Discus Cs grounded in France
Jim Culp
Chris OCallahan stated
'...quality control broke down at the Chechnia factory.
The question is 'For how long and to what degree?'
Two gliders from the same factory breaking up in flight
in a single season quality control broke down at the
Chechia factory. The quesiton on my mind is,
'For how long and to what degree?'
Two gliders from the same factory breaking up in flight
in a single season deserves a factory explanation.
'
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Dear Chris,
Maybe the WingGlueMan needs reassignment to
clean shop or answer telefunken;
or
a Beer On The Job rule of not more than 2 grossestein
biers every hour needs some clearminded consideration.
Dancing on clouds,
Keep it up!
Jim Culp USA
GatorCity Florida
Std Libelle H201b (still flyin)
Vorsanger1
clarity's sake, and nothing else, I think the writer meant the Czech Republic.
Correct me if I am wrong, I have been know to goof before.
Cheers, Charles
Deputy Dog
I believe that most of the CS's were built by Orlican in Chocen, CZ.
Some of the later ones were built by Schempp-Hirth, Vyr.Let.S.R.
-Deputy Dog
vorsa...@aol.com (Vorsanger1) wrote in message news:<20030911185745...@mb-m23.aol.com>...
Steve B
called the Carat (Motor Glider). It is manufactured by a company in
Slovania called AMS Technoflug and uses a front enging with forward
folding propeller. I assume that they are manufacturing the (Discus
BM) wing design in Slovania. I understand that they are known for very
high quality work... they build many of the DG Gliders.
d...@atlantic.net (Deputy Dog) wrote in message news:<6c274cd7.0309...@posting.google.com>...
Chris OCallaghan
Marc Till
new name of Orlican
Cheers
Marc
Deputy Dog a écrit:
N5360C
version of the grounding order: the English version is an accurate
translation. No mention of high time or turbulence. One finds
oneself drawn to the conclusion that some sort of construction defect
played a role. Tales of third party reports of insufficient resin are
troubling and certainly deserve a more complete explanation,
recognizing, of course, that liability is still being considered by
lawyers. And recognizing too that there is such a thing as too much
resin in composite aircraft construction: you don't just ladle on as
much epoxy as gravity will hold in place if you are trying to find the
best balance of strength and weight. But if a given factory is
producing parts that fail in flight this certainly calls for more than
hints of workmen drinking too much beer and inspectors abdicating
their responsibility. Let's get serious with this, shall we? Does
anyone have more than suspicions of beer drinking and third party
negligence?
Marc Ramsey
> Does anyone have more than suspicions of beer drinking and third
> party negligence?
Well, I could show you a few pictures of the insides of our Czech-built Duo wing
where a bit more epoxy needed to be ladled in. And, ours was far from the worst
looking Duo wing in this particular shop...
Marc
JJ Sinclair
a ship that has met with misfortune, It has styrofoam dams at the leading edge,
on both sides of the upper spar cap and at the forward edge of the drag spar.
These styrofoam dams were set just high enough to allow for a 10% excess of
glue (epoxy resin, chopped fibers, micro-balloons) that were trawled in from
the edge of one dam to the edge of the other dam. In this way, the construction
crew was 100% sure that the proper amount of glue had been spread along the
spar cap. When the upper skin was mated, all voids were filled and the excess
10% of resin was forced out each side into the styrofoam dams.
The inside of this wing is a work of art. I would expect nothing less from all
sailplane manufactures.
JJ Sinclair
Slingsby
It is interesting that you mention dams on BOTH sides of the upper
spar cap, as the AD for the Duo Discus had an inspection of the rear
side of the upper spar cap only. There must be an assumption that if
epoxy resin oozed out the back it equally oozed out the front side.
How good is that assumption? If it is possible to have voids where
there is no bonding of the cap to the shear web it must also be
possible to have a partial bonding of the upper aft corner of the web
but not the top and front side. How strong would this spar be? Would
it fail after 1000 hours and only in "extreme turbulance"? Why
wouldn't they have checked both sides of the spar?
