:Shit Happens by Threni · · Score: 1

      How many times per product can you do something unusual? If it's just once, fine, but if every page has `yes, you're supposed to do this wrong` screaming at you then he's going to miss one of them sometimes.

    29. Re:Shit Happens by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Dude, I'm still hating on Clinton, and Bush, and I'm starting to hate on Obama. And, don't forget Carter! Damned push-button wannabe sailor, couldn't have led a bunch of horny boy scouts to a whorehouse!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    30. Re:Shit Happens by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Insightful? One mechanic signs off on a procedure, you can figure that out with the logs. The economy isn't nearly so simple. And I oversimplify that analogy. You can't even begin to blame a group of old white men in a room - there were many rooms, on many continents, for many years. Sheesh.

      Seriously, put down the doughnut and get a viable clue, ok?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    31. Re:Shit Happens by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... until the wing walker got the blame.

      The who? Can you define that jargon?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    32. Re:Shit Happens by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I don't think it was a communications failure on the engineer's part. She read the drawing fine, but made her own design change right then and there. If there was a communications failure, it was in her not asking her supervisor about the drawing that troubled her so much that she needed to ignore it.

      The engineer should have made it difficult or impossible to assemble wrong if the clearances were such an important aspect of the design.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re:Shit Happens by stevew · · Score: 2

      Me thinks your professor was an idiot.

      The engineering design failed in the opinion of the professor. Yet, there was documentation saying HOW to install something that wasn't followed?

      Further - somewhere someone had figured out there was a problem in this area and had written corrective procedures to avoid the problem. That of and by itself can be considered an appropriate engineering response to a problem! Don't forget - engineering is the application of science to real world problems while optimizing the cost of the solution.

      There are plenty of engineering disasters to look where design WAS the reason for failure. The classic is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Yet even THIS should REALLY be ascribed to a poor understanding of aerodynamics as applied to the bridge structure that was prevalent at the time.

      Lastly - aircraft design is really one of the places within the practice of engineering where past errors are studied extensively with lessons learned applied to new efforts. Perhaps better than any OTHER engineering pursuit. The current safety rate of commercial aircraft proves this point.

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    34. Re:Shit Happens by squidflakes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aircraft aren't cars. The moment you start treating them the same is the moment you sign your own death warrant.

      Reading carefully in the article, the Air Force states that it is beyond economical repair, which usually means that the hours on the airframe are probably beyond some limit for stress or flight hours and to make such a huge repairs near the spar, which is the huge chunk of metal that keeps the wings on, would most likely require a huge program of testing, inspection, and re-certification.

      Since the Air Force has dozens of spares of this particular airframe, it is more economical to pull a newer one out of storage and move all the stuff that makes a JSTAR a JSTAR to a new plane.

    35. Re:Shit Happens by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Are you an A&P for an airline? If not, how many times have you seen an owner immediately sell an aircraft after major structural repairs?

    36. Re:Shit Happens by Garybaldy · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. I don't have a version anymore.

      My memory kind of gets fucked up when recalling things i read almost three decades ago

    37. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The aircraft itself is only a minor part of the 240 million, the plane is basically a customized 707-300, the major part is the electronics fitted into it plus labor cost for building the whole thing.

      Now, there are a few version where it makes sense not to repair the plane.
      a) the air force has a surplus anyway and can live with having one less plane
      b) the 25 million repair cost is more than the cost of getting a new 707-300 and fitting it with all the additional gear that can be salvaged from the damaged plane
      and probably a few more than what I want to think of right now.

    38. Re:Shit Happens by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Just a guess, but probably the equivalent of your kid directing you as you back the boat into the garage.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    39. Re:Shit Happens by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was not designed that way,
      It was designed to bleed off excess pressure. The plane tried to do just that. Only some fuckwad left it plugged.
      Let me come over to your house and install nails in your fuse fuse box and then tell you how badly designed your electrical system was that a simple short in an electronic device burned down your house.
      It seems to me that since you put no thought into this that "blaming the bigger guy" is your thing.
      Good luck with that.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    40. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think too much blame is placed on the bankers for causing this recession. Let's go into the mind of a banker:

      I have 10 million dollars which I can invest. I can invest it in stocks, bonds, or loans. Let's say I decide to help those around me in my local town by loaning them money with which they can start a business, build a house, or purchase a car. They will pay me back with interest. People come to me and I have to review them to make sure they have the ability to pay them back. Most can, but some can't. I have to turn those people away. Well, the local government comes and tells me it that I have to give out loans (Community Reinvestment Act) to those who normally I would not. Those people end up defaulting on their loans and I am left holding the bag so to speak on this bad debt. This then reduces my ability to give out loans to others who can pay since I don't have the money available. The government then comes and says, why did you give out these bad loans? You reply, because you told us to!

      That is essentially the situation but on a much larger scale.

    41. Re:Shit Happens by squidflakes · · Score: 2

      If your twenty thousand dollar car gets two thousand worth of repairs, then conks out on the freeway in the middle of rush hour the next day, chances are that you'll pull over to the side of the road or at worst, piss off a bunch of people till the tow truck arrives.

      If your $244 million dollar aircraft conks out the next day while you're at altitude, chances are, everyone aboard is going to die. If you're luck, you're over an unpopulated area and there aren't additional casualties.

      Aircraft are not cars. The amount of maintenance is several orders of magnitude greater and if something goes wrong the likelihood of it going REALLY WRONG! (tm) is much higher.

      That being said, it is probably an airframe time issue. If the wing spar was damaged I wouldn't be surprised if there was an Air Force maintenance regulation that disallowed the aircraft being returned to service. Something critical on an old aircraft gets damaged and you're looking at much higher chance of failure.

    42. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electronics package is 200 mill put it in another plane. So saying its a total loss is bs. The plane is basicly a kc-135 they have plenty of spares including whole wings.

      Right idea, but the E8-C was actually developed from a 707. The KC-135 was the gas station in this story.

    43. Re:Shit Happens by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Or possibly the economy is a good deal more complicated than an airplane wing?

      I mean, youd think if we could repair the ruptured line in the economy for $25 million we would have done it by now, but maybe noones thought of it yet.

    44. Re:Shit Happens by squidflakes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The wing walker is a ground crew member for an aircraft that monitors the position of the aircraft's wings as you are towing it in or out of a hangar or around other aircraft. Their job is to walk just beside where the end of the wing would be and alert the tow tractor driver if the plane is about to hit something. Of course, the wings aren't the only part of the plane that can hit stuff, so wing walkers are supposed to keep an eye on the whole thing.

      A C-5-A is almost 250 feet long with a wing span around 220 feet. That's a lot of aircraft to watch.

    45. Re:Shit Happens by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      It was designed to bleed off excess pressure. The plane tried to do just that. Only some fuckwad left it plugged.

      Understood and agreed.

      But in light of the existence of fuckwads in the maintenance pipeline, it seems like designing the fuel tank to explode in the least-destructive way might be prudent.

      That said, the plane didn't crash, so perhaps this is exactly what happened.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    46. Re:Shit Happens by afidel · · Score: 2

      I can see why the overpressure could cause the damage, what I can't understand is why something which could cause a catastrophic problem didn't have a redundant mate (unless it did and he left multiple plugs in place).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    47. Re:Shit Happens by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It would cost 25 million to repair or more but.
      1. The E8s where built using old 707s. To save money they used old retired airliners 707-300s not the KC-135 mentioned on an other post. The KC-135 and 707 are closely related but the 707 has a different fuselage among other things. So they may not have the spares available.
      2. The E8 only has 13 more years in service give or take. They are one of the aircraft that the Global hawk may end up replacing.
      So it may not be worth the money to replace this one aircraft. They will use it for spares to keep the rest in the air and just replace it first.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    48. Re:Shit Happens by bhampton · · Score: 1

      No. It was the unregulated gambling called CDS and derivatives that enabled a few bad loans to melt the global economy. It didn't help that the consumers were up to their eyeballs in debt due to the huge proportion of gains going to a miniscule few rather than being spread around a little. That there this was legal is a direct function of the intense lobbying efforts of the banksters.

    49. Re:Shit Happens by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The airframe is a 40 year old ex-airline 707 with about ten zillion hours on it. A better analogy would be that it's like a $900 car with an $20k Oracle server in the trunk, and frame damage that would cost $2k to fix.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    50. Re:Shit Happens by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No the professor was right.
      There is a benefit to putting in the bolts the way the worker was taught to do it. It is also the standard way.
      And the class came up with a number of solutions that would have been better than the upside down bolt.

      You should always make assembly errors as unlikely as possible. Having a design that will fail if a single bolt is installed in that standard way vs a special procedure is just asking for trouble. Doing when other solutions are available is a fail.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    51. Re:Shit Happens by sqldr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Aircraft aren't cars. The moment you start treating them the same is the moment you sign your own death warrant.

      Tell me about it. Sling-shot launching that Reliant Robin off an aircraft carrier damn nearly killed me!

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    52. Re:Shit Happens by daem0n1x · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is an American military airplane doing on the opposite side of the hemisphere?

    53. Re:Shit Happens by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Assembly line work is mind-numbingly boring: install one bolt, over and over, for an entire run of the line, entire shift, or possibly for entire weeks or even months until they come out with a new version of the product. Assembly line workers don't have a half-dozen different things to keep track of... they have one thing, and they damn well better do it correctly.

      Thinking is not one of their job duties. They are paid to do what they're told, not to think. If they put the bolt in the way they think it goes instead of they way they were told it goes, they are not a suitable assembly line worker - full stop.

    54. Re:Shit Happens by pclminion · · Score: 1

      All of that notwithstanding, if it costs more than $25 million to get the aircraft flying again, then saying it is $25 million in damage is just spewing bullshit. The $25 million figure is obviously being used to make some number somewhere look better. It's a lie.

    55. Re:Shit Happens by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I raced gocarts that had that design. The bit where the break block caught fire convinced me that you are correct. Designing controls so that it is not just possible, but easy, to press both the break and accelerator at the same time is not a good idea...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    56. Re:Shit Happens by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Break break break? It seems I've forgotten how English is supposed to work...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    57. Re:Shit Happens by danomac · · Score: 1

      And like your Geo Metro, do you really trust that head gasket repair? Really?

      Why yes, yes I do. Head gasket repairs are common.

      Now, if you had gremlins change/rotate your tires, that I wouldn't trust.

    58. Re:Shit Happens by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      excellent analogy.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    59. Re:Shit Happens by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's quite a good design. If the pedal is a rocker, so tilting it forwards is break and brake is accelerate then it's easy to switch between brake and accelerate quickly (reducing the reaction time required for safe stops) and it is impossible to accelerate and brake at the same time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    60. Re:Shit Happens by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Well, the 707 airframe is no longer manufactured, even for the military. Even though it apparently cost us taxpayers $244 million, the airplane itself is only worth about two to 4 million on the used market. So not worth it to fix the airframe. Cheaper to move the equipment to another working airframe.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    61. Re:Shit Happens by Crewdawg · · Score: 1

      When ever a large aircraft is being moved, the tug driver cannot see or judge distances to/from the wingtips or tail adequately. An individual called a wing (or tail) walker is assigned to each wingtip / tail to watch and make sure the wing will not strike anything. This way the driver is only responsible for looking at the three walkers for thumbs up or other affirmative indication, and stopping if any of them indicate. The tow supervisor acts as another set of eyes, and can direct the tug driver as needed.

    62. Re:Shit Happens by milkmage · · Score: 1

      could have been scheduled for retirement.... off to the boneyard soonish so it's not worth fixing because they wouldn't recoup 25M before it's decommissioned...? or the value of the parts is worth more than one working plane...

    63. Re:Shit Happens by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      Generally a nut, particularly with any type of locking mechanism, will be substantially thicker than the bolt head. Thus, simply using a shorter bolt (which still has sufficient thread engagement to lock the nut on appropriately) may not have solved the issue.

      Perhaps adjustments to the control cable design would have resolved the issue, but simply stating "use a shorter bolt, duh" is not necessarily accurate.

      FWIW, my experience on this subject comes from working on a professional racing team, I'm not retrieving this experience from my ass.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    64. Re:Shit Happens by squidflakes · · Score: 2

      Oh, well there's your problem. The Robin isn't fit for carrier duty because that front wheel has to take all the stress. I would have done it in a Kitten, or at least a Supervan.

    65. Re:Shit Happens by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Other than venting excess pressure. How would you design the tanks? Ability to handle an infinite amount of pressure? A massive system to detect the over pressure and eject the tacks from the aircraft? What should they have done in your opinion?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    66. Re:Shit Happens by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The Challenger, the USS Thresher, and the USS Forrestall are all used by the military as examples of catastrophic failures due to poor or improper QA, of which tool control is but one facet. I know the military aviation community takes QA *very* seriously, as does the sub community. I've personally performed work on aircraft components and on subs themselves, and there's documentation and inspections out the arse, improper completion of which can have severe consequences. Worst case, negligence leading to an incident like this can be treated as sabotage.

      Still, as with any incident of this nature, the mechanic/technician is just the first line of defense. There was also a failure on the part of his supervisor to inspect his work, and ultimately his higher-ups are responsible for ensuring compliance with QA procedures overall.

      Ultimately, a lot of potential incidents like this have been prevented by QA, but since there's a cost-benefit trade off with diminishing returns, it won't (and can't) be perfect. Sometimes things slip through the cracks with little or no consequence other than an ass chewing; other times lives are lost. This is about the middle of the dial on the scale of potential consequences.

    67. Re:Shit Happens by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Since the Air Force has dozens of spares of this particular airframe, it is more economical to pull a newer one out of storage and move all the stuff that makes a JSTAR a JSTAR to a new plane.

      For various odd definitions of 'new'. It's basically a 707. Including the ancient, non turbofan engines - the type you see in South American running drugs and tourists.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    68. Re:Shit Happens by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Perhaps something like an overpressure burst disc sized to fail before the tank walls do, leading into a pipe that safely vents the tank contents outside the airframe?

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    69. Re:Shit Happens by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 0

      Nah, use a good ol' Amerkin Hummer. It's the only way I can see getting the grown up frat boys to enjoy dumping them all in the ocean.

    70. Re:Shit Happens by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Except if it's an Oracle server, I'd dump it in the drainage ditch on the side of the road in an instant.

      "No, sir, I don't know how it got into the ditch. Must have jumped."

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    71. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. They don't have as many spares as you think.... and all the KC-135's have been re-engined... so that alone would take tons of time to calibrate again on the airframe. Stop talking out of your ass.

    72. Re:Shit Happens by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      Brilliant! If I push it just as hard as I possibly can and hold it there, it'll take me home and then shut my car off!

    73. Re:Shit Happens by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      lol... troll? That wasn't troll, it was the harsh reality.

      Assembly line workers are human robots. They're the sort of worker you expect to be replaced by a robot as soon as the company thinks it's financially viable to invest the capital in acquiring robots to replace them.

      As such, if they can't follow simple instructions they'll be replaced by someone who can.

    74. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the guy who walks around on the wing of the airplane as it's flying. The job started as a stunt at county fairs in the Mid-West in the 1920's and 1930's, but remained as a modern job after many of these brave men and women fought in WWII. Today wingwalkers serve on wings of planes from all four American service branches, on planes from the U-2 spy plane, to stealth bombers, to fast attack aircraft.

    75. Re:Shit Happens by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is true *but*:
      There is a hard rule in aircraft assembly that the bolt be placed head up nut down. This is to protect the plane if/when a nut falls off, gravity will still hold the bolt in place, hopefully long enough to land, or at least to eject.
      This is not an optional rule, and assembly workers have it drilled into them at their new hire instruction, and every annual refresher, and whenever someone sees a mistake in QA, and just because someone thought now would be a good time to bring it up again.
      It is "how it's done". <- full stop
      Now, in this particular case, a dumbass engineer decided to have the bolt installed in contravention of this hard rule. He chose this because in the other orientation there was an issue with control cables, and for whatever reason the following options were not viable: move the bolt hole, use a shorter bolt, re-route the control cable.
      The worker put the bolt in the way that she is "supposed to always" install bolts. Naturally this was not the right way for this bolt, and she is not blameless, but she is also not to be blamed for the entirety of the issue. She should have called her supervisor over and complained that the design conflicts with her training. Then put the bolt in upside down when her supervisor tells her to "just do it, will ya".
      I still refuse to hold her as the sole cause of the issue. I've had people where I work refuse to do something against the "always do it this way" kind of rules and a design calls out something against that. 9/10 times we kick back the design as invalid. 1/10 we end up doing it, but only after everyone on the team has been trained that this one widget goes in wrong, and why. It prevents the "I know better" issues with people.

