When redundancy goes out the window

Messages
323
Location
wa
Thread starter
This was horrible, and no excuse for it. B17's came home with vertical stabilizers missing and many other parts as well. Then there was the Israeli plane that was missing a wing that flew back. Losing all hydraulics is no excuse to lose all control ability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LOFOLoTX7w
 
Last edited:
Messages
930
Location
New York
Redundancy wouldn't have helped them. That was caused by a faulty repair years earlier after a hard landing. They didn't put enough rivets in the rear pressure bulkhead when they made the repair and it eventually failed. I think it was supposed to have a double row of rivets and they only used one eventually causing it to crack and blow out . Iirc the mechanic that approved the repair killed him self when he found out the root cause of the crash. Even the Japanese authorities got into the cluster$&#@ act by forbidding USAF search and rescue who were first on scene to participate. Supposedly there were a few survivors who died while they got their act together and figured out how to get on scene.
 
Messages
234
Location
Hedgesville, WV
You would think we would learn, but those that forget the past are bound to repeat it. Now we have the 737 MAX, Drive by wire cars, companies that want robotic self driving 18 wheelers. What could go wrong. Nothing until it does.
 
Messages
1,267
Location
ZFW
The issue, if I'm remembering right, was in the splicing of the bulkhead repairs (instead of replacing it as one solid piece) The mechanics that performed the repair were representatives of Boeing, and the repair was never reinspected by JAL. I work in Technical Operations for an airline and we've used this accident many times as a case study for the importance of performing repairs by the book, precise documentation of the repairs, and accurate tracking of follow up inspections. Here's a diagram of the correct way to perform the repair and how it was performed by the Boeing team.

Bulkhead_Repair.png
 
Messages
9,932
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by JustN89
The issue, if I'm remembering right, was in the splicing of the bulkhead repairs (instead of replacing it as one solid piece) The mechanics that performed the repair were representatives of Boeing, and the repair was never reinspected by JAL. I work in Technical Operations for an airline and we've used this accident many times as a case study for the importance of performing repairs by the book, precise documentation of the repairs, and accurate tracking of follow up inspections. Here's a diagram of the correct way to perform the repair and how it was performed by the Boeing team.
I think this was done by JAL mechanics, not Boeing.
 

djb

Messages
776
Location
Los Gatos CA
Originally Posted by Olas
weld, dont rivet.
Errrm, how much welded aluminum do you see in airframe construction? For this type of structure, none. The thin material is very difficult to weld, and it can't be properly re-hardened in-situ.
 

Astro14

Staff member
Messages
11,306
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted by djb
Originally Posted by Olas
weld, dont rivet.
Errrm, how much welded aluminum do you see in airframe construction? For this type of structure, none. The thin material is very difficult to weld, and it can't be properly re-hardened in-situ.
Don't you understand! We need to weld airplanes from strong steel, not this thin aluminum! We need to bring back piston driven propellers for safety! We need control cables, not this stupid hydraulic control system! Round dials! No computers! There is no excuse for not having all steel, welded airframes controlled by cables, powered by pistons, and instrumented by mechanical components! You guys can keep feeding the troll if you like. I'm done giving serious answers to inflammatory, trolling posts.
 
Last edited:

4WD

Messages
13,126
Location
Texas
HaHa … Totally agree … only on washing machines Boeing needs a composite single aisle FBW with P&W PP's as the 797
 
Messages
9,796
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted by djb
Originally Posted by Olas
weld, dont rivet.
Errrm, how much welded aluminum do you see in airframe construction? For this type of structure, none. The thin material is very difficult to weld, and it can't be properly re-hardened in-situ.
I believe the Eclipse jet used friction stir welding on some wing and fuselage structures. I've not had a chance to deal with this design. [Linked Image from image1.slideserve.com]
 
Messages
1,267
Location
ZFW
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by JustN89
The issue, if I'm remembering right, was in the splicing of the bulkhead repairs (instead of replacing it as one solid piece) The mechanics that performed the repair were representatives of Boeing, and the repair was never reinspected by JAL. I work in Technical Operations for an airline and we've used this accident many times as a case study for the importance of performing repairs by the book, precise documentation of the repairs, and accurate tracking of follow up inspections. Here's a diagram of the correct way to perform the repair and how it was performed by the Boeing team.
I think this was done by JAL mechanics, not Boeing.
No, the repair was done by a team of Boeing specialists, not by JAL mechanics. "'We examined the aft pressure bulkhead at the site of the crash of Flight 123 and determined that a relatively small section of the bulkhead splice, approximately 17 percent of it, was not correctly assembled during a repair which Boeing made after a 1978 landing incident,' the company advisory said." Link
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,700
Location
USA
Designs don't consider that an incident initiated by in-flight failure of a fixed structural element needs to be survivable. That is something that simply must never happen.
 
Messages
13,889
Location
...
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by djb
Originally Posted by Olas
weld, dont rivet.
Errrm, how much welded aluminum do you see in airframe construction? For this type of structure, none. The thin material is very difficult to weld, and it can't be properly re-hardened in-situ.
Don't you understand! We need to weld airplanes from strong steel, not this thin aluminum! We need to bring back piston driven propellers for safety! We need control cables, not this stupid hydraulic control system! Round dials! No computers! There is no excuse for not having all steel, welded airframes controlled by cables, powered by pistons, and instrumented by mechanical components! You guys can keep feeding the troll if you like. I'm done giving serious answers to inflammatory, trolling posts.
Wait until it delves into carbon fiber construction and why we shouldn't have plastic airplanes. 🎣 🎹🎶
 
Messages
9,932
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by JustN89
The issue, if I'm remembering right, was in the splicing of the bulkhead repairs (instead of replacing it as one solid piece) The mechanics that performed the repair were representatives of Boeing, and the repair was never reinspected by JAL. I work in Technical Operations for an airline and we've used this accident many times as a case study for the importance of performing repairs by the book, precise documentation of the repairs, and accurate tracking of follow up inspections. Here's a diagram of the correct way to perform the repair and how it was performed by the Boeing team.
I think this was done by JAL mechanics, not Boeing.
No, the repair was done by a team of Boeing specialists, not by JAL mechanics. "'We examined the aft pressure bulkhead at the site of the crash of Flight 123 and determined that a relatively small section of the bulkhead splice, approximately 17 percent of it, was not correctly assembled during a repair which Boeing made after a 1978 landing incident,' the company advisory said." Link
Right! I was thinking CI611.
 
Messages
731
Location
North of you Idaho
Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by djb
Originally Posted by Olas
weld, dont rivet.
Errrm, how much welded aluminum do you see in airframe construction? For this type of structure, none. The thin material is very difficult to weld, and it can't be properly re-hardened in-situ.
Don't you understand! We need to weld airplanes from strong steel, not this thin aluminum! We need to bring back piston driven propellers for safety! We need control cables, not this stupid hydraulic control system! Round dials! No computers! There is no excuse for not having all steel, welded airframes controlled by cables, powered by pistons, and instrumented by mechanical components! You guys can keep feeding the troll if you like. I'm done giving serious answers to inflammatory, trolling posts.
"Food" for thought, or trolls. Planes should be made from 4130 chromoly so they are extremely strong, they can crash, just dust them off and throw them back up In the air, no harm, no foul! Need to make the runways a lot Looooonger...
Originally Posted by Olas
weld, dont rivet.
I've never seen 4130 chromoly riveted, weld, weld, weld...
 
Top