Robertmudd1u
wing...@mail.flashmail.com (Slingsby) writes:
>the AD for the Duo Discus had an inspection of the rear
>side of the upper spar cap only. There must be an assumption that if
>epoxy resin oozed out the back it equally oozed out the front side.
>How good is that assumption?
I think SH has you inspect the aft face of the spar because the front side has
a foam dam to help keep the bonding paste from squeezing out. So if there is a
void at the aft side then the void may or may not go through to the front side.
If there is no void it highly likely that there is enough bonding paste all
across the bonding area.
Now I if you don't like the word "likely" when applied to this particular
process then you should not fly any composite glider because such assumptions,
based on tests and real world experience, are used through the construction
process. 100% inspection of every bonded joint is impossible given the
constraints of manufacturing of gliders as it is done now. Perhaps these
incidents will cause the LBA and manufactures to re-think the inspection
standards. And likely raise the price of an already costly toy.
Robert Mudd
Slingsby
> process then you should not fly any composite glider because such assumptions,
> based on tests and real world experience, are used through the construction
> process. 100% inspection of every bonded joint is impossible given the
> constraints of manufacturing of gliders as it is done now. Perhaps these
> incidents will cause the LBA and manufactures to re-think the inspection
> standards. And likely raise the price of an already costly toy.
> Robert Mudd
W. Edwards Deming the father of statistical process control showed
that a 100% inspection system will regularly miss 20% of the defects.
The goal of manufacturing and design should be to develop a process
which minimizes the likelyhood of defects, especially catastrophic
defects.
The DG website has a very detailed explanation of how a wing is
constructed and I assume the technique is similar for all German
designed gliders. Spar CAPS are formed with carbon fibre rovings and
are inspected in minute detail for voids and any cap which fails
inspection is immediately cut in half to preclude its inadvertant use.
As the upper and lower wing skins are moulded, the spar caps are
glued in place so that they are well bonded to the skin. So far so
good, the top and bottom of an I-beam shaped spar are well built and
in place. Next the shear web, which is also well built and inspected
is glued into the bottom part of the spar cap. Gravity holds the glue
in place and the surface is well lighted and clean so the craftsmen
and inspectors can see what is happening. The wing spar is now an
upside down T shape. Later on in the process the top surface of the
wing is glued to the bottom half forming both a wing and a complete
spar. It can be SEEN that the exterior surfaces of the wing are well
mated because epoxy oozes out of the joints. It can only be ASSUMED
that the upper spar cap is well bonded to the shear web because the
glue joints cannot be seen. Assuming you have a good spar because of
German craftmanship works because German craftsmen are quite good, but
it is not a well designed manufacturing process. Building a complete
spar outside of the wing and then bonding it to the upper and lower
surfaces strikes me as a process much less likely to lead to a
catastrophic failure. In the case of the Duo Discus and probably the
Discus CS, failure of the spar is more of a process defect than an
inspection defect.
The price of these costly toys may indeed go up but something bad has
just happened to the value of Shemp Hirth products.
Dave Nadler "YO"
Very bad assumption. Not even the same for all products from each mfg.
Slingsby
> "I assume the technique is similar for all German designed gliders."
>
> Very bad assumption. Not even the same for all products from each mfg.
methods used by the different German manufacturers? Which ones use a
spar which is constructed outside of the wing assembly process?
John Galloway
>The price of these costly toys may indeed go up but
>something bad has
>just happened to the value of Shemp Hirth products.
This is unlikely to happen as glider buyers and sellers
are not fools. Buyers are unlikey to avoid gliders
that are perfectly airworthy and sellers are unlikely
to give them away. If they aren'r aware already bofore
long they will be that:
Firstly, only spars built at the Czech factory were
built incorrectly using an simple error in the technique
which has been identified and we can be pretty sure
it has been eliminated.
Secondly, therefore, the bulk of the German built SH
fleet are unnaffected and I think the glider buying
public are informed enough to be able to figure that
out.
Thirdly, all the SH gliders that could possible be
affected (i.e. Discus and Duo with Czech wings) have
been or will be inspected and, if necessary, repaired
and brought up to full airworthiness.