      To sum up: Just because you don't pay them to think does not mean they will not think. Better to explain to them why things are done wrong in a particular case, then they will understand that it is not a stupid mistake that needs correcting, but rather a design tradeoff that had to be made.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    76. Re:Shit Happens by networkBoy · · Score: 0

      I'm still hating on carter to present, with a small exemption for Regan, mostly because he was from CA and I am from CA (and the Berlin wall thing), I'm only disliking him.
      Seriously though, I think we need a new rule:
      If someone wants to be POTUS, then they are obviously not qualified mentally to be POTUS, and under no circumstances should be given access to the football.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    77. Re:Shit Happens by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Its based on the 707 dude, those are as common as dirt. hell I bet for 50 million you can get fricking Boeing to yank the wing off a retired 707 and perfectly fit it to that one. No friend it sounds to me like they want an excuse to write this off so they can get a "free" new one. After all its YOUR money not theirs they are blowing. My grandfather was USAF and when it came time to "blow the bases budget" as he put it he'd come home with piles of new gear, new tools, new radios, you name it. Where did it all come from? Simple they were throwing it all away so they could blow the budget and anything cool that he liked grandfather got to help himself to. I've still got an excellent all band military radio I need to find some tubes for.

      So what is the replacement for this model? i bet its nicer right? They are probably thanking that dumbass for letting them get a new plane. Just more waste from your military, nothing to see, move along.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    78. Re:Shit Happens by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Airplanes are not cars, your comparison is completely pointless.

      --
      Good-bye
    79. Re:Shit Happens by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Apollo 13's near disaster was caused by an engineering screwup:

      The heater and protection thermostat were originally designed for the command module's 28-volt DC bus. The specifications for the heater and thermostat were later changed to allow a 65-volt ground supply, in order to pressurize the tanks more rapidly. Beechcraft, the tank subcontractor, did not upgrade the thermostat to handle the higher voltage. The temperature sensor could not read above the highest operational temperature of the heater, which was approximately 100 ÂF (38 ÂC). This was not normally a problem because the thermostat was designed to open at 80 ÂF (27 ÂC).

      Oops. Luckily, NASA's engineers kept the crew alive with several very impressive hacks and kludges, detailed in Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13 written by Comander James A. Lovell, Jr., and Apollo 13, the movie that was based on it. (I liked the movie better, but the book was good too.)

      Just a few years ago an important instrument crashed from space because a part was installed backwards. And a Mars probe was lost because somebody mixed up metric with American units.

    80. Re:Shit Happens by bamstead · · Score: 1

      From some one who spent to many years crawling around bombers on a flight line, I assure you, there is always a “CAN” aircraft on the ramp. One specifically used to cannibalize parts from when in a hurry. Think of it as spare memory or hard drive during the war room. It will be pulled completely apart and you think it will be scraped.... Then when it's phase inspection is due, they will put it back together and fly it. Feel for the sap that signed off on that plugs Red X. He just hit the EPO!

    81. Re:Shit Happens by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 2

      I don't disagree, mostly. However, they had better check with the people who were paid to think before they go ahead and do something contrary to what they were instructed to do, just because they thought the instructions weren't right.

      Then, yes, you politely explain to them that they are supposed to do it that way and please just do.

      While there are any number of things that you could (in hindsight) have done to the design to ensure that this probably wouldn't happen, the best (and simplest) would have been just making sure that the assembly line workers assembled it as designed.

    82. Re:Shit Happens by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      When I was in the Air Force they cannibalized eqipment all the time. Planes, trucks, flightline generators and other equipment. You have two grounded planes because they're waiting for parts, they simply took the good part from one plane and installed it on the other. When the parts came the second one was again in service.

      The installation, calibration, etc. is already paid for; the mechanics all get paid whether they have planes to fix or not.

    83. Re:Shit Happens by BancBoy · · Score: 1

      Sling-shot launching that Reliant Robin off an aircraft carrier damn nearly killed me!

      Rodney you dipstick!

      --
      [UID-HeinzIntel]
    84. Re:Shit Happens by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Almost every F1 driver disagrees with you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    85. Re:Shit Happens by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm not an aircraft designer, so I'm almost certainly making a bad assumption somewhere.

      That said, I am a mechanical engineer, and if someone told me to design a fuel tank and told me that the vents would get plugged up for maintenance, I'd probably try to design one part of the tank to be weaker than the rest so that it fails in a predictable way. As I said before - that may very well be what happened here - I don't have the facts. The plane did not crash, so clearly the tank failure was not catastrophic.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    86. Re:Shit Happens by Mockylock · · Score: 1

      No doubt. My brother shut down Andrews while working on an EA6B when he dropped a bolt into the wing....somewhere. That was a year before he told a pilot to check the drop release when the safety pin wasn't in place... which dropped the entire fuel tank and its contents throughout the hangar. Maybe it's just because of it being a newly 'scrutinized' aircraft, that made this news.

      --
      "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
    87. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying to locate the rock you've been hiding under your whole life

    88. Re:Shit Happens by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Yeah, was a KC-135a crew chief. On flight up to Alaska, after a phase inspection, we lost left hydraulic pressure when landing. Another tech jumped up and hit the crossover switch and dumped right system out. Had to manually crank down gear (and rock plane to get it to lock in place). Landed ok (with crash trucks and such all lined up/ready). Turned out, mechanic in phase inspection had left off two hydraulic line clamps. It vibrated in flight, came apart and we had some fun. But yeah, we've been kept out at a plane for 8 hours to find a missing pair of pliers (left inside wing fuel tank) or screw driver (dry bay location). Total PitA but definitely needed to keep these things up in the air.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    89. Re:Shit Happens by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      *golf clap*

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    90. Re:Shit Happens by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      /\ /\ /\

      Where's the fork lift?

      Over there // // //

      Airplane (1980)

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    91. Re:Shit Happens by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      That is the point. There was in effect a burst disk, in this case a relief vent, that the maintenance person removed and replaced with a plug. He may have been doing pressure testing looking for leaks. What should have happened was theworker should have counted the number of plugs installed vs the number of plugs removed and noticed a difference.

    92. Re:Shit Happens by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I was a crew chief as an E-3. All the flight line mechanics assigned to a particular plane were crew chiefs. There were also the Ute guys who drove the utes and the hanger mechanics, who specialized in systems.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    93. Re:Shit Happens by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's terrible! A perfectly good ditch shot to hell!

    94. Re:Shit Happens by sjames · · Score: 1

      The prof was absolutely correct. The empirical data supports the prof's position nicely (did it cause problems? Yes, it did. Was there another way that would have avoided that? Yes, several).

    95. Re:Shit Happens by sjames · · Score: 1

      They're also trained to put the bolt in the other way on everything else and they're told it is critical that they do so. Bad things happen when you drill one idea into the worker's heads over and over, then suddenly years later say "except for here". That's why you avoid doing that if there is any other option.

    96. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're also trained to put the bolt in the other way on everything else and they're told it is critical that they do so. ... you drill one idea into the worker's heads over and over

      You're telling them too much. The idea you're trying to drill into them is too high-level.

      The idea that you should be drilling in is that it is critical that they put the bolt in the correct way. And the correct way is whatever the design says. As long as they do that, they don't need to know, or care, why it is "correct".

    97. Re:Shit Happens by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2

      An atmospheric vent is not the same as a burst disc. The fuel tank is vented to the atmosphere to prevent rupturing the tank due to internal vacuum as the contents get pumped out to the engines during flight, or internal pressure changes as the plane changes altitude.

      Yes, under normal circumstances the tank would never be able to be pressurized above ambient because of the vents. But a burst disc as a backup safety device would have prevented such extensive damage to the tank and wing superstructure in the somewhat foreseeable event that the vents became obstructed for some reason, whether the reason is an idiot mechanic who left test plugs in, or something like icing over the external vent ports during flight. Much cheaper to replace a blown burst disc than to write off the whole airframe from the structural damage.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    98. Re:Shit Happens by sjames · · Score: 1

      It is human nature to need to know why.

    99. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bucket lift falling over was during a hanger light change. I was at Robins AFB (where it happened) when it happened. Ironically Robins is also the home of the JStars.

    100. Re:Shit Happens by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      It is human nature to need to know why.

      It isn't in China. Maybe that's why they are winning at manufacturing.

    101. Re:Shit Happens by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I've been an A&P for over 35 years and I've seen worse. (by pilots and mechanics)

      I worked in the power industry and the funniest one I saw was a screwdriver wedged into the bottom support plate of a steam generator's U-tubes.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    102. Re:Shit Happens by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      If I'm understanding the description correctly, the situation was that the workers were trained in general "always install a bolt this way, the other way is WRONG" but then got special instructions on one single bolt, "install this bolt the 'wrong' way". I would put most of the blame on the worker, but, yeah, this was asking for trouble.

    103. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down, sir. There is no one on the wing out there.

    104. Re:Shit Happens by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      When I was in the Air Force they cannibalized eqipment all the time. Planes, trucks, flightline generators and other equipment. You have two grounded planes because they're waiting for parts, they simply took the good part from one plane and installed it on the other. When the parts came the second one was again in service.

      We did the in the Navy as well, although I'm sure the Air Force and Army guys that donated the stuff didn't consider it cannibalization.

      The installation, calibration, etc. is already paid for; the mechanics all get paid whether they have planes to fix or not.

      Yea, it'll probably be a hanger queen with the critical stuff pulled and shipped back to a repair depot.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    105. Re:Shit Happens by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 2

      It is human nature to need to know why.

      It is human nature to ask why. Most people will promptly forget your explanation and simply do as they were originally instructed, satisfied merely in knowing there was a good reason for doing it that way.

    106. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or rather the Swedish route...

      The Swedish road administration tested a combined brake/accelerator pedal both a few years ago using a Saab 9-5.
      www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457501000112

    107. Re:Shit Happens by idontgno · · Score: 1

      "Ok, now hit the centerline drop release!"

      <click!>
      <THUMP! Slooosh!>

      "Centerline drop release, check."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    108. Re:Shit Happens by sjames · · Score: 1

      That in no way alters the conclusion.

    109. Re:Shit Happens by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is, if you say there's 25M of damage, isn't that supposed to mean it would cost 25M to repair? If you have an estimate for the repair, that means you can repair it; so why is it written off, instead?

      Well for several reasons..

      1.. The EC-8 fleet was built using USED commercial Boeing 707's This one was built in 1966. See the Service History
      2. The airframe may be close to the end of it's service life. The fleet was only designed to operate until 2025..
      The cost to repair my well exceed the return on investment over the next 10 years vs it's value as a source of spare parts.
      They have 17 more to continue operations with so that may also be a factor in their decision.

      http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-trashed-a-jstars/

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    110. Re:Shit Happens by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually it is human nature there. Denying human nature can work for a while, but it inevitably comes back to chomp you in the ass later.

    111. Re:Shit Happens by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      It was built in 1966
      Details on it's service life here
      http://www.707.adastron.com/qantas/VH-EBU.htm

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    112. Re:Shit Happens by tibit · · Score: 1

      Issuing non-idle throttle command (accelerator "down") and braking at the same time may be necessary if you want to obtain absolutely lowest reaction time in regaining wheel torque after braking. When I drive on freeways and need increased margin when changing lanes, I will not only use both feet, but I will maintain the engine speed above the idle speed of the torque converter (it's a car with automatic transmission). That way the engine always drives the transmission, not the other way round, and I don't have to waste time (tens of milliseconds) for the engine to come up to speed before it puts torque on the wheels. Properly using both feet in a car with an automatic transmission is the safest way of driving, in the terms of maintaining lowest possible reaction times.

      I'd be seriously pissed if I had to drive a car where depressing accelerator and brake caused the accelerator command to be overridden. It'd make me feel fairly unsafe. I'd perhaps like there to be a "maintain speed" mode, where the engine torque is controlled so that when the brake circuit pressure goes to "idle", the engine produces enough torque to overcome aerodynamic drag and thus maintain constant speed -- that'd be the ideal mode for freeway lane shifting I'd think.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    113. Re:Shit Happens by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      She knows clearance issues are why you install a shorter bolt Again, engineering design failed, miserably, so a way to blame the peon.

      If you insist on putting the brake pedal on the right foot and accelerator on the left, it doesn't matter how loudly you blame the driver, its still a design failure.

      Example of proper design: the space shuttle main engine system was designed so the engines physically could not gimbal into each other, so even if there was a software bug it couldn't damage the engines in that fashion.

      (No need to re-hash out all the reasons the shuttle system itself had numerous design failures, just pointing out a specific system that was designed properly)

    114. Re:Shit Happens by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      ?! If you put the pedals on different feet that's a design failure whichever way round you put them.

      What are you talking about? If you have a manual (stick shift), you definitely use two feet, don't you? (I sure did..) ...even with an automatic, as long as you don't ride the brake, anecdotally I've heard (e.g. from people asking at the DMV or driving instructors) that it's ok to use two different feet there too. I think the older generation sometimes uses two feet, even with an automatic.

    115. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be worse- could have been SQL Server.

    116. Re:Shit Happens by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      I remember reading that as i have repeated the story many times. The women on the assembly line could not grasp why you would stick a bolt in upside down. Always being taught to put it in facing down. So if the nut ever came loose the bolt would not come out. Even though as you said the instructions said to put it in upside down.

      The reason being the head of the bolt was shorter and would not interfere with a control cable.

      If you are putting a TV tower up, then you should put the bolts in upside down. If the nut comes off, then the bolt falls and is easier to detect and fix.

    117. Re:Shit Happens by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It's not the labour it's the cushy contractor agreements and the screwed right down very cheapest possible sub-contractor agreements.

      Watch the contractor wander off with millions of profits and the sub-contractor trying to get the job done for less that what it costs to do by charging extras, using cheap labour and taking short cuts all over the place.

      Meanwhile of course the contractor will be endeavouring to invent all sorts of crazy reasons why the job suddenly costs twist a much as originally estimated, and discussing with a few political appointees over a lunch in the Bahamas (makes it easier to deposit the 'er purchasing commissions).

      Now the contractors are pretty much charging ten times what they a screwing the sub-contractor for (whom the contractor will blame when anything goes wrong).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    118. Re:Shit Happens by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      hell I bet for 50 million you can get fricking Boeing to yank the wing off a retired 707 and perfectly fit it to that one.

      I think you're dreaming. Even at the time of production it is unlikely that there were long runs of identical wings fitted to the commercial 707: modifications as aircraft production lines run are the norm, not the exception. However, the KC-135 and 707 share common ancestor, not a common production line, so the odds of any commercial 707 wing fitting are minimal. The tanker wings have also been heavily modified to handle the newer engines and systems for pumping fuel out of wing storage tanks. Even if, and that's a big if, you got a "close enough" match (are there mothballed KC135s?), you still have to overhead of engineering modification processes and retooling for 707 work for essentially a one-off job. $50 million would barely cover the pizza bill.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    119. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't speak about the 707, but A380 has vents and redundant burst discs (pressure fuses basically). Even with the calibrated burst discs, the pressure that the structure has to tolerate is a PITA to design for, because it drives the size of quite a lot of the wing structure. Critical failure case was blocked vent, now for the first time I see how that can happen :)

    120. Re:Shit Happens by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      I Work for the company that buys them!
      No kidding, we own a Hawker 800 that had the right engine taken off by a heat seeker ( didn't detonate) while on a demo flight somewhere in Africa.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    121. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait - Engineering designed it to work a certain way, made the instructions to indicate that, and then she did it a different way? And she is not at fault how, exactly?

      I mean if I attach the battery to my car backwards and it blows up some stuff, I am sure that is pretty much my fault.

      That said, I would design something like an airplane to tolerate things being put in backwards, since failure = death.

    122. Re:Shit Happens by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Sling-shot launching that Reliant Robin off an aircraft carrier damn nearly killed me!"

      Somehow I'll bet that's been tried.

      .

      Yup.

    123. Re:Shit Happens by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Jeez, that had to be an ass clencher of a flight. My dad was flying a G-1 over Angola back in the early 90's and had a SAM shot at him. Luckily the missile malfunctioned.

    124. Re:Shit Happens by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      It is human nature to need to know why.

      It isn't in China. Maybe that's why they are winning at manufacturing.

      Except that, you know, the largest manufacturer in the world is still the United States. China is gaining. But they aren't winning yet.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    125. Re:Shit Happens by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree, mostly. However, they had better check with the people who were paid to think before they go ahead and do something contrary to what they were instructed to do, just because they thought the instructions weren't right.

      But they did do what they were instructed to do, that is to say put bolts in head up. So now they were in a situation with conflicting instructions, and they followed the "superseding one". In hindsight they shouldn't have, but that's in hindsight.

      I get the feeling from your post that you assume that engineering/management can walk on water, and let me tell you that most of the time we're only slightly less full of it than the people on the shop floor. If at all. (I don't like the "not paid to think" sentiment one bit.) So blindly following orders wouldn't have worked one bit better overall. As an engineer I place the blame for this almost solely at the feet of engineering.

      In fact, in the wider sense, this is an almost perfect example of an interface that kills. This design was a disaster waiting to happen. And it did.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    126. Re:Shit Happens by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      Yea, that's what happened to this one. It went right up the tailpipe but didn't explode.
      The pilots were BAE salesmen. They were flying the president of some African country and I guess it was an attempted assassination.
      Here's a pix: http://nefarious-240z.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=425

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    127. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A C-135 is actually smaller, and not even the same cross-sectional shape as the 707 from which the JSTARS aircraft is made. While the electronics package might, or might not fit, there would certainly be a lot of modification to install it into a -135.
      No "free" airframe is ever free. I know this from lots of first hand experience.

