You could not make this up.....
Me, again!
Today's WSJ, page B2:
title: "Airbus Takes On Test-Flight Hazards"
Quotes (the photograph is just beautiful!):
"In late 2007, a new Airbus A340-600 being delivered to Abu Dhabi-based
Etihad Airways crashed into a concrete barrier during routine ground tests
outside the Airbus headquarters in Toulouse, France."
"Investigators concluded that an Airbus engineer revved up all four
engines to high power at the same time, but didn't put a chock under the
wheels to prevent them from rolling. When one of the Etihad crew believed
the plane was moving, the engineer assumed that there had been a hydraulic
failure."
"To clear the problem, the Airbus engineeer momentarily released the
parking brake, and the plane began accelerating. In seconds, the $250
million jet smashed into the barrier, shearing off the cockpit and
seriously injuring four people aboard. The harried engineer never pulled
back on the throttles."
The article also discussed several other examples of really really stupid
things that the "testers" did while trying/testing their
re-built-re-maintained aircraft.
The picture is just worth a thousand words. $1/4 billion worth of
aircraft.
Earlier in the article is this:
"According to the US National Transportation Safety Board, over one
quarter of commercial aircraft crashes since the late 1990s involved some
type of testing or ferry flights without passengers."
Wouldn't it have been nice if they tested the Titanic, first, without
passengers?
Oh, I know, that's being "negative," right?
BMJ
"Me, again!" <arth...@mv.com> wrote:
> Today's WSJ, page B2:
>
> title: "Airbus Takes On Test-Flight Hazards"
>
> Quotes (the photograph is just beautiful!):
>
> "In late 2007, a new Airbus A340-600 being delivered to Abu Dhabi-based
> Etihad Airways crashed into a concrete barrier during routine ground tests
> outside the Airbus headquarters in Toulouse, France."
>
> "Investigators concluded that an Airbus engineer revved up all four
> engines to high power at the same time, but didn't put a chock under the
> wheels to prevent them from rolling. When one of the Etihad crew believed
> the plane was moving, the engineer assumed that there had been a hydraulic
> failure."
>
> "To clear the problem, the Airbus engineeer momentarily released the
> parking brake, and the plane began accelerating. In seconds, the $250
> million jet smashed into the barrier, shearing off the cockpit and
> seriously injuring four people aboard. The harried engineer never pulled
> back on the throttles."
>
> The article also discussed several other examples of really really stupid
> things that the "testers" did while trying/testing their
> re-built-re-maintained aircraft.
>
> The picture is just worth a thousand words. $1/4 billion worth of
> aircraft.
Somebody was clearly unqualified for that work. Did the article say
that the "engineer" was a technician or a registered professional
engineer? If the latter, then someone will be in front of a discipline
committee.
Was that individual a full-time Airbus employee, a part-timer, or a
contractor? That can make a lot of difference as to what happened.
I've heard stories about companies who cut their payroll staff and use
contract employees instead. Often, corners are cut and that includes
preparation and training.
>
> Earlier in the article is this:
>
> "According to the US National Transportation Safety Board, over one
> quarter of commercial aircraft crashes since the late 1990s involved some
> type of testing or ferry flights without passengers."
>
> Wouldn't it have been nice if they tested the Titanic, first, without
> passengers?
>
> Oh, I know, that's being "negative," right?
There are a number of reasons why the Titanic sank.
One was, of course, an inadequate design. The forward compartments
weren't water-tight as water passed from one to another as each flooded.
That could have been avoided on the drawing board and if someone had
checked the design with a model.
Another was a breakdown in communications and what actually happened
between ships in the vicinity remains the subject of debate to this day.
In recent years, it's been suggested that the steel that was used for
the rivets might have been affected by the water temperature, resulting
in a change in the crystalline phase of the metal as it cooled.
Problems related to that could occur because of limits in the knowledge
of material behaviour, but nobody could have done much about it. In
addition, the standard of quality control in producing the steel was far
below those in use today, so any defects might not have been detected or
even detectable.
Me, again!
All that was there was in the quoted sentences. Other parts of the article
discussed other/different examples.
That can make a lot of difference as to what happened.
> I've heard stories about companies who cut their payroll staff and use
> contract employees instead. Often, corners are cut and that includes
> preparation and training.
Yes, that happens, all in the name of cutting costs, and there is plenty
of NTSB data that it hurts safety tests and results.
>>
>> Earlier in the article is this:
>>
>> "According to the US National Transportation Safety Board, over one
>> quarter of commercial aircraft crashes since the late 1990s involved some
>> type of testing or ferry flights without passengers."
>>
>> Wouldn't it have been nice if they tested the Titanic, first, without
>> passengers?
>>
>> Oh, I know, that's being "negative," right?
>
> There are a number of reasons why the Titanic sank.
>
> One was, of course, an inadequate design. The forward compartments
> weren't water-tight as water passed from one to another as each flooded.
That problem was described as the bulkheads were not high enough. They
also made the assumption that any leak/hull breach would be local. Bad
assumption.
> That could have been avoided on the drawing board and if someone had
> checked the design with a model.
But, you didn't even have to go that far if human stupidity and arrogance
could have been avoided. The list is large: not enough lifeboats,
disorganized/chaotic transfer of passengers to lifeboats, and captain
careless beyond belief (ignoring ice berg warnings, traveling far too
fast, traveling too far north where berg density was higher),
> Another was a breakdown in communications and what actually happened
> between ships in the vicinity remains the subject of debate to this day.
>
> In recent years, it's been suggested that the steel that was used for
> the rivets might have been affected by the water temperature, resulting
> in a change in the crystalline phase of the metal as it cooled.