As an inspected Duo owner I have made it my business
to be certain in my own mind that an inspected or repaired
glider will be at full design spar strength - for example
that there have been no post manufacturing new delaminations
in the Czech wings, that wings that pass the visual
inspection actually are strong.
I have no particular sentimental attachment to Schemmp-Hirth
and no business relationship with them. Like most
affected owners I was pretty upset but now I know the
facts I feel no need to be concerned about the strength
or value of our Duo. I have also just ordered a new
Schempp-Hirth glider.
Lastly, there is no reason to think that the cost of
new gliders will go up. There is nothing wrong in
principle with the way that they are built - as long
as they are built as intended.
John Galloway
Nick Hill
> At 22:48 18 September 2003, Slingsby wrote:
>
> >The price of these costly toys may indeed go up but
>
>>something bad has
>>just happened to the value of Shemp Hirth products.
>
snip...
>
> Firstly, only spars built at the Czech factory were
> built incorrectly using an simple error in the technique
> which has been identified and we can be pretty sure
> it has been eliminated.
>
> Secondly, therefore, the bulk of the German built SH
> fleet are unnaffected and I think the glider buying
> public are informed enough to be able to figure that
> out.
>
> Thirdly, all the SH gliders that could possible be
> affected (i.e. Discus and Duo with Czech wings) have
> been or will be inspected and, if necessary, repaired
> and brought up to full airworthiness.
>
Maybe a better statement is the reputatation of Schempp Hirth products
and procedures. It is fine to say the Czech built ones are at fault but
you buy them from Schempp Hirth who therefore carry the responsibility
for the production and quality control.
Nick Hill
Andrew Warbrick
When our club ordered its Discus B they specifically
asked for a German built glider and payed more for
the privilege, they were told that 'some components
would come from the Czech republic in accordance with
normal manufacturing' it turns out that 'some components'
are the sodding wings, the glider was grounded (during
a competition!) and the club is still losing revenue.
Bob Kuykendall
> I assume the technique is similar
> for all German designed gliders."
And Dave Nadler replied:
> Very bad assumption...
And Slingsby responded:
> Could you please explain some of
> the different spar construction
> methods used by the different
> German manufacturers? Which ones
> use a spar which is constructed
> outside of the wing assembly process?
To which I say:
Slingsby, I think you kind of slipped a groove back there. You started
off by talking about "German designed gliders," but after Dave
responded you changed the topic to German manufactured gliders.
Design and manufacture are two different things.
A survey of the Akaflieg Web pages might show a couple of examples of
German designs with the characteristics you are talking about. What
then?
Bob K.
Marc Ramsey
"John Galloway" <REMOVE_TO_REPLY...@btinternet.com> wrote...
> Thirdly, all the SH gliders that could possible be
> affected (i.e. Discus and Duo with Czech wings) have
> been or will be inspected and, if necessary, repaired
> and brought up to full airworthiness.
I believe some recent Ventus 2 wings were also constructed in the Czech factory,
I would hope they have plans to inspect those, as well.
I am, by the way, very much impressed with the way Schemmp-Hirth notified and
provided support to those of us with Duos, whether or not the glider was still
in warranty. It was a class act, and I wouldn't hesitate to buy another SH
glider.
Marc
John Galloway
>
>I believe some recent Ventus 2 wings were also constructed
>in the Czech factory,
>I would hope they have plans to inspect those, as well.
>
Agreed.
However, according to what we were told the construction
technique error on the Duos, at least, was so simple
and specific that they might be able to positively
identify some Czech spars that are not under suspicion.
IMHO it would be in Schempp-Hirth's best interests
to publish a full account of the production problem,
the rationale behind the inspection and repair procedure,
and the actions taken to ensure future quality standards.
John Galloway
Slingsby
> At 22:48 18 September 2003, Slingsby wrote:
>
> >The price of these costly toys may indeed go up but
> >something bad has
> >just happened to the value of Shemp Hirth products.