    128. Re:Shit Happens by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Your English broke...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    129. Re:Shit Happens by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That was part of the issue. If the banks were allowed to refuse the bad loans, most of the derivatives would not have crashed. It was a two part issue, but even without the derivatives, all those loans would have defaulted.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    130. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USAF is not thanking anybody for this accident. There is no 'nicer' model airframe replacement for this loss. In fact, the E-8 platform was built from refurbished 707 airliners.

    131. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been paying invoices to A&P's for over ten years and I've seen worse.

    132. Re:Shit Happens by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's what they're saying. I think they're saying "it would cost $25 million to fly again, but it's useful life will be degraded, so we're better off scrapping the airplane and pulling a spare off the line". I think someone else's comment is correct, that the $250 million price tag is not really what's being lost, because much of that is equipment that could be moved to another airframe.

    133. Re:Shit Happens by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, considering how often aerial refueling is successfully completed in the Air Force (probably thousands of times a year, in total), and how rare this type of problem is, I think the current solution has proven to work pretty well. Even where the current solution failed, it did not fail catastrophically (only failed expensively).

      In hindsight, a more expensive venting solution, if rolled out across the entire Air Force fleet, would almost certainly have cost more than the $ cost of this misshap, and no lives would have been saved. Hopefully, the lessons-learned here will continue to keep the lives lost at zero, and the $ cost minimal.

    134. Re:Shit Happens by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      I agree. Engineers need to design with the real world in mind, including any current practices that assembly and maintenance workers might have learned.

      Another example is the DC-10 engine falling off (271 people died on an American Airlines flight). American Airlines used a procedure when disassembling the engine housing that damaged the pylon of the DC-10's engine. However, the same procedure did not damage pylons of other airframe designs. It is a little less straightforward than that sounds, though, because American's procedure was relatively new, so McDonnell Douglas engineers should not have necessarily designed with the procedure in mind. McDonnell Douglas also warned American against the procedure. However, other airframes did not experience problems with the procedure, so the findings did place some blame on MD for having designed a (relatively) fragile pylon system. NTSB spread the blame around pretty widely in it's findings: American, MD and FAA all get some criticism.

    135. Re:Shit Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That in no way alters the conclusion.

      which is that they will do as they're instructed if they intend to remain very long in employ there.

    136. Re:Shit Happens by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The error is that even assembly line workers are paid to think. Many times they catch errors and better solutions for assembly issues. In this case the issues was that the engineer created a solution that makes a human factors error just about a sure thing.
      Oh and any arguments about things like weight and other restrictions on aircraft is a bit silly. This was on an F-86 no some low production research aircraft. It was designed to be built in large numbers.
      Now yes the person putting the bolt in should have asked his superviser BTW in the story I read it was a he that put in the bolt. But the superviser might have said,"Just put it in the way way you always do. I am sure that it will not make a difference."
      Or they may have even taken it to a production engineer and he might have not seen any reason to not put it in the standard way.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    137. Re:Shit Happens by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      the person putting the bolt in should have asked his superviser ... the superviser might have said,"Just put it in the way way you always do. I am sure that it will not make a difference." ... Or they may have even taken it to a production engineer and he might have not seen any reason to not put it in the standard way

      At their own peril. Or, they could learn from past mistakes.

    138. Re:Shit Happens by cynyr · · Score: 1

      perhaps a slightly weaker than the rest of the tanks spot, designed so that when it did fail it would miss spars, and all other vital equipment?

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  2. Government Contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Government contractors. Saving you money like they have never saved it before.

    1. Re:Government Contractors by SolusSD · · Score: 2

      Why would privatizing these jobs magically cause them to be done competently? I've seen plenty of incompetence in the private sector.

    2. Re:Government Contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The article says it was done by a contractor; i.e. it was privatized. Unless you mean "privatize the whole military"? That strikes me as a bad idea.

    3. Re:Government Contractors by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

      In the real world, a contractor damages $244,000,000.00 of someone's shit, the contractor is paying $244,000,000.00 plus loss of use costs until replacement.

      In the government run world, everyone will have a laugh and the taxpayers will pick up the tab.

    4. Re:Government Contractors by Geraden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the real world, faced with $244,000,000 in lawsuits, the contractor folds up and declares bankruptcy.

      Then everyone will have a laugh and the taxpayers will pick up the tab.

    5. Re:Government Contractors by locopuyo · · Score: 2

      The government would not pick up the tab, the company would go out of business. Unless of course it is a bank or union controlled megacorporation getting secret bailout money.

    6. Re:Government Contractors by s-whs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the real world, a contractor damages $244,000,000.00 of someone's shit, the contractor is paying $244,000,000.00 plus loss of use costs until replacement. In the government run world, everyone will have a laugh and the taxpayers will pick up the tab.

      In the real world, faced with $244,000,000 in lawsuits, the contractor folds up and declares bankruptcy. Then everyone will have a laugh and the taxpayers will pick up the tab.

      In the real world, whatever happens, everyone will pay for this. What do you think happens if that firm is properly insured? The insurance company pays and will increase rates for everyone, not just that firm that made the mistake (you can't do stats on a single mistake anyway, and the insurance firm needs to get that money from somewhere if they are to remain as profitable).

      So everyone pays more insurance, this means the companies who pay more insurance have more costs and increase their rates etc. This is not something insulated. Ditto for bankruptcies, not everyone pays as much everyone pays for it in the end.

    7. Re:Government Contractors by kaiser423 · · Score: 2

      No, the government picks up some of the pensions of the busted company. Basic Bain capital 101 -- If a company is going under, loot the pension fund, pay it to yourself and then declare bankruptcy. Then the taxpayer picks up the tab to keep those people from being homeless in the streets and committing crimes and rioting and killing executives in the form of pension guarantees, poverty assistance, etc.

    8. Re:Government Contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the real world, the contractor wouldn't have been let near the plane without a $244,000,000 bond. Thus, alcmaeon (684971) is correct and you (Geraden (15689)) are wrong.

    9. Re:Government Contractors by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      This is the main reason that the proliferation of contractors is so rampant in the government and the business world overall today. They're an expendable device. Contract employee gets hurt? Contractor's problem. Contractor damages something? Contractor's insurance company takes care of it. Oh no, the contractor caused millions of damage? Oh well, close up shop and start a similar company under a different name.

    10. Re:Government Contractors by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      How about you find any part of government and government contracting that Obama has changed? Just one, please. No president can walk in, and clean house, changing the rules of the game. Obama is doing military contracting just like Bush did, just like Clinton did, right on back to Kennedy at least. And, probably further. One man isn't going to change the system, no matter how much authority he has. DERP!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:Government Contractors by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Depends who the contractor is. I dont think Lockheed or General Dynamics, for example, would fold up and declare bankruptcy over $244 million.

    12. Re:Government Contractors by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      The government would not pick up the tab, the company would go out of business.

      The company goes out of business without reimbursing the government for any damage done, so the government foots the bill. The corporate principals then re-incorporate under a different name and continue business as usual.

    13. Re:Government Contractors by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Incompetent companies tend to go bust unless the government bails them out. In this case the company could be required to buy insurance to cover the cost of a written-off aircraft, which would mean they'd have to convince an insurance company to put up quarter of a billion dollars... not so easy unless you can provide some kind of proof of competence.

      The problem is that government is rarely competent enough to set the rules in such a way that they'll end up hiring a competent contractor rather than Joe Senator's cousin.

    14. Re:Government Contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the real world, insurance companies average out good years and bad years so in effect, premiums are never impacted by one guy's fuckup.

      Also in the real world, if you are so good at your job you can convince an underwriter that you won't be a fuckup, you get a lower premium (because you will likely not fuck up). Win win.

    15. Re:Government Contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the real world, faced with $244,000,000 in lawsuits, the contractor folds up and declares bankruptcy.

      Actually, contractors are frequently required to be bonded by an insurance company of sorts. If they screw up a project, the bonding company is required to cover the damages to the maximum amount of the bond. Then the bonding company goes after the contractor for the fee. And that's when the contractor folds up and declares bankruptcy.

      As a contractor who has been involved in such a scenario, I'm posting anonymously.

    16. Re:Government Contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the company folds up and declares bankruptcy. Then everyone has a laugh and whoever suffered the damage is left holding the bag. Oh, and if that's the government, well, the taxpayers end up paying for it.

    17. Re:Government Contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government: risking lives by saving tax on sensors, like they've never hoarded your tax before.

  3. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Funny

    you forgot "And suggest private industry could do better"

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  4. if in doubt.. by johnvile · · Score: 0

    blame "a contractor".

    --
    "What Are They Gonna Do When Were All Using Freenet"
    1. Re:if in doubt.. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Informative

      blame "a contractor".

      Especially when the contractor WAS negligent.

  5. I feel better now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The most I ever cost my employer for a screw up is about $1.1 million.

    1. Re:I feel better now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell us more.

    2. Re:I feel better now by mpoulton · · Score: 1

      The most I ever cost my employer for a screw up is about $1.1 million.

      This is the reality of business. People make mistakes, and when the stakes are high the mistakes are expensive. Anyone whose career trajectory includes positions of great responsibility WILL eventually make mistakes in this general price range. It doesn't mean they're bad at their jobs or should be fired, it's just a cost of achieving big things. I've only made about a $20,000 mistake, but I was fresh out of college so my damage potential was limited.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
  6. RFID by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like a great case for RFID inventory control ; tag every tool, log them out of the toolbox with a loop mounted on the side, log them back in again when you return them.

    The article linked mentions this on the second page ; I don't see why you should be limited to the 3M solution though (except maybe they'll bribe someone to make it a regulatory necessity). You can get nearly 2,000 tags for about $100, so it's not like it would be expensive.

    1. Re:RFID by phonewebcam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You can get nearly 2,000 tags for about $100"
      You or I could, but the essential middlemen selling the same stuff to the government would add at least three zeros to the end of that figure

    2. Re:RFID by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      Seems overly complex. Why not just have the toolbox be able to detect what tools are contained within? Not even bother with the side loop. It could then have a nice little display of how many (and even what) tools are not inside.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:RFID by webnut77 · · Score: 2

      so it's not like it would be expensive

      This is the government. It WILL be expensive.

    4. Re:RFID by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      I'm betting the could do it for less than $25 miliion.

    5. Re:RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mechanics would just get sick of it and let the battery run out, that's why. Or they would desensitize the instruments when nobody's looking, that's why. Or they would slip in their own tools to use, that's why. Because -- the only reason that matters.

    6. Re:RFID by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      That is one method of detecting what tools are contained within. The toolbox has to have some method of determining what tools it contains and a tag on each tool and a single reader on the toolbox is about as simple as it can get.

    7. Re:RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the mechanic is going to get the blame and fallout for this, costing him/her job and more, I'd say the others will do it on their own. Besides, I thought the idea of hiring private contractors was to reduce costs for things like this?

      I lived in a communist country for the first years of my life, and it was common to think, "it's for the government("state"), who gives a fuck?"

    8. Re:RFID by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I was suggesting the whole box be a reader, as having the extra activity of swiping the tool through a loop may be omitted in a rush.

      It would be best if no extra activity were needed to detect which tools are in the box - which means, there is either (a) no way to access the tools except through the "loop", or (b) the toolbox can do a live inventory of it's contents at any time.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    9. Re:RFID by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are a lot of misconceptions about how contractors work, because typically, their profit margins are no higher than in other lines of business.

      The government is big on COTS hardware/software, and only turn to contractors for specialized circumstances. Those extra zeros come from the unusual design requirements and low volume orders.

      Take the x thousand dollar hammer example. On the surface, that seems absurd, since one can buy a hammer for less than 10$. But when the hammer is going into space and is made of a difficult to machine titanium alloy (tool steel shatters at cold temperatures), is egonomic even through spacesuit gloves, is lightened without reducing mechanical efficiency (makes sense at an estimated 1000$/pound/launch), and only 10 are made (despite flat machining costs), that X or XX thousand dollar price tag seems very affordable.

      The same thing happens in other areas. I work on submarines and some components use joysticks. Sure, commercial joysticks can be obtained for under 100$, but a waterproofed, pov only motion, high durability (sailors treat equipment like crap, and failure is not an option) piece of clockwork machinery that maybe 50 will be made, you are looking at just shy of XX thousand per.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    10. Re:RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be best if no extra activity were needed to detect which tools are in the box - which means, there is either (a) no way to access the tools except through the "loop", or (b) the toolbox can do a live inventory of it's contents at any time

      Too high tech. That will break at some point. Toolboxes get dropped, bounced around, rained on. The batteries will die. The mechanic, now not being used to inventory his stuff, will not notice something is missing.

    11. Re:RFID by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      Ummm, I'd recon an airplane wing makes a pretty good Faraday cage.

    12. Re:RFID by XrayJunkie · · Score: 1

      Never, way to costly!

    13. Re:RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of expensive and questionable hight-tech solutions like that, howzabout a printed sign-out/sign-in checklist, costing pennies per the hundreds, and a firmly delivered, "comply with standard procedures or face dire consequences" to those involved? Standard FOD and tool inventory procedures are a pretty well sussed out thing in aerospace and work quite nicely- as long as you adhere to them.

      This is crying out for the KISS principle, not more money being tossed at it.

    14. Re:RFID by fedos · · Score: 1

      Except for the RFID, this is how tool control works. Every item is logged in and out. And if you're doing it correctly and following the procedure then you don't need the RFID.

    15. Re:RFID by fedos · · Score: 1

      Because you want a log of who took the tool and for what purpose. So when you turn up short you know where to go.

    16. Re:RFID by vlm · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a great case for RFID inventory control ; tag every tool, log them out of the toolbox with a loop mounted on the side, log them back in again when you return them.

      Who fills out the ISO9000 report paperwork documenting the RFID hasn't fallen off the tool and remains in the bottom of the toolbox? You could generate an exception report of tools that were supposed to be used but haven't been used in "X" months, but then someone needs to review that and follow up and most importantly, document it and get a sign off from their boss.

      If the RFID falls off a $125000 radar spectrum analyzer, does that make it non-compliant and eligible to be sold to techs buddy for $50 govt surplus or ... just what level of corruption is allowable here WRT to compliance?

      You know the govt contracted to a contractor, but the contractor probably contracted to a subcontractor 1099'd A/P freelancer. Who tags his tools? Or should only subs who charge twice as much per hour because they "are in the system" be hired? Looking at total airforce annual labor costs, It could be cheaper to buy a new airframe once in a while rather than pay twice as much for labor.

      Those RFIDs... can't work on planes without them... so they're not a strategic national asset and require domestic second sourcing... bye bye to 2000 tags for $100.

      Those RFIDs... merely commercial/industrial temp range or aerospace grade? What works for walmart in Georgia isn't going to work in Alaska.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    17. Re:RFID by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure that was the solution they had in place.

      It failed.

      Sometimes you need more money tossed at it to lower the failure rate.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    18. Re:RFID by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Walmart is in Alaska.

      http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/statebystate/State.aspx?st=AK

      In fact, there's 4 times as many Walmart owned stores as there are military bases in Alaska.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    19. Re:RFID by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      How about a checklist? That's what we used when I was in the Army, and it always worked. When we finished a maintenance activity, I verified that every tool that was supposed to be in a particular toolbox was back in it.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    20. Re:RFID by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the 70s, our tool kit was a canvas bag. We had to check it before we went to the flight line and both of us signed off that it was complete. Then before we LEFT the flight line, we counted again and signed off that it was complete. If the bird was scheduled to fly before we could get back to the tool crib, the crew chief also counted and signed off. Then we returned to the shop, checked the bag in and it was counted again before we could sign off on the work.

      If the tool crib did not get all the tools back, the bird would held until we found the tool or the bird was inspected inside and out. For 2 years I was there, we never lost a tool, and I never heard of anyone losing a tool from any other shop. In fact, my usual task was to lock a fixture, and I had the speed wrench on a wrist leash. Fortunately I never worked on a bird with engines running, which was a whole different protocol.

      It is not that hard to count. From the description of this process, I'm disappointed that the shop didn't have a tool board that would show an empty spot, nor any process to question a missing tool. In our shop back then, a missing tool for ANY reason would have been grounds for a complete inspection, evaluation, and questioning. I wasn't allowed to carry tools into the shop, even that teeny screwdriver we used for rotary switches. Absolute control within the shop system.

      Leaving something on equipment was just inexcusable. Shocking really.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    21. Re:RFID by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Heh, the same concept here in capitalist countries.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    22. Re:RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A much cheaper solution would be to do a pressure test at the end of that particular maintenance activity to ensure the proper operation of the relief valve. You know, some line connectors similar to the refueling tanker, a pressure guage or two, and perhaps another relief on a T to the fuel line used during the test to limit any overpressure. If it doesn't pass, something is wrong, no green light to fly until you figure out what it is.

