Toyota, GM, and now Chrysler getting hammered

General Discussion
81

This idea that aircraft continue to fly due to their over-engineering to begin with is far from the whole truth. Yes, aircraft like the B52 were over engineered and that has led to their ability to remain relevant over the decades they have been flying. The real reason they are still in the air is due to a rigorous maintenance and inspection schedule that identifies and addresses issues before they become catastrophic failures. The idea that the air frame is the original “skeleton” when the aircraft was originally built is IMO a fallacy. They are fixing and replacing parts that are end of life or failed due to stress on a regular basis. Are there some parts that are original? No doubt. But to imply that no structural repairs have been needed is completely false.

http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123455217

http://www.asee-prism.org/icon-of-the-air-dec/

The heavyweight bomber’s continued airworthiness stems from a rigorous schedule of inspections and maintenance

Every four years, a B-52 makes its way to Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma for what’s called “depot maintenance,” or a nondestructive teardown, at a nearby Boeing facility. Parts that can be disassembled are taken apart and inspected, with repairs or replacements made as needed. “It’s stripped down, inspected, fixed, and put back together,” explains Scot Oathout, Boeing’s B-52 program director. That’s a big chore, given that the planes are nearly 160 feet long and have wingspans of 185 feet. Inspectors look for “material degradation of the structure,” says Gregory Shoales, director of the Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension, the U.S. Air Force Academy’s largest research program for cadets and part of its mechanical engineering department. Corrosion and cracks are not two separate things but intrinsically linked, he says. “The majority of fatigue cracks start at a corrosion pit, and crack sites are places where corrosion can take root.” Besides visual inspections, engineers use a variety of technologies to assess how healthy a part is, including ultrasonics, X-rays, and surface eddy current; electromagnetic induction can detect below-surface corrosion in some materials. Meanwhile, the B-52s also undergo regular flight-line inspections and maintenance at their home bases. “The two inspections go hand in hand,” Oathout says. The crews keep precise flight records – data from sensors are used to check such things as stress levels and past areas of concern. For instance, if a hairline crack is found during depot maintenance, it may not initially be worrisome, but inspectors will keep track of it during flight-line checks to see if it begins to turn nasty.

82

The Feds just want all the auto industries to fail, especially the ones they floated loans too. Guess they want to loose that tax revenue too when they go belly up. Nothing brings a smile to a Fed employee’s eye then the loss of civilian jobs in the private sector. They couldn’t be bright enough to realize their job depends upon a solvent car industry.

83

@ Db,its an asinine thing to do,anything you put on your hands,a certain amount of will enter your system and guess,what it goes straight to your liver,Cars are not that important.

84

@kmccune

scold and lecture me all you want . . . but every mechanic I know has at one point or another either washed their hands and/or parts with “inappropriate” chemicals

I’m not defending it . . . I’m just explaining the reality of the situation

85

mountainbike

I have to disagree with you about ASE and/or licensing

ASE certification is for the most part purely voluntary. There are many areas of certification. A1-A9, L1, L2, X1, just to name a few. There are also many truck and bus certifications

Anyways, passing the exam(s) means you’ve passed a written test, and your theoretical knowledge is okay. You are certified in that area . . . brakes, for example . . . for five years

It does not mean you can actually “walk the walk”

Licensing theoretically seems like a good idea to me. Those who’ve already been doing it should get a chance to pass a written exam and and a hands on exam. Upon passing, they would be grandfathered in. The hands on exam should be common tasks, repairs, and diagnosis on a typical family car, minivan, or small truck.

Youngsters who want to enter the field would attend a trade school. At the end of his studies, there would also be a written exam and a hands on exam

It’s what I did in Germany. I passed the written exam and hands on exam. Only after that was I allowed to call myself a mechanic and be hired, as such

It is the same for other industries . . . in Germany, anyways . . . and in my opinion, the system works.