>
>
> This is unlikely to happen as glider buyers and sellers
> are not fools. Buyers are unlikey to avoid gliders
> that are perfectly airworthy and sellers are unlikely
> to give them away. If they aren'r aware already bofore
> long they will be that:
The opinion that "Safety doesn't sell" which is discussed on the DG
website might provide an argument to your statement that buyers and
sellers are not fools. The concept of a Czech manufactured Duo Discus
or Discus being "perfectly airworthy" is in the eye of the beholder.
As I ponder whether or not to buy a used Discus, which is the better
log book entry, "AD complied with and no voids in the wing spars were
found," or "AD complied with and a sufficient amount glue was squirted
into the wing spar so that they can never fall apart. Wings are now
perfectly airworthy."
> Firstly, only spars built at the Czech factory were
> built incorrectly using an simple error in the technique
> which has been identified and we can be pretty sure
> it has been eliminated.
Right, a "simple error in the technique" lead to wings breaking off in
normal flight. We can be "pretty sure" it has been eliminated because
we sent our best German craftsmen to the Czech factory to, once again,
show them how to spread glue on a spar cap. The problem is eliminated,
Murphys Law will not rear its ugly head around here again.
> Secondly, therefore, the bulk of the German built SH
> fleet are unnaffected and I think the glider buying
> public are informed enough to be able to figure that
> out.
The glider buying public will also be informed whenever a Shemp-Hirth
glider breaks apart in flight.
> Thirdly, all the SH gliders that could possible be
> affected (i.e. Discus and Duo with Czech wings) have
> been or will be inspected and, if necessary, repaired
> and brought up to full airworthiness.
Right, and the German built gliders couldn't possibly be affected because
none of them have broken apart, yet. Until then, they are fully airworthy.
> As an inspected Duo owner I have made it my business
> to be certain in my own mind that an inspected or repaired
> glider will be at full design spar strength - for example
> that there have been no post manufacturing new delaminations
> in the Czech wings, that wings that pass the visual
> inspection actually are strong.
> I have no particular sentimental attachment to Schemmp-Hirth
> and no business relationship with them. Like most
> affected owners I was pretty upset but now I know the
> facts I feel no need to be concerned about the strength
> or value of our Duo. I have also just ordered a new
> Schempp-Hirth glider.
> Lastly, there is no reason to think that the cost of
> new gliders will go up. There is nothing wrong in
> principle with the way that they are built - as long
> as they are built as intended.
>
> John Galloway
They weren't built as intended, and the blind method of assembling
the spar as the wing is being assembled is wrong in principle. You
should be pretty upset, THEY DIDN'T GLUE THE SPAR TOGETHER. Not just
one, THEY DIDN'T GLUE THE SPAR TOGETHER ON A WHOLE BUNCH OF WINGS. Oops!!!
But hey, "now I know the facts I feel no need to be concerned about the
strength or value of our Duo. I have also just ordered a new Shemp-Hirth
glider" Nice sales pitch, how much are you asking for your Duo?
Slingsby
Manufactured" was indeed a sinister attempt to confuse the reading
public. How about German designed and/or manufactured? Prior to the
Duo Discus AD I had always had the "very bad assumption" (shame on me)
that wing spars were built separately, inspected thoroughly and then
placed into the wing. Every web site or builders log I have ever
looked at seems to have a picture of "The Spar" and "The Spar with the
ribs being attached." Years ago I read the DG description of how a
wing is built and didn't realize that "the spar" wasn't built and then
placed into the wing. I reread the article after the Duo mess, talked
to some people about spar construction, saw JJ's short statement about
the elegance of an ASW 22 wing section and formed my own bad
assumptions. I want my wings to have a spar which is built as a spar.
I want that spar to be strong as hell.
John Galloway
>John Galloway wrote in message news:...
>
That's not the full repair . I agree that I would
prefer one that didn't need a repair - but mainly because
it didn't have holes cut in the wing skins to do the
work. I was also very pleased that ours were OK.
The airworthiness of passed or repaired wings is not
in the eye of the beholder - unless you have some technical
information to show otherwise - or perhaps you think
the factory, the LBA and the local airworthiness organisations
are incompetent or part of a conspiracy?