      I'd say the downfall isn't just in logging of the maintenance activity, but also in the schedule of tasks to ensure it was done correctly.

      Not like I was military at one point and had to do PMS/3M stuff or anything. Not aircraft, but still some systems you don't dick around with when it comes to safety.

    23. Re:RFID by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      If you don't think those "profit margins" can't be hidden away through operating costs and executive salaries, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    24. Re:RFID by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 0

      I disagree that it's best to have an auto-magic tool detection system anyway. The point isn't to make tool tracking absolutely foolproof, the point is to remind the engineer not to be foolish.

    25. Re:RFID by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I meant Air Force bases.

      There's only 33% more Walmarts than all military bases in AK.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    26. Re:RFID by TrueKonrads · · Score: 1

      This is done in medicine - tools are RFID tagged and before patient is sewed back together, they do a sweep.

      --
      Lone Gunmen crew.
    27. Re:RFID by Malenx · · Score: 1

      When I worked on the AWACS as a computer technician, we checked out all of our tools from a tool shop. Every toolbox has an inventory of all the tools inside it. Each area of the tool box has a foam cutout fit perfectly inside with shapes cutout of the tools that goes in the spots. Every single independent piece has it's own location. Every toolbox has the same layout and every tool is etched with a serial number that's tracked in a database and on paper.

      When you checkout a toolbox, the tool shop inventories the tools, looking in every spot and touching every tool with their fingers while they count the total tools found per area. It's really easy to see if a tool is missing because of the cutouts and the count is a double check of the inventory checklist.

      Then the technician takes the toolbox and re-performs the inventory, checking every level of the toolbox, counting the tools, and when all the tools are accounted for then the tool shop scans the box with the airmen's ID number. The airmen is now personally responsible for every tool, which is why they double check in case the shop screwed up.

      When they check it back in, the same thing occurs backwards. If a tool is missing and they can't find it on them, they immediately report it to their shop. Every airplane they went to is "unofficially grounded" and they have one hour to find the tool. If it's not found, then every plane is officially grounded that they went to and it's reported to the squadron commander. Needless to say a lot more brass begins to get involved at that point which puts a lot more pressure on the shops and the airmen. It wasn't common every few months to see 30 airmen walking in a line down the flightline looking for a single screwdriver. A friend lost a flashlight when it fell down a hatch and ended up buried in insulation along the belly of the jet. That stupid flashlight took 15 airmen 2 hours to find.

      This doesn't just occur for toolboxes, but every tool used for aircraft maintenance.

      The USAF has very high standards of Q.A., their subcontractors however are the idiots in this scenario.

    28. Re:RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flight line tool boxes have water jeted foam cut-outs for each tool, if you have an empty hole in your toolbox the job is not done!

    29. Re:RFID by smackmywhammy · · Score: 2

      Hell, the parts are CHEAP, even for the astronaut's titanium hammer. The certification paperwork and the personnel time to execute certification testing and report generation for materials origin, handling, intermediate/final assembly, and shipping is the big money. When I worked at rockyworld, we shipped our FAQT radio for about $2M and barely broke even, parts were about $75K of that number.

    30. Re:RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked flightline until 2006 and it was the same basic thing. you checked tools out, made sure they were all on the box inventory (we actually used handy little foam cut outs to make it easy to see missing tools). missing tools were marked before we signed out the box. when we were done with it we had to sign it back in and they to have two people do the check in. if something was missing, you had about 15 minutes to find it before they called the supervisor and grounded all the planes you touched since the box was out. I don't remember one tool missing in the 6 years I worked the flightline.

    31. Re:RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other reason why government crap costs so much is the amount of requirements and certification required. I work in the construction industry, if you need a construction manager you simply higher one. Defence industry project however now you required to have defence industry certification and training just to respond to an RFP, you also have to speak their language use there preapproved vendors wait 6 months to get paid, and have to fill out everythign in triplicate even if you have to wipe your you know what.

    32. Re:RFID by darkonc · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great case for RFID inventory control ; tag every tool, log them out of the toolbox with a loop mounted on the side, log them back in again when you return them.

      Then an RFID tag falls off of a plug and another wing tank gets ruined. RFID is a useful aid, just don't expect it to be a flawless replacement for people keeping their eyes open.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  7. I expected it was a problem with ball bearings by killmenow · · Score: 2

    It's all ball bearings these days.

    1. Re:I expected it was a problem with ball bearings by cide1 · · Score: 2

      and fetzer valves

      --
      -- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
    2. Re:I expected it was a problem with ball bearings by Pope · · Score: 1

      Better make it Quaker State.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    3. Re:I expected it was a problem with ball bearings by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I thought the problem was self-sealing stem bolts

      --
      Good-bye
  8. Only 244 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    244 million? Isn't that minuscule? CEOs regularly crash the stock market. But at least they take responsibility! Like... becoming CEO somewhere else?

    1. Re:Only 244 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...CEOs crash the stock market? ok, let's just blame the evil "CEOs" for everything.

    2. Re:Only 244 million? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Similarly, if a new aircraft would cost $244 million, while it sustained just $25 million worth of damages, how exactly has it been damaged beyond economical repair? Am I just missing something here?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    3. Re:Only 244 million? by HuntingHades · · Score: 2

      A large amount of that cost is the electronics system on board (countermeasures, surveillance systems, radar, etc). The plane itself is a modified Boeing 707-300, with upgraded engines and other equipment, so the actual plane is probably somewhere in the $35-60 million range (although I'm guessing there, I can't find solid numbers) Based on that its probably more economical to salvage the equipment to be reused in a new unit, or as parts to repair other units as needed.

    4. Re:Only 244 million? by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      HuntingHades had a really good answer but also take in to consideration that the aircraft in question was probably older than most Slashdotters. The last 707 rolled out of the factory in 1979 and the Air Force has been beating the shit out of them ever since. Even with upgrade programs, airframe strengthening, and all the maintenance you can stand, metal wears out, tiny fractures that you can't detect lead to big cracks that make really important parts fall off at the worst of times.

      The amount of stress put on the metal in an aircraft is pretty enormous, and there isn't a whole lot you can do about that. The damage may be $25M, but the COST to get that aircraft flight worthy is much much higher.

  9. Contractor vs. Organic by eagle1361 · · Score: 1

    Que the contractor vs. organic AF maintenance argument. And "blame the contractor" is always a fun game.

  10. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government failed to supervise lowest-bidder contractors. Of course I blame the government.

  11. I'm not really understanding... by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A few points occur to me:

    1_ ...how $25 million in repairs is "beyond economical repair" on a $240 million plane? If I have a $20,000 car that's in an accident, it's not uncommon to have $2000 in repairs...that's hardly "totalled".

    2. Now, looking at the pictures, that's pretty serious...but then it's more than $25 million in damage.

    3. the E8 is a converted 707...didn't they stop building those in the 1970s? If this is a 30 year old airframe (at best) then either that damage is $25 million or the plane is worth less than $240 million today.

    4. Finally, as I understand it this damage was done by a subcontractor. When I use subcontractors, they have liability insurance to cover the systems they're working on, plus potential liabilities. Doesn't the US government require AT LEAST such protections when farming out work to contractors?

    By the way, I'd like to further remind the Air Force that this is a COMBAT aircraft. Granted, it's not supposed to be in dogfights or shot at, but this is a piece of military equipment, maintained in difficult conditions/circumstances by relatively inexperienced crew (for example an aircraft carrier's crew largely is swapped out about every 18-36 months). That seems incompatible with its evident fragility.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:I'm not really understanding... by confused+one · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've hit the nail on the head with #1 - #3. They totalled a 707 airframe, which is not a $244 million dollar plane. Most of that $244 million cost is what makes a 707 a JSTARS -- the payload. And the payload will probably be salvaged and re-used either to build another JSTARS or as spares to support the existing JSTARS platforms. This is being way over-hyped. Big oops for the contractor -- I wouldn't renew the contract; but, I'm not government.

    2. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a classic case of the Gov setting up the contractor for pay-out. It's not just frivolous plaintiffs who do this crap...the Gov sets the standard for it. Don't get me wrong, the contractor should have to make things right (which is why they carry E&O insurance), but the Gov will try to rake them over the coals.

    3. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      3. the E8 is a converted 707...didn't they stop building those in the 1970s? If this is a 30 year old airframe (at best) then either that damage is $25 million or the plane is worth less than $240 million today.

      They're probably comparing apples and oranges here, the new cost was $244 million but the planes have been in service of some form since 1991, the accident was in 2009. Secondly, that probably includes a lot of R&D costs so a $25 million dollar could be a much larger part of the production cost. Third, maybe the military's needs have changed or other types of craft do better, it might make sense to operate but not necessarily to spend that much to keep it in service.

      Finally, as I understand it this damage was done by a subcontractor. When I use subcontractors, they have liability insurance to cover the systems they're working on, plus potential liabilities. Doesn't the US government require AT LEAST such protections when farming out work to contractors?

      They certainly could, but nothing comes free so the government would have to pay higher rates. If you're big enough you may choose to take that risk yourself and use incidents like this in performance evaluations and future negotiations instead.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      It probably basically totalled the airframe. At that point it's cheaper to take the payload out- but don't think pulling the payload and putting it into a new 707 is going to be cheap. It's probably going to cost something on the order of a third to half of the 25 mil at least to do it and then recertify the new plane for service.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    5. Re:I'm not really understanding... by jittles · · Score: 1

      It probably basically totalled the airframe. At that point it's cheaper to take the payload out- but don't think pulling the payload and putting it into a new 707 is going to be cheap. It's probably going to cost something on the order of a third to half of the 25 mil at least to do it and then recertify the new plane for service.

      You'd think that, but I'd be willing to bet that you're wrong. I'd be willing to bet that they will have mechanics pick the parts off of that thing in their downtime. You see, the military keeps mechanics on staff for 3 shifts a day. They may not be fully tasked all the time, but need to have enough mechanics to fix everything as quickly as possible when the workload is at its worst. I'd be willing to bet that they spend several months picking that thing clean when their mechanics have free time. They were going to pay those mechanics anyway.

    6. Re:I'm not really understanding... by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I tend to agree with you -- they'll likely use the parts for spares. The 707 is an old airframe. The US AirForce has hundreds of them -- they apparently bought a couple hundred used commercial 707s just for the spare parts. But, unless they need another JSTARS, they won't convert another one.

    7. Re:I'm not really understanding... by draggin_fly · · Score: 1

      It may be useful to look at this from a different point of view economically.

      1) It's hard to get these plane parts
      2) Hey, this jet pilot just landed $200 million worth of parts

      They may never trust this plane to fly correctly again but that doesn't mean it's completely useless.

    8. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wouldn't renew the contract; but, I'm not government."

      A single mistake by one team should not shred a contract... particularly where I'm guessing there aren't /that/ many alternatives out there...

      I'd say at a minimum the person who was responsible for removing the cap, and the person who is responsible for checking that the cap was removed, should potentially be let go--unless there is some extenuating circumstance.

      But to kill a contract which potentially has dozens, hundreds or even thousands of workers as part of the contract... all because 1-2 guys screwed up?

      Frankly the military ought to be performing it's OWN checks/balances on these repairs... the fact that it's handed completely to a private contractor seems a bit odd...

    9. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people act like one mistake is the difference between keeping a contract and losing a contract? If I was in the position of renewing the contract I would be asking what are all the issues that have occurred and has the company learned from them and set up systems to stop it from happening again. Same with a management position. You can't just run a slave ship. People who actually learn from their mistakes are a valuable asset as the cost of replacing them and getting the second person up to speed is way more then the original person learning from the mistake. Further, the second person no experience with the mistake and could easily do the exact same thing.

    10. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hundreds? Try less than 3 dozen. And the can birds are also worn out pieces of shit. But let's throw good money after bad isntead of replace them with something that's affordable, maintainable, or pumps 80% less burnt jet fuel into the atmosphere.

    11. Re:I'm not really understanding... by squidflakes · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I lived just off the end of the runway of the airport where they assembled and tested the original JSTAR. It was a big deal in my town because every third person living there worked for a defense contractor, and you couldn't sling a dead cat without hitting someone working on the project. I remember seeing the JSTAR every day on the way to work, and what they had to do to that 707's airframe could easily be described as flaying.

      I'd never seen an aircraft pulled that far open, even for major overhauls or refits. The JSTAR upgrade touched every single system on that plane, but after they sealed her back up, she looked like every other KC-135, except with that thingy behind the nose wheel and no refueling boom.

      So no, JSTAR conversions aren't cheap. Not by a long shot.

    12. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      How is 1000 dollars in car repairs on a 20 year old car that cost 20k new enough to make it not worth repairing? Same problem. At some point you can spent 25 million dollars on repairs, but in conjunction with everything else that will go wrong with the airframe it isn't worth spending that money since enough other things will be wrong with it it's just going to be a giant maintenance sink.

      Buying a *replacement* airplane new would probably cost 244 million or something along those lines. I just junked a 93 dodge caravan, and a new 2012 dodge caravan costs about 24K (which is more or less what we paid for the 93 dodge when we bought it used in 94). And as others have pointed out, they probably salvaged a chunk of the electronics or the like (or are using this as an excuse to just buy a new set)

      4. Probably not for everything. The US may self insure. Lots of big outfits do that, especially if you're working on super expensive or difficult to replace stuff. A 70k/year mechanic just did 25 million dollars in damage to an aircraft, what do you think the insurance costs are going to look like on that? The US government and military are also big enough that being insured probably costs you more money than dealing with it yourself. Remember the insurance company makes a profit, so if you're big enough to have a statistical average of accidents you manage your own insurance and don't pay someone else extra on top. And if you're talking about contractors they may not be able to afford insurance to work on billions of dollars in aircraft for hundreds of thousands of dollars, the risk is simply too high.

    13. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      1. Quite likely that airframe has thousands of hours on it. Attempting to repair the airframe makes little sense when you've got 100's of identical airframes sitting in the dessert in shrink wrap. The $200M isn't for the airframe but all the electronics on it, which can be moved to another airframe.

      2. When you repair an aircraft it's got to go through some very rigorous testing to ensure that other structural components (like the main spar, etc) haven't been damaged.

      3. Yes they did. And they've got enough mothballed spares that they'll be flying them for decades to come.

      4. I'm sure there's liability up to some amount... but no company is going to do business with the government if it has to carry that much liability insurance, it would be unprofitable.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    14. Re:I'm not really understanding... by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's funny wording. You have a car that cost $20,000 when you bought it 20 years ago. It leaks oil and it needs an engine rebuild sometime this year. Then it gets hit and takes another $2000 in damage.

      TFA likely didn't depreciate the new cost.

    15. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      AFAIK in the business of aircraft maintenance and repair you fuck up once and you are no longer in that business.

      It is not tolerable to learn from your mistakes when a mistake can lead to the death of hundreds.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    16. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I would call the airplane fragile. It survived what was basically explosive decompression. I'm sure there is better analogies but I can't think of one right now. The wing spars are made to be both strong and flexible. This overpressure cracked beams, not just the welded seams but fully casted beams. Expecting the aircraft to have survived better would be like hitting an F-15 with a missile and being shocked that it went down, because it's a combat aircraft. Okay, a little extreme but you get the idea.

    17. Re:I'm not really understanding... by afidel · · Score: 1

      What? Between KC135's and C135's there are probably hundreds of active airframes not to mention the hundreds in mothballs but with airworthy frames.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    18. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      It's not a KC-135.. The Air force wouldn't give any up to convert so they bought used 707-300s to build the EC-8 fleet..

      This one (number 93-0597) was built in December 1966 and delivered to Quantas in March of 1967 http://www.707.adastron.com/qantas/VH-EBU.htm

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    19. Re:I'm not really understanding... by afidel · · Score: 1

      And so is much of the current KC-135 fleet, they were commercial 707's bought during the 80's and converted.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:I'm not really understanding... by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      And so is much of the current KC-135 fleet, they were commercial 707's bought during the 80's and converted.

      No The C-135/ KC-135/ NC-135 (plus a few other variants) is not a converted 707.. It's it's own model.
        Boeing stopped building the 135 series after 1965 the military just keeps refitting them.

      Like its sibling, the commercial Boeing 707 jet airliner, the KC-135 was derived from the Boeing 367-80 jet transport "proof of concept" demonstrator, which was commonly called the "Dash-80". As such the KC-135 is similar in appearance to the 707, but has a narrower fuselage and is shorter than the 707. The KC-135 predates the 707, and is structurally quite different from the civilian airliner. Boeing gave the future KC-135 tanker the initial designation Model 717.

      Some KC-135's were refitted with used 707 engines in the 80's (known as the KC-135E)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
  12. I don't get it. by crimguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    $25 million? It's not as if they had to repair the toilets or anything . . .

    1. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of that cost is for the systems that were installed on the aircraft. The $25 million likely covers the cost of replacing the aircraft.