> Problems related to that could occur because of limits in the knowledge
> of material behaviour, but nobody could have done much about it. In
> addition, the standard of quality control in producing the steel was far
> below those in use today, so any defects might not have been detected or
> even detectable.
Well, I don't see how that would have had much effect with a fast-moving
ship hitting a berg like it did. Titanic was a very big, heavy ship. Even
if the hull were ten inches thick, you just have massive momentum
converted into buckled metal. And, the iceberg doesn't care.
Yet, there is also a record of recent submarine collisions (in several
books) between US-USSR, and also other sub-surface ship collisions.
Gunboats running aground, and many other disasters that I would bet more
dilligence could have avoided.
BMJ
One of the results of the sinking was the establishment of an iceberg
patrol, as it's been suggested that nobody was aware of the one that did
the damage. Still, that's no excuse for going at such a speed through an
area of the ocean known to be hazardous for several hundred years. I'm
sure the aboriginals who settled the Rock (as some people call the island
of Newfoundland) or the Norse who visited there would have known about it.
Of course, if one assumes that the ship's not going to sink, one won't put
in more lifeboats or rehearse evacuation procedures.
>
>> Another was a breakdown in communications and what actually happened
>> between ships in the vicinity remains the subject of debate to this day.
>>
>> In recent years, it's been suggested that the steel that was used for
>> the rivets might have been affected by the water temperature, resulting
>> in a change in the crystalline phase of the metal as it cooled.
>> Problems related to that could occur because of limits in the knowledge
>> of material behaviour, but nobody could have done much about it. In
>> addition, the standard of quality control in producing the steel was far
>> below those in use today, so any defects might not have been detected or
>> even detectable.
>
> Well, I don't see how that would have had much effect with a fast-moving
> ship hitting a berg like it did. Titanic was a very big, heavy ship.
> Even if the hull were ten inches thick, you just have massive momentum
> converted into buckled metal. And, the iceberg doesn't care.
It's well-known that steel will undergo a change in crystalline structure
during a drop in temperature, depending upon where one is on its phase
diagram (carbon content is of great importance here). In the shipyard and
for most of the voyage, the steel might have been ductile but in the colder
water, it might have become brittle.
The result is that if the ice had struck the rivets, the heads would have
easily sheared off rather than deforming and possibly stretching. If a
shear failure had occurred, the joint between the plates held together by
those rivets (and the corresponding seal) would have been compromised,
allowing water to leak in.
There's been some debate on what the exact failure mode was. Was it rivet
failure or was it hull plate buckling? As far as I know, that's never been
established and the evidence from the shipwreck apparently didn't answer
the question.
As for the quality control, the relative content of the alloying elements
might have varied greatly between batches during a production run or, if
produced at more than one location, between foundries. Many of the
standards such as those set out by the ASTM were formulated early during
the last century and not necessarily due to the Titanic. During those
days, there were numerous boiler and structural failures, making standards
for material properties and composition necessary.
>
> Yet, there is also a record of recent submarine collisions (in several
> books) between US-USSR,
Some of them being Crazy Ivan maneuvers which came too close.
The_killing_machine
frequency of catastrophic failure, ie. that russin sub they made the
movie about, that US sub in the 30s (Squalus
http://www.millcreekvalleyfarm.com/tomparksoldgringo/sailfish.html.)
... I suppose the same principle applies to planes, trains,
automobiles and shipping.
BMJ
> On Nov 19, 10:50 pm, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> As for the quality control, the relative content of the alloying elements
>> might have varied greatly between batches during a production run or, if
>> produced at more than one location, between foundries. Many of the
>> standards such as those set out by the ASTM were formulated early during
>> the last century and not necessarily due to the Titanic. During those
>> days, there were numerous boiler and structural failures, making standards
>> for material properties and composition necessary.
>
> and other military hardware.
I've found American military design standards and specifications to be
excellent references. They are not just thorough and comprehensive but
detailed to a degree that those I've encountered in other industries may
not have.
BMJ
> functionality?
I wasn't involved with that, so I can't comment on it. As far as designs
where ergonomics are to be considered, mil specs and standards are a good
starting point.
Me, again!
There were a lot of sub collisions, and quite a few were basically
encouraged by the higher ups as pure excercises in harrassing the enemy
and/or getting close enough to do spying on things like response time,
sonar, photography, speed measures, sonar capabilities, etc.
I read two books written about some of this, one from each side after the
cold war ended. The titles are not handy to me now.
There have been non-collision accidents of many kinds, also on both sides,
with total or major losses of crews.
Then some years ago, our navy was carrying civilians on one nuclear sub
and they let some of the civilians pilot the controls for a short while
and allowed them to do a power crash surface. On the way up they hit some
Asian fishing boat, which caused (IIRC) the loss of most of the fishing
boat's crew (meaning, IIRC, they could not find the bodies). Story I
recall is that our navy had cozzy relationships with some corporations
and that they took company reps on "joy rides" on nuke subs. The joyride
part might be OK, but the idea of letting civilians actually pilot the
controls seems a little "loosie-goosie" to me.
At one point or the other, stupid decisions were made. Made again, and
again, and again.
Back when I was in high school, and entering science fairs, I did win what
was called a "Navy Science Cruiser Award" which was a complete one week
cruise with the US Navy, and including visits to some defense companies
for tours of facilities. We got a one day long cruise on an aircraft
carrier (watched training flights of jets taking off and landing),
witnessed a missle launch, went on a sub (conventional, and no
dive-surface trips though), and lots of other interesting things. No
fuckups, though. Only problem was I got airsick on the bouncy plane ride
to San Diego which took all day. All expense paid. Pretty impressive.