>> Firstly, only spars built at the Czech factory were
>> built incorrectly using an simple error in the technique
>> which has been identified and we can be pretty sure
>> it has been eliminated.
>
>Right, a 'simple error in the technique' lead to wings
>breaking off in
>normal flight. We can be 'pretty sure' it has been
>eliminated because
>we sent our best German craftsmen to the Czech factory
>to, once again,
>show them how to spread glue on a spar cap. The problem
>is eliminated,
>Murphys Law will not rear its ugly head around here
>again.
I am not sure what point is being made in the above.
As far as I am aware Murphy's Law is spread evenly
throughout human activity. I thought that's what it
was about. And are you suggesting that retraining
cannot possibly correct a production error?
>> Secondly, therefore, the bulk of the German built
>>SH
>> fleet are unnaffected and I think the glider buying
>> public are informed enough to be able to figure that
>> out.
>The glider buying public will also be informed whenever
>a Shemp-Hirth
>glider breaks apart in flight.
How could it be otherwise?
>> Thirdly, all the SH gliders that could possible be
>> affected (i.e. Discus and Duo with Czech wings) have
>> been or will be inspected and, if necessary, repaired
>> and brought up to full airworthiness.
>
>Right, and the German built gliders couldn't possibly
>be affected because
>none of them have broken apart, yet. Until then, they
>are fully airworthy.
Are you accusing Schemmp-Hirth of lying when they say
that only Czech wings were built by the faulty technique?
Or are you suggesting that properly built spars are
not airworthy? If so back it up - and remember that
this is a public forum.
This is simply stating what we already know. That
is the starting point of the whole problem. Things
have moved on from there and the wings are being checked
and repaired if needed. It is self evident that this
is the biggest manufacturing error in modern gliding
history but it is being sorted - not without a lot
of inconvenience and irritation for the owners but
it is happening.
As regards the 'blind' construction method for the
spars - if you have knowledge to suggest that passed
or repaired Czech wings, or German built wings, or
any SH wings built from now on are not airworthy please
state it. This is, as you are shouting out, a pretty
serious matter and would benefit from information rather
than assertion or insinuation.
'now I know the facts I feel no need to be concerned
about the
>strength or value of our Duo. I have also just ordered
>a new Shemp-Hirth
>glider' Nice sales pitch, how much are you asking
>for your Duo?
It would not have been proper for me not to have declared
my relevant interests in this matter and why it has
been important to me to be sure of the situation.
Weather permitting, tomorrow (like all the other inspected
owners) I will be betting my life that our Duo spar
is sound and then, in the future, I will also be betting
a bigger chunk of the value of my house than I like
to think about that the next glider will also be sound.
Our confidence in the structural integrity of a composite
aircraft comes from our confidence in the integrity
of of the constructor. That isn't a complete defence
against a mistake being made and when it does we then
have to judge whether the constructor has shown the
integrity to learn from the problem, make good the
consequences of it, make sure it can't happen again,
and then extend the audit process to prevent other
types of error occuring in the future.
Your feelings about this problem are much milder than
mine were a few weeks ago. As far as I was concerned
I had to get all the facts I could and then judge whether
(as said before) I was being told the truth or whether
several agencies were being simultaneously incompetent
and/or dishonest because that would be the only other
logical conclusion.
John Galloway
Bob Kuykendall
> ...I want my wings to have a spar
> which is built as a spar.
> I want that spar to be strong as hell.
All laudable aspirations. And your point about the potential vagaries
of the way it is currently done by the majority of European
manufacturers are well taken.
I've made the decision that my earliest attempts at composite wing
construction will incorporate exactly the sort of discrete wing spar
that you advocate. This is a relatively conservative approach, with
some closely-considered trade-offs. I think it is the right thing for
me to do now, but I can see that there are some compelling advantages
to the way the Europeans have generally done it.
As for the recent rash of Schempp-Hirth construction, process, and
inspection issues, I sincerely wish them the best of fortune in
reestablishing the necessary process control. They make good aircraft,
and have stood behind them in the past, and I expect to see them stand
behind them in the future.