  13. Warplane can't handle a hole? by rossjudson · · Score: 1

    So this is a plane that might get, you know, shot at? In a war or something? And it can't handle two little holes, or be repaired? Sounds like a design flaw to me.

    1. Re:Warplane can't handle a hole? by jholyhead · · Score: 1

      Just because the holes were visible from the outside doesn't mean that it is the only damage the aircraft suffered.

    2. Re:Warplane can't handle a hole? by cptdondo · · Score: 4, Informative

      None of the AWACS/JSTARS/etc planes are "made to be shot at". They're civilian airframes stuffed to the gills with super-secret electronics. They rely on fighters and ECM to stay up; they don't do any fighting themselves. Heck, they're unarmed.

    3. Re:Warplane can't handle a hole? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      the sealed tank overpressurized and started inflating like a balloon, inside the airframe. There's all sorts of structural damage where it literally ripped apart the structure from the inside.

    4. Re:Warplane can't handle a hole? by felipekk · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that's probably why the airplane was able to land after the damage suffered.

      It doesn't mean that after getting shot you don't have to repair the equipment.

    5. Re:Warplane can't handle a hole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think this is the kind of plane that get shot at. it's the kind that sits comfortably far away.

    6. Re:Warplane can't handle a hole? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      War planes are made to be shot at, but they are not made to be hit - there is no aircraft in which I would like to be hit by even a .22.

  14. typically misleading by confused+one · · Score: 4, Informative

    You lost an airframe. A significant fraction of that $244 million is payload and equipment that will be recovered and used as "spare parts" to maintain other JSTARS aircraft. The airframe is all that was lost. The airframe is a commercial 707 derivative. It's not an $244 million aircraft, it's a tricked out $5 million dollar aircraft. The issue, now, is replacing the system -- which means assembling another JSTARS. Given typical government contracting practices that will cost another $325 million (inflation adjusted from initial cost of $244 million in 1998).

    1. Re:typically misleading by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

      Given typical government contracting practices that will cost another $325 million (inflation adjusted from initial cost of $244 million in 1998).

      You sir, are an optimist!

      --
      Invenio via vel creo
  15. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, the government doesn't make $244 million mistakes. Just private industry. Better let the government take this over so nothing like this happens again.

  16. Look on the bright side by jholyhead · · Score: 1

    At least he chose to study engineering and not medicine.

    1. Re:Look on the bright side by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      People get medical kit left in them all the time. A $244 million person can afford better care.

    2. Re:Look on the bright side by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Surgical nurses typically handle the "tool inventory" on surgery ; all the operating theatres I've worked in have had excellent procedures, but you still hear stories about things being left behind in the patient...

    3. Re:Look on the bright side by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Like Junior Mints?

    4. Re:Look on the bright side by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, Atul Gawande has a whole book about how such simple things checklists vastly could help improve medical outcomes.
      And he reports the surgeons are mostly resistant to the idea.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  17. Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't a loss at all. This is a justification for more spending. At the top of the power pyramid, it doesn't matter where the money comes from, or even whether you "succeed" or "fail". What matters is that the money passes through your hands, giving you a chance to exploit that cash flow for personal gain.

  18. Similar incident at Tinker AFB by menos · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of another tool control issue that cost the AF a KC135 at Tinker AFB a few years ago.

    Basic gist was he used a homemade pressure gauge to test the integrity of the airframe post depot maintenance. The pressure relief valves had be sealed up during PDM and never reactivated. The technicians gauge had no peg so he failed to notice when the needle began its second trip.
    Needless to say the effects where impressive. Total write-off of the aircraft.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpGF3dVdj14

    1. Re:Similar incident at Tinker AFB by tomboalogo · · Score: 1

      Yup ya can't fix stupid!!

  19. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But government supervision is regulation, which is anti-jobs!

  20. Oh well by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If he were a banker he'd get a bonus ?

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    1. Re:Oh well by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      If he were a banker he'd get a bonus ?

      Or made Treasury Secretary.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  21. Even cheaper by ommerson · · Score: 2

    Simply weight the toolbox on the way out and again on the way back in.

    1. Re:Even cheaper by T-Bone-T · · Score: 2

      That doesn't tell you what tool(s) is/are missing, only that the set is incomplete.

    2. Re:Even cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Simply weight the toolbox on the way out and again on the way back in.

      Wouldn't work. Consumables. Safety wire, cotter pins, packing material. Even small, any of those is enough to cause a major problem. And far too small to be noticed when weighing a 75lb toolbox.
      The way it is normally done is by foam cutout for each tool. A quick look can tell you if something is not in place. Of course, you have to have the brainpower to actually look when you are leaving the area.

      (anon to not screw up previous mods)

    3. Re:Even cheaper by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Put the consumables in a separate box.

      However, the issue of WHAT is missing, as mentioned in the other thread, might be critical.

      Also, grease will get on/off tools, and I think that could make enough of a difference if there are any particularly light tools.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. Re:Even cheaper by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      Simply weight the toolbox...

      Not simple at all.

      Sure, you could detect fairly readily that your hammer was missing, but you're unlikely to catch a half-ounce drill bit or socket head when weighing a fifty-pound toolbox. For that matter, the box itself could change weight by that much if you don't notice a blob of grease or a few pieces of packing tape stuck on the bottom.

      And how accurate would a high-precision scale be after a few weeks of aircraft mechanics dropping heavy toolboxes on it at the beginning and end of every shift?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    5. Re:Even cheaper by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would have prevented this disaster...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:Even cheaper by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 0

      Exactly. All that was needed was a reminder that something wasn't right, and then it should have been up to the engineer to find out what it was. In fact, that's probably BETTER than pointing out exactly which tool is missing; that would create a false sense of security. Plus, the engineers will get trained to be meticulous as they work to avoid having to go over every inch of the aircraft after the job is "complete".

    7. Re:Even cheaper by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 1

      No it would not.
      A plug is not a tool.
      It would not have assigned or owned by a mechanic
      It would have been installed in the subassembly to keep out contamination.
      Depending on what style was used may have even looked exactly correct to anyone who did not completely understand the system operation.
      It probably should have been tagged/flagged when installed.

    8. Re:Even cheaper by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "And how accurate would a high-precision scale be after a few weeks of aircraft mechanics dropping heavy toolboxes on it at the beginning and end of every shift?"

      You don't need absolute accuracy, just enough repeatability over one shift.

    9. Re:Even cheaper by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Simply weight the toolbox on the way out and again on the way back in.

      Because if I carry my lunch out in the toolbox, the only way things work out is if I make a 'deposit' before weigh in. (And if I do that in the toolbox, how can I get a receipt for it later?)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  22. Epic? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    This is for what the 'epic' in 'epic fail' was invented.

  23. FUBAR by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Acronym brought to life.

  24. Re:Affirmative Action by Suiggy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No. That's the first thing you thought.

    I'm attacking Affirmative Action, which is the truly racist policy.

    I'm sure there are many excellent African aircraft mechanics. The problem is that Affirmative Action and diversity policies can overlook a persons lack of skill and credentials merely to meet some quota.

  25. Agile Military? by SpinningCone · · Score: 0

    At some point it would seem the complexity of our military hardware is a hindrance more than a help. what if it had been a bullet instead of a mistake? the plane is operable but takes $25 million in repairs and likely weeks (months?) to do so. or what if you need to maintain these at less then optimal conditions. your mechanics are slammed and it needs to get back in the air. should such a small thing permanently ground your aircraft?

    things like this make me think that if we were in a real prolonged WW3 type theater that our overly sophisticated military would begin to fail under pressures of less than optimal conditions.

    1. Re:Agile Military? by vlm · · Score: 1

      what if it had been a bullet instead of a mistake?

      LOL this model of vehicle is the ultimate REMF machine. If it eats a bullet we've already lost our entire military and been completely and totally utterly overrun. Like that plane contains the last living airmen in the entire USAF.

      Also from an engineering perspective its very easy to design something to take a bullet from the outside, but an overpressure failure from the inside? That is uneconomical to design for.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Agile Military? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      This isn't a combat "warplane". This is a SIGINT/Surveillance/etc. plane and was simply a commercial airframe that was stuffed to the gills with "spy gear". Simply put, any airframe of this nature would need to be pretty much scrapped when this incident happened because you've basically lost the wing. Has nothing to do with "complexity". Most of the gear's actually surprisingly agile and quickly demilled at the same time- it's just things like JSTARS isn't by their very nature.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  26. Utter nonsense by Sqreater · · Score: 0

    It is ass-covering of the lowest order to blame a lowly mechanic for what is obviously a design flaw. A simple sensor to monitor the presence of a plug in order to save a 244 million dollar craft is not too much to expect from the maker. Someone high should be fired, but they will throw the poor mechanic under the bus and feel competent and effective.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:Utter nonsense by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Remember that the airframe for this airplane (a KC-135) is basically a late 50s-early 60s design/build.

    2. Re:Utter nonsense by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is ass-covering of the lowest order to blame a lowly mechanic for what is obviously a design flaw. A simple sensor to monitor the presence of a plug

      Terrible design mistake because now someone needs to maintain, replace, test, and probably F-up that sensor. Also its heavy. The better design involves multiple permanently installed frangible disks on extra vent piping.

      See how hard design is? Finding incompetence is always easier than designing around it. First guess is usually wrong. That's probably what happened to the A+P mechanic, too.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Utter nonsense by vlm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember that the airframe for this airplane (a KC-135) is basically a late 50s-early 60s design/build.

      Whatever. Back then engineers had to be smarter because they couldn't rely on computers. The days of iron men, not heavy iron mainframes... Age is no excuse for poor design, assuming thats what you meant.

      More likely, since this has not been a popular failure mode over the past half century, the cost of designing it out probably exceeds the cost of just eating an airframe every century or two.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Utter nonsense by fedos · · Score: 2

      Exactly.

      Also, it's wrong to claim that if it is a design flaw then the mechanic isn't at fault. There is a standard procedure for maintenance and tool handling and the PDM contractor failed to follow it. If you read the accident report, you will see the disclaimer that it can't be used as evidence in a civil or criminal proceeding. The mopst likely consequence of this incident is that it will be written into the prime contractor's performace report and will thus affect future contract bids (contrary to popular belief, the government doesn't automatically award to the lowest bidder).

    5. Re:Utter nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, they will probably replace it with a 767 airframe carrying the same radar and electronics. It would be cheaper in fuel costs and have more room for payload.
      I think the air force wanted to do that with the AWACS too.

    6. Re:Utter nonsense by Sqreater · · Score: 1

      "Finding incompetence is always easier than designing around it."

      And when do you find it? After people have died?
      Sensors on the machinery I work on save my life and limbs every work day. And they do not need to be maintained, replaced, tested, etc as you say
      except very rarely. They do the job for the FSS machine in the USPS, and they would have done the same for the AF if the manufacturer had designed one in here.
      You can be sure they festoon the plane.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
    7. Re:Utter nonsense by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Oh? And just how many other possible-but-remarkably-improbable ways are there for something to screw up an airplane? Adding sensors for all of them just doesn't make sense. Then if you wanted to rely on it you'd need another sensor network to monitor the initial sensors for accurate operation...

      Sometimes it really is too hard to make something foolproof. It just is.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    8. Re:Utter nonsense by harl · · Score: 1

      Not that simple.

      What if the sensor malfunctions and the tank blows up? Do we need sensors on the sensor? How deep does the rabbit hole go?

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
  27. It's the military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what are the costs for the Generals's mistakes?

  28. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Private Enterprise: Fucking Up for Profit (TM)

  29. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're either sarcastic, or blind.

  30. Govt Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Some notes worth mentioning:

    The plug that was left in the aircraft occured when the plane was in Depot-level maintenance. 99% of depot level work is performed by civilians. As a matter of fact, no military service members perform any depot level maintenance.

    At best there may be a few officers or senior enlisted working at the factory to serve as liasons or QA type billets. They're few and far between.

    It's not to say that the contractors shouldn't be held accountable, especially consider how long it takes for the depot guys to do anything. In my experiance (active duty military aviation at the o-level (squadron level)) It takes depot to 2 days (about 6 ten-hour shifts with overlap) to remove and replace a rotary powerplant, when it would take one my shops only one shift from start to finish.

    These contractors USED to be active duty military. They USED to have a work ethic. But something happens when you go civilian contractor....

  31. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course they do. My problem is all the suggestions that Private industry does significantly better, ESPECIALLY when funded by the government. I think that's when we see the worst of the waste, private industry on the government's payroll.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  32. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is anti-jobs only when the price matters. It matters in the private sector, but government can create 2 controller jobs for every hammer wielding peon and simply pay for that with even more taxpayer money.

    In the end it is destructive either way - private sector will be stuck with the bill in form of higher taxes (and it costs jobs in the long run).

  33. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    OK. How does a wing cost a million dollars or even a plane? If it costs that much we need to start producing our own rivets or sheets of metal, etc. Turbine engines are some of the most elegantly simple combustion engines in existence so how are they so expensive to produce? How much does a fuel line cost, how much is some wire... Do they even realize what the number 'million' represents, seriously. Time to redesign this stuff to use existing technology and stop sepnding so much on stealth paint or whatever.

    I blame the government. It costs too much to repair because it costs a million dollars just to look out the window at the goddamned thing and say, "Yep, that is going to cost, uh, a hundred million to fix."

  34. To channel Adam Savage for a moment ... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    Well, there's your problem.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  35. Re:Affirmative Action by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any alternative is better than Affirmative Action. Giving someone a job because they belong to a minority is equivalent to not giving someone a job because they aren't in the minority, which is racist/sexist.

  36. Does everything have to be contracted out now? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like a great case for the military NOT subcontracting out every single task to some private company which they have little, if any, control over.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  37. Lowest Bidder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just guessing the contract for the aircraft maintenance was won by the lowest bidder....you get what you pay for.

  38. Re:Affirmative Action by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    Ok, but you could have done a better job at clarifying that in your original post, because I've seen that wording before and it means blame darky

  39. spy plane?!!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jstars is more of a command and control or forward air controller (it's mostly ground scanning and targeting, not spying?)

  40. Cost of Doing Business by thrich81 · · Score: 1

    To someone who used to be in military aviation, this is kind of a non-story. It is a rare and undesirable incident but hardly unheard of, except that tool control is very good in military aviation now. You have the mechanics, then you have the Quality Control checkers, then eventually you have the aircrew doing their pre-flight inspection. Most of the time mistakes get caught along the way, very occasionally they don't. Luckily in this case no one got hurt and hopefully the contractor reimburses the government for some of the loss (not $244 million, as other posters have pointed out). It is human error, same as what causes most aircraft accidents in the air and on the ground. When you work with $244 million equipment which flies through the air you will suffer losses sometimes. It's like owning a $100,000 car -- if you drive it on the street you are taking the chance of wrecking it. And $244 M doesn't sound like all that much -- about the same as a new Boeing 777 according to the Boeing price list (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/).

  41. If it happens in cardiology... by JonySuede · · Score: 1

    If a forgotten scissor can happen in cardiology it can happen everywhere

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    1. Re:If it happens in cardiology... by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      Arrogance kills. That's hardly news. See http://openlibrary.org/works/OL15436462W/The_checklist_manifesto for discussion.

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    2. Re:If it happens in cardiology... by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      Arrogance kills

      I will write that into the frame of all my graphic deployment tools, and thanks for the link !

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  42. This is nothing. I have heard worse. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I remember Srimati teacher correctly, apparently a whole kingdom was lost because some cobbler missed nailing one nail in the shoe of one horse. I, along with rest of the class, had actually memorized the entire report of the investigation committee. We delivered the report to an assembly of interested parties ( Mohan master accompanied us on the xylaphone) on the annual day of the Mahatma Gandhi Elementary. From the standing ovation we got, I assume our report was spot on and was accepted with great appreciation.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:This is nothing. I have heard worse. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      sublime posting.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  43. Its not just govt contractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moved in to a new house. Week later had sewage backup in the bathtubs. Private industry subcontractor to a private industry contractor had left waste water line blocking test plugs in the line after it was pressure tested for the government inspector. What a mess once the plugs were pulled.

    So stuff happens and everybody can do it.

  44. Forgotten Lesson of WWII by tekrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    World War II, if you watch enough of the History Channel, boiled down to quantity winning over quality. Our Sherman Tanks, for example, were utter crap compared to the Panzer and Tiger tanks. But, the USA was able to build a lot of them and they were simple and cheap. The Panzer and Tiger, however, were built in small numbers because they were complex machines.

    Germany was 10 years ahead of the USA technologically. But, Germany wasn't able to build to the quantity needed to fight an industrial giant like the USA, especially while we were bombing their industrial capacity to zero (and losing 60% of our aircraft to do it).

    It is sad that USA is now following Germany's example. We are building overly complex, hugely expensive equipment that cannot be easily field serviced, and building them in limited numbers because we cannot afford them in great quantity.

    Eventually, even though we are 10 years ahead of every opponent technologically, someone will be able to over-run us in a drawn out war simply by having great numbers of simpler, cheaper equipment, and a lot of it.

