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."

10 of 428 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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);
  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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