Agreed. The main problem with not doing it by the book is that if something goes wrong, there's no way to admit it without getting into trouble.
Point of information, please: what is different and special about the proper engine cranage, and what made it harder or less convenient to use?
I take it you never saw the programme about the DC10 which lost an engine when taking off from Chicago?
American Airlines Flight 191, Chicago 1979 - lost an engine, crashed 273 people killed (271 aboard 2 on ground). Cause of failure fractures due to overloading of mounting points when refitting engine and pylon in one piece using a forklift (they thought that it both saved 200 hours work and would be safer, as it reduced disconnections and reconnections); bolts removed and replaced in a different order to manual as it was easier (but could put execessive loads on points not designed to take it); forklift was not as controllable as the correct engine cradle and lifting devices and the type of forklift used had a tendency to drift downwards if the engine was off (and in this case the forklift ran out of fuel part way through the re-installation). It was never determined whether installing as one unit; wrong bolt order; or using the forklift was the cause of the damage that led to the crash, but all three were found to be possible causes by themselves.
SteveW
Ah yes, like so many other people you appear to have 20:20 hindsight.
Oh Lord above though he doesn't know it, The lad's a genius, a veritable poet.
Working in the draing office doesn't count as design. And since you've proved yourself to be scientifically illiterate on more than one occasion, there's little else that you are qualified to do.
[snip self aggrandising drivel]You seem to possess the qualities of a bat wing door. Swinging backwards and forwards as things pass by. When it suits you, the rules are there only to be broken, when it doesn't suit you they are there to be obeyed. You appear to be, no you are, so stupid that you don't realise how daft it makes you look.
So what is it, eh? The height of stupidity to over-ride interlocks, the height of stupidity to design a system in such a way that interlocks must be over-ridden in order to service an item of equipment, or the height of stupidity to think that over-riding the manufacturer's recommendations is "obviously" wrong only after the inevitable accident?
It must be wonderful to have 20:20 hindsight such as you possess.
You've lost the thread.
No old chap, that would be you.
Grimly alleges that using a forklift to attach engines is "stupidity". However it was a common technique and there was little obviously wrong with it at the time it was done. It saved 200 hours of expensive servicing time.
Dave says he can't see the risk. Indeed at the time it was done, no one foresaw the risk.
You mentioned the programme about the DC10. The DC10 incident was the defining incident which resulted in a ruling that forklifts would not be used to attach engines. Although I will point out that the enquiry did not demonstrate that the forklift was the sole or primary cause of the incident.
I state that you have 20:20 hindsight. That is you are being "clever" about the cause of the incident being to do with the use of forklifts *after* the event. Which is very easy to do, if however the incident had not happened I doubt that you would be commenting on the use of forklifts to position engines in the same way. Indeed I doubt that you would even have a clue that the technique was possibly problematical.
On the development project I worked on, but didn't get involved in testing, there were built in interlock over rides on at least 2 of the most dangerous systems.
One was the Laser Ranger Marked Target Seeker and the other was the weapons radar.
Dave
For the engines I have worked on, my method would not work, as the roll links share the same place with the cradle links. Sorry, but it has been over ten years now.
Dave
Even using the correct hoisting system can result in damage to the engine, or wiring.
It varies between aircraft types, but speaking of the system I know, the engine hoist has a torque limiter to stop the thrust and attachment spigots from being hoisted up too far. This is not critical, as the aircraft structure will rise if the engine is pushed up too far, as opposed to being winched up.
What makes it harder to use the proper gear will be down to the line manager and his attitude to getting the aircraft back up in the air ASAP.
Dave
snip of my bit.
They must have used one hell of a lot of force to do that. Imagine an engine running in turbulance in flight. It could be argued that any fractures were caused by fatigue anyway.
Any disconnections from either the engine or engine pylon would have resulted in the same re test either way. So the saving of 200 hours of work does not add up. In fact, removing the pylon as well as the engine would involve even more re testing and don't forget the flight recorder would have to be pulled after the engine had undergone ground testing, to see if it was recording the engine correctly. Then the recorder would have to be tested as well. There is a way to test it without pulling it again, but once again, that was not my teratory.
In my experience, I would go for the bolts in the wrong order and the failed forklift system. That would have put untold stress on the airframe.
Dave
I don't think your last comment is a fair description of skills. Both of the above have vastly different skills that they had to learn. You wouldn't see a mechanic use a scraper to flatten a warped cylinder head, but a good fitter could do that.
I was told years ago, that a mechanic was good at diagnostics in the aerospace industry.
I trained as a fitter from the age of 15 (1961) to 21 and entered the aerospace industry in 1974 and ended my time as an aircraft development engineer. No motor mechanic did the same. But I have to say, that I have the upmost respect for motor mechanics though.
Dave
ISTR that it was the forklift dropping a little that allowed the engine and pylon to pivot on the rear mounting point while only that was connected, this gave a massive leverage effect where contact was made. If it was the engine alone, the weight would not have been so far forward of the pivot point and contact would not have been made in the same way.
I am only going by what I have read. Presumably it gave improved access and/or fewer connections to break/make, but it's not something I have any professional knowledge of.
I think the leverage is the key.
SteveW
Now you have pointed it out, I agree entirely.
Regards
Dave
Now we know who caused that 747 crash that killed a few hundred people! I specifically choose that scenario because it had killed a large number of people BTW. You just provided the evidence to support what I said BTW.
FFS who do you work for so I can have you retrained? Many people have died because of people like you!
The engineers saw the risk.. why do you think the procedures didn't include using a forklift truck? Its the idiots trying to save a few hours by doing a half arsed job that don't understand the problems that caused the crash.
I think some jumped up maintenance guy who thinks he knows it all is the key to the problem. RTFM they are written for a reason.
It is empty because most of it is owned by a few people. England is not densely populated at all. The Home Counties are underpopulated. Only 7.5% of the UK is settled with 5% parks and gardens.
Land Value Tax will stop most of it and even up society. http//
Doing away with local rail services? Madness. This how snotty uni people think. Appalling and they are in the corridors of power.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.