    And I think we all know who's the industrial giant now, that can produce great quantities of material quickly and cheaply.....

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I think we all know who's the industrial giant now, that can produce great quantities of material quickly and cheaply.....

      Foxconn?

    2. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, but it's hard to buy materials when your banks are sanctioned to shit!

      Seriously though, well thought out argument, but the world is simply a much different place. The type of scenario that could lead to production equivalent to the usa in WWII would happen only after a very long, and very bloody conflict. It's my opinion we won't be seeing another of those soon, for many reasons I'll leave for others to ponder.

    3. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A often over looked factor is attrition in WWII. Made up numbers:

      Lets say the US had zero elite level tankers but millions of noobs and we didn't start the land war until, well, frankly pretty much d-day 1944. Solution, make millions of noob-tanks. We didn't have any elite combat veteran tankers anyway to make use of elite level tanks.

      Lets say the Germans had a hundred thousand elite combat vet tankers, but a quarter of them die in combat every year starting in 1939, so by 1945 you've got 12 year olds with hunting rifles "defending" Berlin at the last stand. Solution, make tens of thousands of elite-tanks and hope each elite-tank blows up more than 10 noob-tanks. Eventually you end up with dudes from the assembly line trying to be tankers, that didn't work out so well.

      They darn near won, despite the attrition, so I wouldn't harsh their strategy too much.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read Albert Speer's diary, and admittingly a biased source. He was armaments production "czar" (can't remember the proper German term), he said in his book that German production was still in the 80% capacity range at the close of the war. Admittingly a biased source.

      However I remember touring Berlin and our guide noted that Goring's Admin building was not touched by Allied bombs once during the war, and Hilter's apartment was only touched once. Leading me to blieve high altitude bombing was very in-accurate.

    5. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by mbone · · Score: 1

      It is sad that USA is now following Germany's example. We are building overly complex, hugely expensive equipment that cannot be easily field serviced, and building them in limited numbers because we cannot afford them in great quantity.

      Superiority - by Arthur C. Clarke

    6. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is way too simplistic. The Nazi war machine was overcommitted the instant they attacked Russia. Once the Russian T54 came into play the Germans couldn't do a thing to stop it. Volume of Shermans vs Panzer/Tiger isn't the issue. WWII has so many facets to it I couldn't even begin to comment on it here, but US/UK tanks vs German tanks isn't a major factor.

      Two examples:
      1) Bombing of the dams had an unexpected side effect. Not only did it cause a lot of damage (flooding) and reduce power to the industrial machine it also dragged all the workers off the North Atlantic Wall Germany was building to rebuff an invasion. When Rommel got around to inspecting the wall (just months before what would be D-Day) he asked where his workers were. "Repaing the broken dams".

      2) The invasion of Russia started 6 weeks later than planned (they sent the divisions into Greece to put down an uprising). If they had started on time they'd have taken Moscow (and the T54 plants) before the Russian winter. On the route to Moscow they could have taken Moscow but diverted down to Kiev (Ukraine) and then back up to Moscow where it all went wrong for them.

      Why did most of this go wrong for Hitler? He started micro-managing his Generals, rather than letting them do what they knew how to do best.

      Just two examples that you do see on the TV. Its in the history (read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). Fascinating (if hard) read.

      Back to your point on simplicity vs complexity. You have a very valid point. Ideally you'll find a nice middle ground. Sadly some problems do need complex solutions. Its an Innovator's Dilemma alright. Clayton Christensen can tell you a lot about that...

    7. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant do not see on TV.

    8. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, in a war between two nuclear armed nations everyone looses. Second, while 100 grunts may win against 10 Green Berets no one is crossing the pacific in any sort of numbers against the worlds largest navy.

    9. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by llZENll · · Score: 1

      You are correct we have the most technological advanced military in the world, but you are incorrect that we are not the biggest. After 20 years of spending more on our military than almost all other nations COMBINED, we have both the most advanced and the biggest military in the world. We have more stealth fighters than some countries have PILOTS.

    10. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Yup Germany didn't go into a wartime economy until almost the end. For Germany to win, the war had to be short.

    11. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      The type of scenario that could lead to production equivalent to the usa in WWII would happen only after a very long, and very bloody conflict. It's my opinion we won't be seeing another of those soon, for many reasons I'll leave for others to ponder.

      Yup. I'd be willing to bet that the Germans felt the same way in 1935 as well.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    12. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It is sad that USA is now following Germany's example. We are building overly complex, hugely expensive equipment that cannot be easily field serviced, and building them in limited numbers because we cannot afford them in great quantity.

      Eventually, even though we are 10 years ahead of every opponent technologically, someone will be able to over-run us in a drawn out war simply by having great numbers of simpler, cheaper equipment, and a lot of it.

      Naw. Others have already pointed out the flaw in your reasoning in other areas, so I'll focus on this bit. While there's some truth to the saying that "quantity has a quality all it's own", it's far too simplistic to imagine that great numbers can overcome any technology. This is simply not the case. A modern AFV will never be defeated by men armed with slingshots, regardless of whether there are one hundred, or one million of them. The F22 may have a $300+ million price tag, but it also boasts a 100+ to 1 kill ratio in simulated engagements against fighters which themselves cost tens of millions. The M1 Abrams line of tanks destroyed the entire Iraqi armoured corps while essentially losing zero vehicles to enemy fire - IIRC all of their losses were to friendly fire and other accidents.

      If your technology is advanced enough, quantity - for all intents and purposes - ceases to be an issue. This isn't Independence Day, where an invading alien fleet can be utterly annihilated by a computer virus and a bunch of F-18's. The real world doesn't leave those kinds of openings just to help out the little guys.

    13. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Jeng · · Score: 1

      The Panzer and Tiger, however, were built in small numbers because they were complex machines.

      Germany was 10 years ahead of the USA technologically. But, Germany wasn't able to build to the quantity needed to fight an industrial giant like the USA, especially while we were bombing their industrial capacity to zero (and losing 60% of our aircraft to do it).

      The use of slave labor also compromised Germany's ability to produce their tanks. The slave labor would routinely sabotage the tanks they were working on.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    14. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's when the large fleet of Minuteman III and Trident ICMB's will come raining down on that large collection of cheap and effective equipment.

      America will NEVER allow it self to be overrun.

    15. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Swampash · · Score: 1

      "World War II, if you watch enough of the History Channel, boiled down to the USA winning and doing everything and being awesome because it was awesome."

      Germany wasn't able to build fast enough to keep up with the Soviet Union's production of the T-34. That's the story of tanks in WWII, you're welcome.

    16. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Eventually you end up with dudes from the assembly line trying to be tankers, that didn't work out so well.

      Well, it worked out OK for the Russians. But the T-34 was a different beast from either the Panzer or the Sherman. And the Russians did have a walloping lot of tanks. And shorter lines of communication. And Marshall Winter.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    17. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by LanceUppercut · · Score: 1

      Er... WWII was the war between Germany and Soviet Union. What does the "quantity of the Sherman tanks" and the relative technological levels of USA and Germany have to do with winning WWII is not clear to me. And no, it was not about "quantity over quality". Soviets won the war by the tactical and strategic skill. It would simply be impossible for them to win it in any other way.

    18. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by LanceUppercut · · Score: 1

      You have to be careful with your statements. In USA people who dare to know history beyond what is transmitted into their heads by "History channel" tend to doubt the "Key Role Of USA In Winning The WWII" (TM). Under the US regime such people usually tend to have unfortunate and completely accidental slip-ups in their bathtubs that tend to lead to unfortunate, completely accidental and deadly breaking of their necks.

    19. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      We are only following Germany's example with respect to the really big stuff, like the stealth bomber, the F-35, and the F-22. We will use these weapons in a limited fashion, anyway. At the end of the day, our conventional stuff like the F-15, F-16, F-18, B-52 will carry the bulk of the fighting, as they are already world-class by themselves. In any likely conflict, we'll use the advanced systems as the vanguard fleet to knock out air defense systems, command and control systems, decapitate the enemy to the extent we can, establish air dominance, then use our conventional and lower-cost weapons to complete the mission of blowing lots of shit up. That's what we did in the First and Second Gulf Wars, and I doubt that this will change anytime soon. I guess that any invasion would also be supported by drone strikes against choice targets such as radar arrays, which were taken out in the First Gulf War by Apache helicopters.

      In short, we'll use the Stealth Bomber to open a door, the Stealth Fighter to kill off some aircraft, then use B-52s and F-15s to carpet bomb our enemies into submissions.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    20. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I dunno. The Germans had some really high-tech stuff like the V2, and the Tiger. However, the US had a fair bit of technology as well. Certainly on the Signals (Ultra, Magic, etc) front the allies were WAY ahead of the Germans. The P51 was a quite capable aircraft as well - other than the few ME262s the Germans fielded it was much more capable than anything the Germans flew. In the Pacific War the US had clear technological superiority almost across the board. It didn't get much use in Europe, but the VT fuse a huge technological advantage in the Pacific (I believe it was avoided in Europe to prevent capture - hard to recover fuses in the middle of the ocean, plus the Germans had almost no offensive air capability after D-day).

      The Germans lost the war for a number of reasons - probably the biggest one was that it is pretty hard to take on just about everybody and win. The US has a far greater advantage over the rest of the world today compared to what Germany had and the advantage of geographic isolation and I'm skeptical that the US could really sustain a US-vs-everybody conventional shooting war for more than a few years if it were truly taken seriously. Another big factor was that industry in the US and Russia was far from the lines, and industry in Germany was not. You can build a lot more tanks if your workers aren't homeless and your factory doesn't have an air-conditioned roof.

    21. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you mean the T-34 series of tanks, sir?

      Thus spoketh the almighty IS-2.

    22. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by tibit · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate resolve of the enemy, though. If there are any technical or tactical deficiencies, and there usually are some, perhaps even initially unanticipated or given little concern, the enemy will find them, and will exploit them. Just look at how drawn out was the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. US's current major deficiency isn't even technical, it's a tactical one: we're not fighting a defensive war where everyone of "theirs" is fair game. We're highly deficient in a theatre where the enemy has civilian support and can easily mingle with civilians, and this seems to have been exploited very well so far. As for technical deficiencies: no firmware is perfect, and no procedure training is perfect either. In a real invasion of US soil, should it come to that, the enemy would surely find all the cracks there are to be found.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    23. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      US's current major deficiency isn't even technical, it's a tactical one: we're not fighting a defensive war where everyone of "theirs" is fair game.

      I think it's a little more extreme than that: you're not fighting a war, period; your enemies are fighting a war, and you're trying to be cops. Doesn't have anything to do with technology though, except insofar as your advanced technology actually lets you try to be the nice guys, instead of pulling a Soviet-style conquer-and-terrorize occupation.

      As for this bit:

      In a real invasion of US soil, should it come to that, the enemy would surely find all the cracks there are to be found.

      It's an entirely hypothetical scenario, because there can not BE a "real invasion of the US". Even England in WW2 was never invaded by Axis forces, let alone occupied. The US is essentially it's own continent - if an unfriendly army ever sets foot on US soil, it will be because the nation has already collapsed. Or, if you believe the far-right extremists, because the "illegal" Mexicans (or Muslims, whoever the current boogyman is) have become the majority :p Either way, if either of those scenarios happens, you'll have already lost your technological edge.

    24. Re:Forgotten Lesson of WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the History Channel never mentions the Soviet Union then (or Great Britain or Canada etc.). Check out the T-34's diesel engine, for example. The Germans couldn't build it because they couldn't get the aluminium. They couldn't make turbochargers for their fighters because they couldn't get access to the rare metals required. Both problems were a consequence of the naval blockade of Germany which started on day one. WW2 was a little more complex than you're making out, and there were plenty of technical advances on both sides.

  45. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by griffinme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ben Rich (head of Lockhead in the 90's) said in his book that one time he was at the GE engine plant. One of the guys was pointed at two jet engines. He said they were the exact same engine. The only difference was one was for the Air Force and had 200 extra inspectors look at it and cost twice as much for that reason. Next time you want to blame the contractors for how much things cost take into consideration all the extra regs and paperwork they are required to do. Another fav of his is how they go crazy labeling things secret or top secret. That doubles the paperwork and makes all their work that much more difficult.

    He compared the overall cost of a new plane for the air force to the overall cost of the new model for the Mustang. The amounts were fairly close. Ford gets to spread the cost over thousands of cars. The manufacturer of a planes gets to spread the cost over a few hundred planes.

    --
    Is he strong? Listen bud, He's got radioactive blood.
  46. nice work if you can find it by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Well, it sure wasn't me .

    I just get to pay for it.
    And for bonuses for the incompetents that created the mess.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  47. Tool outlines by teeloo · · Score: 2

    How about doing what every handyman does in his garage: hanging the tools on a board and tracing an outline of all of them.

    1. Re:Tool outlines by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Handymen don't work on Air Force jets in their garage. This is much more sophisticated work.

    2. Re:Tool outlines by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 0

      More sophisticated than brain or heart surgery? More sophisticated than calculating vectors and propulsion for various spacecraft?

      Not trying for profession pissing contest; just pointing out that there are other professions where keeping track of various items, concepts, and relationships are also important. Mistakes have happened in all complex fields, and will continue to do so, but simple solutions such as teeloo's bear at least some thought. Perhaps a modification of his simple theory could reduce accidents by 5% at minimal cost. Who knows?

    3. Re:Tool outlines by mbkennel · · Score: 2

      Aerospace has much better QA procedures than heart surgeons. Many surgeons don't even use basic checklists despite being proven successful at reducing errors, because they are the well-paid masters and don't what any peon correcting them.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/14/us-surgical-checklists-idUSTRE70D33920110114

      When the malpractice insurers start enforcing this with detective-techniques and legal subpoenas it will change.

    4. Re:Tool outlines by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      My friend who works at a Navy helicopter depot as a contractor had to buy her own tools, her own tool box and make foam cut-outs for every single tool.

  48. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by MightyYar · · Score: 0

    My problem is all the suggestions that Private industry does significantly better, ESPECIALLY when funded by the government.

    Maybe with things like "no bid" contracts, but in general buying things on competitive bids seems pretty efficient. The exception is when corruption enters the scene, or when the item is big enough (space shuttle, military contracts, etc) that legislators start getting involved and putting BS restrictions on the contract.

    The main benefit is that you don't have to pay pension and healthcare for someone for the rest of their lives. That's my biggest beef with the way our government hires people - their salary is lower but they make up for it by going into debt that is often hidden from the books. Do you have any idea what health care costs for former federal workers are going to cost in 30 years? I have no idea, but my kids sure will! It's just not a moral policy - we are making promises to people that we can't possibly follow up on, because we'll also be old. So we're lying. Then we burden our kids with the costs of our present-day activities.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  49. Capitalism is all about luck by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    this contractor is basically screwed now. That said, I don't know a single contractor, company or business that's not run like this. The company that cuts the most corners gets the contract when they underbid. Sometimes that company's dumb luck launches them to success, and somethings this happens.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  50. So wait... by neowolf · · Score: 1

    My car tells me if I leave the fuel cap off, but a multi-hundred-million $ plane has nothing that can tell in advance if there is a venting problem with a fuel tank? Sorry, but WTF?! I'm with others too- I believe the costs are being blown out of proportion by the Air Force, and this aircraft is obviously impractical for "combat" conditions where it may need to be field serviced under less-than-ideal conditions. Another waste of taxpayer money.

    1. Re:So wait... by StatureOfLiberty · · Score: 2

      "and this aircraft is obviously impractical for "combat" conditions where it may need to be field serviced under less-than-ideal conditions"
      "Another waste of taxpayer money"

      The E8C is a converted 'used' Boeing 707. The last of those were manufactured int 1979. So, this is an old airframe design (and we didn't pay a lot for them). So, it doesn't have some of the bells and whistles that newer aircraft have. Some systems have been up fitted and enhanced. But not all.

      This is not a 'front line' aircraft. Just like the KC-135 that I flew on, they operate mostly out of large bases that have plenty of service and support infrastructure. So, it is almost always being serviced in ideal conditions (or as ideal as they are going to get). A contracted mechanic didn't follow procedures. It is that simple.

      Also, there are times when older technology has an advantage. This aircraft's cousin (KC-135) stood ready to launch on alert 7 x 24 x 365 for decades and could be started at temperatures from well below freezing to well over 100 (F) and be in the air in less than 3 minutes. Try doing that with today's aircraft. I seem to remember newer aircraft needing air conditioning on the ground to keep the electronics cool while they sat on alert.

      This air frame's longevity and versatility says it all. When I got out of the Air Force in 1990, I had been flying on aircraft that were built as long ago as 1957. Many that I crewed on were older than I was. But, with good maintenance, they were great airplanes. I think we got our money's worth.

  51. If you read the actual congressional testimony... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you read the actual congressional testimony, you would have seen that Schwartz didn't say that it wasn't repairable for ~$25M, which is 10% of the cost of the whole system, he bemoaned his budget constraints, and said they wouldn't repair it as an example answer to the question "Is there any sacrifice you're seeing in ISR...?". Also note that they're only not repairing *the platform*.

