US Army Grounds CH-47 Chinooks

[FJAG]

US Army grounds entire fleet of Chinook helicopters after engine fires

The U.S. Army has about 400 Chinooks in its fleet around the world, using them to transport troops and equipment as seen in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

abcnews.go.com

Army Grounds Entire Chinook Fleet Over Engine Fire Risk

The Army has grounded its entire fleet of CH-47 Chinook helicopters while it works to fix fuel leaks that caused an unspecified number of engine fires, the service confirmed.

www.military.com

 

[dapaterson]

Funny how, when you use parts that don't meet the specifications, you have problems.

 

[Good2Golf]

Funny how, when you use parts that don't meet the specifications, you have problems.

The Army didn’t experience the o-rings the same as Honeywell did, clearly…

 

[KevinB]

Funny how, when you use parts that don't meet the specifications, you have problems.

They had awful issues with gyros on Blackhawks 10 years ago getting parts from unqualified suppliers.

I don’t understand why some entities accept parts without any sort of first article testing.

 

[Edward Campbell]

They had awful issues with gyros on Blackhawks 10 years ago getting parts from unqualified suppliers.

I don’t understand why some entities accept parts without any sort of first article testing.

Unrelenting and morally corrosive pressure, all the way up and down the chain(s) - inside both government and industry - to be on-time and under-budget.

 

[Good2Golf]

Unrelenting and morally corrosive pressure, all the way up and down the chain(s) - inside both government and industry - to be on-time and under-budget.

And probably a side order of laziness if there was testing to be done…

 

[daftandbarmy]

Unrelenting and morally corrosive pressure, all the way up and down the chain(s) - inside both government and industry - to be on-time and under-budget.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

They had awful issues with gyros on Blackhawks 10 years ago getting parts from unqualified suppliers.

I don’t understand why some entities accept parts without any sort of first article testing.

Not excusing parts being supplied that don’t meet airworthiness standards, but the US military probably has millions of aviation parts. You cannot test them all.

 

[KevinB]

Not excusing parts being supplied that don’t meet airworthiness standards, but the US military probably has millions of aviation parts. You cannot test them all.

But usually one would buy them from an OEM, not try to source on the market from an alleged subcontractor (at least without testing).

I mean just doing some new stuff on Aircraft takes insane testing for airworthiness— why trust a new and unproven contractor — or trust they where an actual subcontractor— or maybe the reason they had them and hadn’t been supplied via Sikorsky was Sik has rejected them for failures…

Just saying

Yes that came out of the congressional investigation.

 

[OldSolduer]

But usually one would buy them from an OEM, not try to source on the market from an alleged subcontractor (at least without testing).

I'd rather pay a few more $ for a proven OEM part than a cheaper after market part.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'd rather pay a few more $ for a proven OEM part than a cheaper after market part.

As one company found out when they used cheaper fasteners from China in their newly constructed transmission line and several of the new towers collapsed, requiring all of them to be refastened......

 

[KevinB]

I'd rather pay a few more $ for a proven OEM part than a cheaper after market part.

Sadly your attitude isn’t prevalent in procurement.
GSA and DLA often think they are getting good value for the dollar, but one can’t buy certain things like what makes sense for an office printer.

 

[daftandbarmy]

As one company found out when they used cheaper fasteners from China in their newly constructed transmission line and several of the new towers collapsed, requiring all of them to be refastened......

And then there are failed building developments:

 

[Navy_Pete]

Sadly your attitude isn’t prevalent in procurement.
GSA and DLA often think they are getting good value for the dollar, but one can’t buy certain things like what makes sense for an office printer.

Don't forget 'fair, open and transparent procurement'. I frequently want to throat punch our public works people who quote that when we try and sole source something from the only supply for a part that has has all the IP and they want us to do an open procurement and look at other alternative parts to see if they meet the tech specs. Tail wagging the dog.

 

[dapaterson]

Document. Document. Document. Talk to others who have been successful and copy their approach.

Or reinvent the wheel.

 

[FJAG]

And then there are failed building developments:

Not to mention the failed demolition of the one that wouldn't go down all the way. I'd hate to be the guys having to go into that one to re-rig it.

 

[OldSolduer]

Not to mention the failed demolition of the one that wouldn't go down all the way. I'd hate to be the guys having to go into that one to re-rig it.

I have viewed a number of videos and whoever rigged these buildings fucked it up.

 

[KevinB]

I have viewed a number of videos and whoever rigged these buildings fucked it up.

Also done by lowest bidder

 

[Kat Stevens]

And then there are failed building developments:

Clearly, this was terrorism. I've watched a few youtube videos and controlled demolitions always collapse straight in on themselves. Anyone with ALCAN stocks knows that.

 

[OldSolduer]

Clearly, this was terrorism. I've watched a few youtube videos and controlled demolitions always collapse straight in on themselves. Anyone with ALCAN stocks knows that.

I prefer to think this was ineptitude of the engineers or explosive enthusiasts who rigged them. They clearly weren't experts.