Thanks, and best regards to all
Slingsby
> prefer one that didn't need a repair - but mainly because
> it didn't have holes cut in the wing skins to do the
> work. I was also very pleased that ours were OK.
a void, poking a wire into it to find a much larger hidden air pocket
will trigger a much more detailed inspection of the spar cap than just
using a video. That would lead to a very thorough filling of the
voids.
Limiting the inspection to a video of the rear of the upper spar cap
won't find hidden air pockets. This may all be changing with Discus
CS.
I also wonder if an ultrasonic inspection could be done which could
map
the spar cap to shear web interface.
> The airworthiness of passed or repaired wings is not
> in the eye of the beholder - unless you have some technical
> information to show otherwise - or perhaps you think
> the factory, the LBA and the local airworthiness organisations
> are incompetent or part of a conspiracy?
>
the beholder. Whether a glider flys regularly or sits in a box for
several seasons because the owner can't sell it and is too nervous
to fly it is based more on perception of safety than actual safety.
Some pilots stop flying after a bout with rough air. I'm not charging
incompetence or conspiracy but in an earlier posting I mentioned
Deming
and my belief that there is a process problem which is more serious
than just the Czech factory and Schemp-Hirth. The process problem has
more to do with how the wing and spar are designed and assembled and
whether the construction method leads to tightly consistant results
every
single time or variability in results. Variability leads to failure.
Not
knowing if you always get the right amount of glue on the spar joint
is
a process which is out of control. German craftsmen may decrease the
variability and Czech employees may increase the variability but it is
the process which needs to be changed.
> >> Firstly, only spars built at the Czech factory were
> >> built incorrectly using an simple error in the technique
> >> which has been identified and we can be pretty sure
> >> it has been eliminated.
> >
> >Right, a 'simple error in the technique' lead to wingsbreaking
off in normal flight. We can be 'pretty sure' it has been
> >eliminated because we sent our best German craftsmen to the Czech factory
> >to, once again, show them how to spread glue on a spar cap. The problem
> >is eliminated, Murphys Law will not rear its ugly head around here
> >again.
>
> I am not sure what point is being made in the above.
> As far as I am aware Murphy's Law is spread evenly
> throughout human activity. I thought that's what it
> was about. And are you suggesting that retraining
> cannot possibly correct a production error?
Process again. Murphy's Law should serve as a constant reminder to
look
for areas where it can occur and minimize its ability to occur. It's
not
entirely random. If applying adhesive to 30 feet of a spar cap and
web is part and parcel of a process which simultaneously applies glue
to several hundred feet of rib and wing edges and if it is possible to
miss a few spots every 20 or so wings then there will always be spar
caps which are not completely glued together. Retraining might
minimize the occurence but it probably won't eliminate it.
Robertmudd1u
There are several variations to either method.
Method 1.
Build up the spar, shear web and cap, separately of the wing. This is done by
laying up the web and cap all at once, there are several variations to this
step also. Lay up the wing skin and cure it.
Bond the spar onto one of the skins. This bond line is easy to control as you
can see it going together. The next step is to pick up one of the wing molds
and place it on top of the other. The bonding paste between the cap and the
skin is squeezed out and controlled by the dams as the wing is closed. When the
spar and it adhesive mixture comes in contact with the second skin the bonding
is done. This side is much more difficult to inspect. Very careful preparation
is needed and foam or composite dams are helpful to control the squeeze out of
the bonding paste. Typically there is a good fit of the spar cap to the skin on
the first skin. The second spar/skin bond line is much thicker, mostly to
insure that everything fits and there is enough room for lost of bonding paste.
Method 2.
Lay up the wing skins and lay in the rovings for the spar cap at the same time,
(several variations of this exist). The shear web is made separately and its
top and bottom edges have a broad V flange that will act as a dam to control
bonding paste flow. Once the wing and its cap are cured the shear web can be
bonded to one skin. This bond is again fairly easy to control. Next, just as in
method 1. One of the wing molds is lifted up and placed on top of the other and
the bonding paste between the top of the shear web and the cap is squeezed out
and controlled by the dams as the wing is closed.