    The title of the press release from the Public Affairs office more or less says it all: "Air Force Strategic Choices and Budget Priorities Brief at the Pentagon".

    -- Terry

  52. What the f by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    "How extensive? 25 million dollars worth of extensive."

    "has damaged a $244 million aircraft beyond repair."

    get your damn story right, is it going to take 25 million to hose out the inside of this wing, or is this mistake going to cost us 244 million to replace? The whole situation sounds over dramatic and blown out of proportion anyway.

    1. Re:What the f by hawguy · · Score: 1

      "How extensive? 25 million dollars worth of extensive."

      "has damaged a $244 million aircraft beyond repair."

      get your damn story right, is it going to take 25 million to hose out the inside of this wing, or is this mistake going to cost us 244 million to replace? The whole situation sounds over dramatic and blown out of proportion anyway.

      Exactly - if the airplane was not recoverable, then it was $244M of damage, not $25M. Or maybe if there was $100M of damage then it was not worth trying to fix it.

      I know someone who spent $3K putting a new engine into his $30K car after the oil change place didn't tighten the drain plug sufficiently and it worked itself loose on the highway and he dumped all of his oil. (well the oil change place paid for it).

      While paying 10% of the price of the car was expensive, it was still worth fixing it. Why didn't they fix the $244M plane when it had $25M of damage?

  53. Damn Serf Scratches Lord's Thoroughbred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. Sloppy, cheesy employment. Cost-cutting. Lowest-bid suppliers. Rampant graft and cronyism. A cultural pool crumbling inder the feet of education - technical education being very hard hit. Etc. and so on.

    And it's all the mechanic's fault? It's really, really much more serious than that.

  54. beyond economic repair? by Skapare · · Score: 0

    A $244 million plane has $25 million dollars damage. So someone decides it's better to go buy a replacement plane at $244 million instead of $25 million (to be extracted from the contractor's insurance company) to fix the damage?

    Where are the Republicans when you need them? Out campaigning? Oh wait, they're on the golf course with the Northrop Grumman executives.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:beyond economic repair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly where they belong, ensuring that our defense contractors have everything they need to make us safe and protect us from terror.

    2. Re:beyond economic repair? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Plenty of other comments discuss how you've got this completely wrong. It's the cost of the plane (totaled, but 'cheap'), vs the cost of the electronics and the ability to move said electronics to a spare plane.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:beyond economic repair? by Sollord · · Score: 1

      It was a $244 million plane when it was built and only a small fraction of that is for the plane itself probably under $20mil. Since then its flown thousands of hours reducing the planes value and if you RTFA you will see the only way to fix the plane is to basically rewing the entire thing which is an absurd concept given the age, cost, and location. They're lucky the wing didn't fail in flight and destroy the entire plane and kill the crew. It's far more economical to just pull the surveillance gear that makes up the majority of the planes costs and store it as spares to extend the life of the rest of the JSTARS.

  55. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Turbine engines are some of the most elegantly simple combustion engines in existence so how are they so expensive to produce?

    That is hilarious. Watch this. And those are the cheap ones - some need to be grown from a single crystal in a vacuum furnace... let me know when you can do that cheaply.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  56. God damn bean counting nerds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the hell are we supposed to pad our Pentagon slush fund if you guys keep calling out our shenanigans. Due to increased legislative oversight, we've been overestimating funds on other projects, and funneling the excess into our black budget. You guys really believe we're paying $700 on a toilet seat? That is old school. We've moved on to a more distributed approach. At every opportunity, we pad our estimates. Why don't you watch the Kardashians on the TV? Watch some pro football? The super bowl is almost here! Quit paying attention to our business.

  57. Fire him? by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1

    Should the company of the mechanic fire him? Hell no! They just gave him $25 million worth of training!

  58. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

    Which reminds me (sadly) of Armageddon, the movie.

    When they're about to launch and Rockhound (Steve Buscemi) says "You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?"

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  59. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean like the oil spill in the Gulf? I'm sure private industry had absolutely nothing to do with that...

    Private industry is just better at covering things up, because in the public sector, eventually if something is hidden, someone will find it and there will be hell to pay.

  60. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you have a great business plan there. Let us know how you do.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  61. Re:I'm surprised no-one else has pointed this out. by asylumx · · Score: 4, Informative

    The accident occurred March 13th 2009, but the news is the Air Force accident investigative board’s report on the incident, including photographs, which is only recently available.

  62. Battle damage? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Um, suppose there was a war and this thing dodged some SAMs and return to base with some shrapnel holes from a near miss? Would they write the whole thing off? There has been more than one time in history when a "platform" has come under fire -- the RB-47 incident, the KAL Flight 7 matter where a civilian jet was attacked under the mistaken belief that it was a Cobra Ball or a Rivet Joint, and so on. Or is the assumption that if one of these things is attacked that it ain't coming home so why bother?

  63. What a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have worked both in military aviation and civilian aviation.

    First, tool control. When working in a military environment, tool control is simple. Everything gets checked out after inspecting the tool / toolbox and tools to make sure they are all there and not broken. Then when the shift is over, the tools are returned and inspected. Anything left on the plane is documented. If the contractor left something in the wing that caused damage, then they are financially liable. Period.

    Second, 25 million to fix that, I doubt very much. I worked on a DC-8 that had both wing ends ripped right off, from the #1 engine outboard and the #4 engine outboard. It didn't cost 25 million to fix that. I would be willing to bet that any repair station would do the job for 2.5 million and make out like bandits.

    But if you really look at what the alleged cause was, why was it not caught long before this? Whenever there is depot level maintenance done on a military aircraft, there is a whole process of inspection that take place before it is accepted for active duty. The fuel system in the number 2 tank would have been used several times before this incident both in fueling and in normal burn thru the engines. A blocked vent would have cause problems long before this. I suspect there was another malfunction that caused all the fuel to be dumped into the #2 tank instead of distributed to all the tanks.

  64. Jedi mind tricks . . . by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    . . . these are not the tools you are looking for.

  65. Old Saying by Haxzaw · · Score: 1

    There's an old saying I remember from my aircraft maintenance days - Aircraft are designed by people with a PhD, built by people with a BS degree, and maintained by people with a GED.

  66. Doing damage 10% of Value is not "trashing." by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    "Trashing," meaning "may as well throw it away," implies totally destroying the aircraft.

    This incident did damage of about 10% of the aircraft's value, making it an easy fix.

    What's with all the sensationalist headlines lately?

  67. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't really apply anyways. So, the interior of the wing got screwed up when the tank popped... how does that damage the engine, exactly? It's not like someone threw a brick into it.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  68. Kind of reminds me by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    About 11 years ago, I had an old car of mine serviced, and for whatever reason, the next day after getting it back I decided to pop the hood ("bonnet" for you UK'ers). There was the mechanics hammer just sitting on the air filter cover. I'm not even sure what he needed a hammer for. Unlike this story though, I lucked out and no damage occurred, except my confidence in that car shop.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  69. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    It happens with the gummint also.

    I had the opportunity to work on F-4s back in the 70s as a member of the USAF. While my stuff was hung off a pylon, I did get to climb in and touch some stuff in the cockpit. One day I check the flags like I'm supposed to, climb in, sit down, and find out that one flag came out of the ejection seat. I wait for an hour while Egress fixes it. Allegedly I was the idiot for not checking, but I'm not allowed to tug on the pins to be sure they are securely fastened. The crew chief never forgave me. At least I didn't go out the roof.

    Next week, another F-4 goes long on landing and takes the barrier. Brake was mis-assembled. Apparently F-4 main brakes are complicated. That mechanic made more coffee than I did...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  70. Re:Affirmative Action by line-bundle · · Score: 2

    Here is what bothers me: if you're black and you make a mistake it's because you're black.

    This is not fair both to the black person because he can make mistakes like any other (white) person, and to black people because they are suddenly set to impossibly high standards.

  71. "Spy plane?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not think it means what you think it means.

  72. a convenient accident... by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    The wing command would love to takes these out of service and replace them with the latest and greatest thing. As long as they're functional it's difficult to get some of the congress-allocated AF pie to do this. Accidents like this move them closer to new programs and new commands which is what these guys live for.

  73. And now that you know this by koan · · Score: 1

    Consider who is repairing commercial jet liners, companies like Jet Blue have their repairs done in El Salvador, scary huh?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39383369/ns/travel/t/outsourcing-safety-airplane-repairs-move-unregulated-foreign-shops/#.TygM_aua46k

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  74. In other news.. by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    ..someone once crashed an expensive aircraft. It was very regrettable and the survivors who were responsible for it, felt bad.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  75. Not The First Time... by DieByWire · · Score: 1

    Tennessee Air National Guard totalled a C141, but at least it was on the ground when the wing ruptured.

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/209303/

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  76. Re:Affirmative Action by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    What has that got to do with this story, though? I don't think you give a damn about racism, so spare the act.

  77. Not his fault by equex · · Score: 1

    This is why we have managers. THEY are responsible setting up systems that eliminates simple human mistakes. That's why managers earn 10-fold the average workers salary. They have the responsibility. A mechanic is merely a biological robot tool in this context. The story heading should be "A bunch of managers could not manage to manage what they were paid to manage, tries to blame someone else"

    --
    Can I light a sig ?
  78. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

    Umm, Sorry, as an employee for a agency that is partially federal, partially state, I've seen way too many people/groups who know how to game the system for contract bids. What you end up with is highly substandard stuff that is worth significantly less than what you payed for, or "incomplete unless you fork over $X more).

    And most of the time, once they've done enough to get blacklisted, the group folds the company, forms a new one, and sometimes shuffles the leadership a bit and starts all over again. Sometimes they do this mid-project. Unfortunately, the same anti-corruption laws that prevent cronyism also provide shelters and loopholes for these people.

    Yeah, laws can be made to prevent this, but those who do it will continue to find loopholes because it's their moral obligation to get money from evil Uncle Sam and and show how greedy and corrupt the government is.

    The government sure as hell can screw up, but I honestly don't see the private industry doing a lot better. And when it comes down to it, too many private sector organizations see the government as something to be abused and leeched off of, rather than another important organization in our economic infrastructure.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  79. From someone who's been there... by King+Louie · · Score: 1

    I was the Quality Assurance Officer in the maintenance department of the largest helicopter squadron in the Marine Corps, so allow me to pass along a few notes on military aircraft maintenance procedures and the cost accounting of mishaps.

    Everything in the maintenance department is done by checklists and written procedures because people make mistakes; written instructions help minimize those mistakes as long as the procedures are followed. In addition to the written instructions, there are at least two levels of QA: Collateral duty inspectors, who are more senior mechanics who check the work was done right, and Quality Assurance representatives, who are still more senior and check the work after the first inspection (they are prohibited from watching the work to ensure they look at each job with no preconceptions). Given the insanely complex maintenance that goes into these machines, this setup is a marvel of efficiency and effectiveness. (Evidenced by the low number of mishaps attributed to maintenance errors.)

    RFID tool control works just great until the computer loses power. A lot of maintenance is done in very austere environments and under combat conditions. The current tool control systems are designed to work when the lights are out and the world has gone to hell in a hand basket. If your tool control idea won't survive incoming fire, it's not robust enough.

    The bottom line to both of these is that taking shortcuts bypasses the system that prevents these mishaps. Follow the procedures and things will be fine 99.9% of the time.

    As regards accounting, when an aircraft sustains more than $2 million in damage (used to be $1 million), it is considered a Class A mishap, which is the same classification for a mishap resulting in total loss of the airframe or the loss of life. From that point of view, $25 million is a total loss. Add in the factors of old airframe, hard to get parts, etc. and you see why this is considered a total loss. If you don't like it, blame the Congresscritters who make the laws, not the guys who live under those laws.

  80. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by squidflakes · · Score: 2

    Are you serious?

    The engines on a medium/large private jet can run you about a million each, and that's for a unit that GE mass-produces for civilian use. That you're saying a gas turbine is elegantly simple means that you've never ever ever worked on one. Ever.

    Ever.

    The concept might be simple, but when you're got a huge shaft studded with titanium blades spinning at 10,000 RPM and then you're intentionally using all of that compressed air to cause an explosion.. well, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that you're not going to bang one of these babies together over the weekend in your garage.

    As for the aircraft, wings can and do cost a significant amount of money. If the wing spar was damaged, then the aircraft is toast.

  81. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    but I honestly don't see the private industry doing a lot better.

    Agreed that they don't do a lot better when working as government contractors - but at least we aren't paying them after they are done the job like we are with federal employees. Sure you might get the same crap work - maybe slightly better, maybe slightly worse - but at the end of the day, the contractor goes away and the federal employee is on the books until they die.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  82. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    He compared the overall cost of a new plane for the air force to the overall cost of the new model for the Mustang. The amounts were fairly close. Ford gets to spread the cost over thousands of cars. The manufacturer of a planes gets to spread the cost over a few hundred planes.

    I think the solution is obvious: start putting jet engines in Mustangs.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  83. Tool control measures by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    Is that what it's called in surgery too? On-topic: seems if this could be an issue maybe a pressure senor in the tank (or a strain gauge on the tank) is a good idea.

  84. Pet Peeve: it's not a "Spy Plane" by automandc · · Score: 2

    Forgive the rant, but:

    It is not a "spy" plane, it is a "surveillance" plane. Ever since the 2001 Hainan Island incident this mistake has really irked me. The Chinese used it as a rhetorical club to beat us with when GWB chickened out and let them chop up our plane and imprison our crew.

    A "spy" plane would be one that is designed/intended to escape detection and/or interception while conducting surveillance in places it has no right to be (such as the U2 and SR-71 or the Global Hawk). During the cold war, the Soviet Union consistently protested our overflights of their territory with the U2 and SR71, and sought (and once succeeded) to shoot them down, as was their right. Those were "spy" planes, and Francis Gary Powers was, technically, a "spy."

    The JSTARS E-8 and the Hainan EP-3E are both military versions of the Boeing 707 -- they aren't designed to hide from or evade anyone trying to see and/or catch them. They are big obvious platforms that fly in neutral territory (or over an actively declared battle zone when we have air dominance) and provide surveillance and other capability. They aren't hiding or trying to deceive anyone.

    --
    I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
    1. Re:Pet Peeve: it's not a "Spy Plane" by jbwolfe · · Score: 1

      To clarify: the EP-3 is an ELINT version of the venerable Lockheed P-3 Orion (based on the L-188 Electra) as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_EP-3/. I have about 1000 hours in "Charlie" models The E-8 is indeed a 707 variant and the Navy has a version designated the E-6. Nonetheless I get your point about "spy planes"- and I trust there are many of those flying about...

      --
      Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
    2. Re:Pet Peeve: it's not a "Spy Plane" by automandc · · Score: 1

      Oops, my bad. Thanks for the correction, it was a dumb error.

      --
      I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
    3. Re:Pet Peeve: it's not a "Spy Plane" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor point, but the EP-3E is not based on the Boeing 707, it's based on the Lockheed L-188. The RC-135 is based on the 707.

      Otherwise, like your post...

  85. Normal Loss by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Complex human activities always involve errors. No matter how hard we try or how perfect the effort there will always be screwups. Perhaps there is a more basic error in allowing such bleeding edge technology being deployed in the first place. this wonderful electronic technology can probaly be made more robust, miniturized and produced at very low cost if allowed to mature before military use. Today's electronic miracle tends to be tomorrow's mundane and common product.

  86. Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big deal :)

    In Sweden, the maintenance crew of a nuclear reactor (Ringhals) forgot a wrench inside the reactor. It didn't start, and when they investigated why, they found the tool.
    http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/karnkraft/article255036.ece

  87. Re:Affirmative Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except in South Africa, where Affirmative Action is there to give jobs to the majority and not give jobs to someone in a minority group. So to solve this obvious dilemma they instead call the majority group "previously disadvantaged". It's so extremely clever :)

  88. Why? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    And, why do we need $244MM aircraft, exactly...?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  89. mechanic only the symptom by gerardrj · · Score: 2

    Why would a plane with so much advanced electronics on board not have a check system or pre-flight checklist item to look for such an installed plug. Supposed a swarm of bees had built a nest in there and blocked it instead of the mechanic's error?

    If something as simple as a plugged vent can cause complete and catastrophic damage to the craft then there needs to be pre/in flight monitoring of that system. Seems a simple pressure gauge in the tank would have prevented this situation from becoming life threatening.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  90. Re:Affirmative Action by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

    True, but you probably dont' realize just how quickly a shop can turn racist/discriminatory without even realizing it. "Yeah, we tried a few guys from _____ and they just didn't work out, so we don't hire anyone like that anymore" which can go from a school, a town, to a race or gender and the broad brush begins. Then those guys who don't hire ________ as a matter of policy due to a few _______ not "working out" (for whatever reason of "working out") moving to other shops, keeping their internalized prejudices from previous experiences, moving into management positions, it spreads like a cancer. It feels like humans are hard-wired to EXCLUDE people, and we try to rationalize it, reason it out, but in the end, it ends up hurting a lot of folks who are perfectly fine for the job, but just because a "couple guys didn't work out" a couple decades ago....