Either way involves the bonding of long, relatively wide areas, thus opening
both methods to the same potential for bonding problems. From a manufacturing
point of view I do not see an advantage of one method over the other. There may
be other considerations but both methods can work equally well and both are
equally open to problems stemming from lack of correct procedures and quality
control. Obviously wings using either method are able to pass the strength
requirements of the JARs.
There are pros and cons to each method. The method used mostly depends on the
chief designer's experience and beliefs, i.e. what University Flying Group did
he/she belong to, or what is the current method used in the factory. The
problem, I suspect, is not in the method but in the process and quality control
existent in the Czech factory. I have seen indications of other quality
problems from this factory. I am sure SH will correct the problems and keep a
closer watch on them. The Czechs have a proud history of manufacturing and
technical development, however a lot of that was beaten out of them by the
oppressive Soviet system.
You can easily tell which skin, wing or fuselage, had the spar, rib or bulkhead
bonded to it first. The bond line will be much thinner and neater looking that
the one on the opposite side. The bond line that is formed when mold halves are
put together is thicker and may have drips associated with it.
Robert Mudd
Dave Nadler "YO"
that will normally follow with the broad areas of bonding paste, which
(depending
on post-cure handling) may lead to expensive refinish for a relatively new
glider...
Best Regards, Dave
"Robertmudd1u" <robert...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030920103042...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Tigercat F7F
>Date: 9/20/2003 7:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030920103042...@mb-m25.aol.com>
>
... The Czechs have a proud history of manufacturing and
>technical development, however a lot of that was beaten out of them by the
>oppressive Soviet system.
>
Thanks for the post. I was wondering if you could cite your sources on how 13
years after the collapse of the Soviet Union the Czechs' are so repressed as to
not properly glue a wing together. I have not done a study on sociological
effects of the Soviet influence on the Czech people but apparently you have.
Are you published? I have lived in the Czech Republic and I have traveled in
Russia and Ukraine. The Czech infrastructure is much more advanced than what I
have seen in Russia or the Ukraine.
I would not want to fly, drive or own a British designed and built vehicle and
they have not suffered under the "oppressive Soviet system." The Soviet system
was proven not to work, however I do not think there is a causal connection
between the Discus problems and a failed system whose lights burnt out 12-13
years ago.
This was a German problem. The German manufacturer has licensed the
manufacture of their product, they have a duty to successfully transfer the
process with written SOP's and to establish a quality control program. Schempp
Hirth is selling these products through their dealers and buyers on buying
based on the Schempp Hirth name. The former West Germany was not under the
Soviet system either. This is a classic case of poor management, not a
social/political problem.
BPattonsoa
of view provides some interesting points. (Not that you would want full NRC
approved type Quality Assurance, gliders would start at about $500,000 and come
with a second trailer full of paper!)
The owner is directly responsible for the quality of the work of any supplier,
sub suplier, etc. This can be done by
-Tthe supplier/contractor having a full NRC approved QA program. Still you are
responsible for the product and are required to routinely audit the suppliers
execution of their program.
-Preparing your own QA inspection plan, specifically written for the work being
done and placing you own qualified inspectors in the suppliers house.
-For some smaller parts or pieces that cannot be reasonably purchased in either
of the above, buying them comercially. You then have an Engineer develop what
are the critical characterics of the item and an inspection plan to verify they
are met when the piece arrives.
Also from our NDT (Non-Destructive Testing) experience, I have seen some
amazing visual inspection techniques. One is a movie taken of a spent fuel
assembly (rad levels over 5,000 R/hr) going down a .177 dia hole over 40 feet
underwater,where a fuel pin was removed. Used a video recorder on the surface
and a very expensive fiber optics "lens" that went down the hole and could be
swiviled like an eyeball. Picture was as clear as a bell.
Something like this sure could be used to inspect a wing spar glue line when it
was still fresh. Some design work would have to be done to provide a
inspection path. Inspection techniques available today leave no excuse for
something a simple as the glue up of a spar to go unispected, in real time.
Bruce Patton
596S