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  91. Thank $DEITY the crew is safe by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

    Now, collect the $ from the contractor.

    1. Re:Thank $DEITY the crew is safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought this was a const..

      $DEITY = APPLE_INC

  92. Re:Affirmative Action by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    Xenophobia is a survival trait, it takes sentience to control it. Some are better then others at it. Its not wrong to dislike another race, it is wrong to deny that they are human and equal.

    --
    Good-bye
  93. Assembly workers should follow instructions by mangu · · Score: 1

    There is a benefit to putting in the bolts the way the worker was taught to do it. It is also the standard way.

    There are no standards in aircraft design, only general guidelines. If the instructions said to install the bolt one way, the assembly workers should have been thoroughly trained to do it *exactly* that way. Creativity in assembling planes kills people.

    The engineers who design a plane are working under a strict constraint to make everything as strong as needed while being as lightweight as possible. It's not their job to anticipate any convoluted reasoning an assembly line worker may have. The engineer must assume that the workers will be trained well enough to follow correctly all the procedures.

    If someone cannot control his or her creativity enough to follow instructions, he or she should not be working at an assembly line.

    When people must follow instructions, they should NEVER, under any circumstances, try to outguess the procedures. If they have any doubt, they should ask someone and, whenever applicable, have their observations brought to the attention of the engineers. I have been an engineer working at design tasks for over 30 years, and have received many good contributions from people who operate the systems I have designed. Constructive criticism is always welcome.

    It's quite possible that an engineer may not have realized some practical detail of the design. But people who assemble equipment like aircraft on which people's lives may depend should not have the presumption to try to "improve" the design on their own initiative.

    1. Re:Assembly workers should follow instructions by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      I'm interested in your take on a comment above yours. You both seem to be in agreement on a number of things, but the point of contention seems to be here:

      "If the instructions said to install the bolt one way, the assembly workers should have been thoroughly trained to do it *exactly* that way"

      versus

      "There is a hard rule in aircraft assembly that the bolt be placed head up nut down [...]This is not an optional rule, and assembly workers have it drilled into them at their new hire instruction, and every annual refresher, and whenever someone sees a mistake in QA, and just because someone thought now would be a good time to bring it up again.
      It is "how it's done". - full stop [...] She should have called her supervisor over and complained that the design conflicts with her training. Then put the bolt in upside down when her supervisor tells her to "

      Please read his entire comment first as my selective quoting obviously hasn't captured everything.

  94. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by f8l_0e · · Score: 1

    I would imaging that when the tank popped, there was an instant loss of fuel pressure causing compressor surge. Perhaps pressure loss caused a flameout instead and then fuel started pooling in the combustion section. Then, when enough pressure built up, the unburnt fuel combusted, causing turbine damage.

  95. All about the definitions by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    They probably did account for all the tools; just not all the consumables, like plugs, or in the case of satellites: rags.

  96. Oops. by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    Sorry.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  97. Re:Sh*t Happens by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since the Air Force has dozens of spares of this particular airframe, it is more economical to pull a newer one out of storage and move all the stuff that makes a JSTAR a JSTAR to a new plane.

    JSTARS is not built on the C-135 airframe, exactly, but they share a common ancestor. JSTARS aircraft were built on a number of different commercially available used Boeing 707 variants. Essentially, each one was a custom installation. Air Mobility Command could not spare any viable KC-135 airframes for JSTARS, as they needed every refueler they could manage to maintain the fleet to meet unified command requirements. The other special purpose EC/RC/OC-135s were not available either, as their missions took precedence over the JSTARS effort.

    The JSTARS program likely will not receive adequate funds to purchase another airframe and integrate the equipment. It's more likely that the JSTARS equipment and viable airframe parts form this aircraft will be salvaged for spares to extend the lives of the remaining JSTARS aircraft. Other platforms are more likely to be funded to absorb portions of the JSTARS capability. This decision will be driven by high and growing supportability costs for JSTARS.

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
  98. Re:Shit Happens - But HOW? by icebike · · Score: 1

    Looking at the pictures, several ribs were completely busted off of the spar, as well as several bulkheads breached.

    Pictures Damage10 thru Damage15 shows the bottom flange of the spar completely broken away, a testament to strengths of the bolts attached. This could also be indicative of accumulated metal fatigue from many flight hours.

    Never the less, the amount of over-pressure must have been astounding.

    The interesting thing is that the plane took off, presumably with this tank full, and it was re-fueled in-flight.

    So the questions that come to mind are,

    1) How did this not happen during ground fueling? Smaller pipes I presume
    2) Why didn't the tanker's back pressure sensor shut down the flow?

    Boeing has already suggested a same or lower cost solution based on the 737, which is dramatically more fuel efficient.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  99. Re:Shit Happens - But HOW? by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

    So the questions that come to mind are,

    1) How did this not happen during ground fueling? Smaller pipes I presume

    My guess would be lower atmospheric pressure due to being a few thousand feet up while refueling in-flight.

  100. no it's not. by mbkennel · · Score: 1

    Blaming everything on the CRA is 99% right wing propaganda and a lie.

    Banks don't give out enormous bonuses to brokers for loans that they "have to give out". If that were the case, they would make it an arduous bureaucratic process which the customers have to navigate and push themselves. Banks give out enormous bonuses for loans which make them tons of money, this quarter. And that's what they did.

    And the CRA doesn't in any case force subprime loans, and the worst subprime offenders were not even subject to CRA. And there was a huge bubble in commercial property lending which is not part of CRA either. And there is clear evidence 'redlining' of minority borrowers to bad (==profitable to the bank) loan terms when the borrowers could have qualified for better, conventional loans (which were less profitable).

    The CRA was around for twenty/thirty years and never caused any huge systematic effect.

  101. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

    Even NOT as Government contractors, you see a lot of crap. They get away with it because they have a distributed user base, and within bounds, no matter what they do, there will be enough of a client base to say that one of their competitors has done worse.

    Hell. Sony. Apple. Microsoft. Oracle.

    And that's just limiting it to the computer industry? Need I go on?

    Dunno about federal employees, I have a state retirement plan, and I pay boatloads into that. Even with private companies, their employees often also have retirement plans, and those are paid by what you pay for their services. So you pay it either way.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  102. Re:Affirmative Action by Suiggy · · Score: 1

    Gotta love the strawman attacks for someone who has to hide behind the mask of anonymity.

    As an alternative, how about embracing merit, as we have in the FOSS movement.

  103. Re:Affirmative Action by Suiggy · · Score: 1

    Good point. I fear this policy is fast coming to the rest of the West, looking at the demographics.

  104. But that's not the issue... by raehl · · Score: 2

    The issue is that REPLACEMENT cost is not the same thing as VALUE.

    Even if the thing cost $224 million new, or costs $224 million to replace, that doesn't mean that the one that broke is worth $224 million.

    The options are:

    - Buy a new one for $224 million
    - Repair this one for $25 million
    - Scrap this one and get along with one less.

    If you're in a situation where you now have 29 working models of them but you only use 15 at a time, paying $25 million to get back up to 30 of them doesn't make any sense.

    Especially if you're going to replace all 30 with the next generation of equipment in the near future.

  105. Dock his pay! by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    (just kidding)

  106. Whose fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If one guy's mistake causes a major loss, it is not that guy's fault. The real problem is in the system that allows one guy's mistake to fall through without a second guy catching it. If there is a simple error that causes a 25 megabuck loss, you set up a system that double and triple checks for that error.

  107. Accelerator override by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    I'd be seriously pissed if I had to drive a car where depressing accelerator and brake caused the accelerator command to be overridden.

    Heh, something like that is actually a safety feature in some cars already, and They(TM) are considering making it mandatory. Accelerator override: Where if you press the brake, it cancels the accelerator. This is done because there are legit scenarios where the accelerator pedal can get suck. The big one is floor-mat-stuck-under-the-pedal. People panic and try to use the brakes to stop the car, and that's not always as effected as one would like.

    Whether or not it's worth the costs in loss of control you describe, I dunno.

    Semi-related: It occurs to me that if you really need that extra margin while changing lanes, you're probabbly driving inappropriately for a public road.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Accelerator override by tibit · · Score: 1

      I think that the emergency brake sensor should be used as the override. That's how I'd design it if it were my car, there's no legitimate reason for the engine to apply torque to the wheels when you're doing emergency braking of any sort.

      Semi-related: sometimes you don't have a choice where you live and how dense the traffic is. You can either get where you want to, or you won't ever get to where you're going, and not everyone can take the trip a couple of hours before or after the peak time.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  108. RFID would work here by Nyder · · Score: 0

    Okay, here's one example of how RFID would work.

    All all the tools have a RFID tag on them, the tool box has a RFID reader. If a tool isn't there, it lets you know.

    Change the toolbox to a tool truck, or whatever they use for doing routine maintenance during fuel ups.

    Better use for them then tagging people, for sure.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  109. National defense? by jodido · · Score: 0

    Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that a $244 million warplane can be crippled by a 10-cent (or whatever) plug? Proving once again that in war humans properly organized and led beat machines every time. Like in Vietnam.

  110. The Mechanic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, you think this was MY fault? Well screw you guys I'm going home.

  111. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by mpoulton · · Score: 1

    Are you serious?

    well, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that you're not going to bang one of these babies together over the weekend in your garage.

    I certainly agree with your general point, but you actually can throw together a gas turbine in your garage in a weekend. I've done it. Start with the biggest diesel engine turbocharger you can find, build a combustion chamber, and then hack together all the other little bits needed to make it run. Of course, the design of the combustion chamber and the hacking together of all the support systems is quite a project! But it is totally achievable in a garage, and takes no more than a weekend if you have all the parts and a good design in advance. The result is a functional and very noisy but completely useless gas turbine engine.

    --
    I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
  112. Management at Fault, Allowed Single-Point Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ones who came up with the maintenance schedule and strategy deserve blame for allowing a situation where a single individual's error can result in this much damage.

  113. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by squidflakes · · Score: 1

    Alright, fair enough. With the right tools, know-how, and some bitchin' access to parts that are already mostly in the form that you need, I suppose you COULD bang one together in a weekend.

    Not a flight rated one, but one that would sure piss off the neighbors.

  114. Panic; e-brake; tragedy of the commons by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    I think that the emergency brake sensor should be used as the override.

    Again, it's a panic thing. People panic and try to use the (regular) brakes to stop the car. There are already ways to recover from a stuck accelerator: "Shift to neutral" and "turn ignition switch to OFF" being the most obvious. But when people are panicked because their car is accelerating out of control, they don't think clearly.

    Plus, I think using the emergency brake would be a poor idea. The e-brake is typically the rear wheels only and lacks anti-lock; if it's the foot pedal variety it also typically lacks any fine control. That's a recipe for rear wheel lock-up, fish tailing, and loss of control.

    It occurs to me that if you really need that extra margin while changing lanes, you're probabbly driving inappropriately for a public road.

    sometimes you don't have a choice where you live and how dense the traffic is. You can either get where you want to, or you won't ever get to where you're going...

    You're still probably driving inappropriately. The idea that you'll never get there because you needed to shave tens of microseconds for a lane change is... unlikely. And, ironically, people with that attitude are actually a big part of the traffic problem. If people drove properly everyone would get there faster. (See: http://trafficwaves.org/) But too many people either don't understand or don't care. Tragedy of the commons.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Panic; e-brake; tragedy of the commons by tibit · · Score: 1

      I mentioned milliseconds, not microseconds. At 65mph, 10ms is 1 foot. It's not a very meaningful number, though, because you need to look at relative speeds (closing speed). If there's 6 feet of following distance available in front of you, and we'd want to never go below half of that (2 feet), it's merely 100ms at 20mph closing speed. So tens of milliseconds make all the difference, and it's nothing to scoff at. If I can give myslef an extra foot or two of following distance by lowering my reaction times, how is that bad for my safety? It's not about "not getting there if I don't shave milliseconds", it's about getting there safer by keeping my reaction time as low as reasonably possible. I basically try to drive like on a racetrack while obeying traffic laws -- this doesn't mean that I'm aggressive or unsafe, quite contrary, it means I'm acutely aware of my surroundings and try to use up as little of available safety margins as possible. That's not a bad thing, you know.

      I have driven in places where the traffic flow is so heavy that you will have 65 mph flow with 6 feet of following distance, and 50 mph flow with 3 feet of following distance. I don't know how you'd make all those people drive "properly", but that's some ideal that is not achieveable simply due to controller dynamics of a human driver. The only way to modify that is to have plenty of simulator driver training, with recurrent training and evaluation. Good luck getting anyone to pay for that.

      As for panic: what's wrong with training a different response? I presume you're all for proper driver training and education, this should involve training out certain irrational responses. Turning ignition switch to OFF is a bit hazy of a proposition when you're in panic mode: it's pretty damn easy to overshoot and on some cars it will lock up your steering wheel. I'd personally design the steering wheel lock with an override solenoid that's energized as long as there's nonzero speed -- that way you'd nevel lock up the steering wheel when the car is moving. The foot-actuated emergency brake should not have that fucked up locking ratchet, or at least the ratchet should be disabled when the car is moving. At least on the hand-operated brake you can depress the button to disable the ratchet, and that's how I use it. I test my emergency brake every Friday on a particular downhill stretch of road on the way home from work, and I test it in my wife's car every time I drive it (about once a week).

      The emergency brake of course lacks anti-lock, but in most cars I drove it's so underpowered (or poorly adjusted) that you'll never lock wheels on dry or even somewhat wet pavement. You'll only lock wheels on poor surfaces (snow/sleet, sand/dirt). I have done the adjustments as well as one could in my cars, but it's still a joke of a brake, practically speaking. Better than nothing, but it gives you stopping distances that are easily 2-3x over what regular brakes would do on dry pavement.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  115. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Except federal employees no longer have the benefit you describe. They haven't had pensions or healthcare paid by the government for 30 years.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  116. Happened a while back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happened in 2009...

  117. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    FERS is a defined-benefit plan. Maybe you don't call it a "pension", but it's the same thing.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  118. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    The Basic Benefit and Social Security parts of FERS require you to pay your share each pay period. Your agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions. Your agency pays its part too. Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life.

    The TSP part of FERS is an account that your agency automatically sets up for you. Each pay period your agency deposits into your account amount equal to 1% of the basic pay you earn for the pay period. You can also make your own contributions to your TSP account and your agency will also make a matching contribution. These contributions are tax-deferred. The Thrift Savings Plan is administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

    OMG how dare they pay into their own retirement plan, and get some matching from the org they work for...Just like the commercial sector. I think that you might have read more into FERS than is actually there :)

    source:
    http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.asp

    This is just like a 401k, but for the gov. It is not anything like a pension, as the org's contribution is while the employee is employed, not after.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  119. The word you're looking for is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops!

  120. Mechanic by RailsRunner · · Score: 1

    The contractor was a dog outfit, they didn't follow the TSO PERIOD. That's what happens when jobs are contracted on competitive bid. companies hire cheap labor and cut corners everywhere. That is the way most of our aircraft maintenance is going, south literally, Mexico, South America, China. I have been working on aircraft for 27 years 4 in the USMC F/A18, 12 years at Douglas and 11years at a heavy maintenance C-check facility. As a certified mechanic you call the shots not the boss or the company. You take the time to do it right no matter how long it takes, your ass is on the line.You put the airplane together the way the print, the AD, EO, AO, TSO, STC or whatever the legal document you are using says. If there is a question, request an engineer. Shit happens because people think they know better when they don't. It's good to question, but don't just make changes because you think its not right. We have made some remarkable repairs on aircraft, fabricating parts from scratch plus our company has an extensive supply of parts in Mojave. If an aircraft does not have a good inspection process in place, and mechanics are discouraged from changing parts, the airplane will fall apart. Spare parts need to have good history of serviceability to be airworthy. There are many old airplanes still in good shape because they are properly cared for.

  121. Re:Althourhg it was a private contractor by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I have no objection to TSP, and would like government workers to have TSP only. Right now, they also get a defined-benefit plan as part of FERS. It is much better than the old pension system, in that it gets pre-funded - but this funding is based on assumptions about the future. Should one of those assumptions fail, the taxpayer guarantees the pension fund.

    Anyone who qualifies for FERS also qualifies for the health benefits, which of course cost a fortune.

    Get rid of defined-benefit plans like the private sector did and make them pay the full healthcare cost (even if they can join the plan) and I'll be much happier about my government employees. :)

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  122. Simple and obvious, thus, hard to understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are talking about sensing whether or not a plug is present that can destroy the airplane if it is present at the wrong time. More care is taken in sensing on your car. I don't know why people have so hard a time in understanding this. It would be a simple proximity sensor tied into a system that no doubt already exists.

  123. carelss by bapictg · · Score: 1

    It absolutely occurred for careless handling of contractor.So they are accountable for this accident. currency exchange