I realize such a system would NEVER be implemented here. Most mechanics and repair shops would not want it, NADA would not want it, and the individual states would also not want it

I may be mistaken, but I believe in Canada, the automotive repair industry is highly regulated, as in Germany. In fact, I think guys have to complete an apprentice which lasts at least as long as in Germany

Can anybody verify this, or tell if I’m mistaken about Canada?

86

TT, I used to live what you’re only reading about.

First of all, NDI is performed on the airframes at depot… and routinely in the OMS facilities at each base, but airframes are not routinely disassembled at depot and structural members are not routinely removed and replaced. Replacing a structural airframe component is not a part of routine maintenance on a BUFF. The airframes on the BUFFs we flew were for the most part original.

It’s a damned good thing they were so robustly designed. A lot of them came back pretty shot up in December of '72. It’s true that we lost 15 out of 150, but it was due to SAMs, not flight stresses on the airframes.

You’re also misrepresenting my statement as being an absolute. It wasn’t. Having replaced a structural part on an aircraft is not the same thing as saying the airframe isn’t original, any more than saying that replacing the sway bar bushings on a car means the car’s chassis isn’t original.

You are absolutely correct in saying that a rigorous schedule of inspection and maintenance is critical to keeping these planes flying reliably. You are, however, incorrect in crediting that fact for the primary reason they do so over the robustness of the original structural design. You cannot inspect reliability into an aircraft that doesn’t have good airframe design to begin with. No amount of inspection or repair will compensate for bad design.

By the way, I wrote entries in, read, and made decisions based upon the flight logs every single day. I am very, very, very intimately aware of flight logs. I’ve read and written entries into more of them than you can possibly ever imagine. Flight logs were a part of my daily life for 12 hours a day, seven days a week in December '72, and eight hours a day five days a week for the rest of my four years in the AF.

87

db4690 I believe the licensing in Canada is referred to as a Red Seal and requires something like 10k hours of hands on plus testing. That allows the mechanic to work anywhere in Canada as a technician.

I’ve always been of the opinion that ASE testing is not an indicator of how competent the technician is; it’s only an indicator they picked the right answer on a certain percentage of questions. It’s better than nothing but is also not the final answer that it’s touted to be.

Maybe they should do the testing similar to my aircraft powerplant tests. An oral exam, a practical in the shop, and 43 pages of analytical questions with a time limit of 6 hours on the written after X number of shop training hours.

Out of the group of 28 who took the written test, 27 failed including me and I stunk. The one guy who passed all 3 sections did so by the skin of his teeth. I put in more hours and made a road trip to the FAA center some months later for a retake.Through some miracle I passed all 3 written sections in the roughly 90 percentile.
The only reason I could think of for the improvement was no first time jitters and I was the only one in the room.

I still remember one guy who stood up 15 minutes into the original written test and turned it in with “well, I’m gonna fail anyway”. The FAA man was not happy and believe me, this guy was a total nitwit and jackass.
So where was he a month later? Working on T-37s and T-38s at the local AFB.

88

@ok4450

That’s interesting about Red Seal . . . I wonder what percentage of mechanics in the USA could pass the test to become certified

Clearly, it’s a hypothetical question, which will never be answered

We are in agreement about ASE testing

During an ASE test session . . . one of the last pencil-and-paper sessions, actually . . . an older guy turned in his answer sheet after just a few minutes, and asked the procter “Can you just throw this out and not score it? I obviously don’t know anything”

His actual words were much cruder . . .

:grin:

89
It's what I did in Germany. I passed the written exam and hands on exam. Only after that was I allowed to call myself a mechanic and be hired, as such

It is the same for other industries . . . in Germany, anyways . . . and in my opinion, the system works.


Yeah…Europe, in general is notorious for regulating/licensing everything…and even within Europe, Germany is especially notorious. Heck, I hear you need a license to play golf!

Thank goodness that concept hasn’t caught on here. There’s a certain romantic idealism with the “self-made man” and the iconoclast, and over-regulation would take all of that and feed it into the bureaucratic meat-grinder, to make indistinguishable hamburger out of it. The USA has been a place of innovation and invention, and over-conformity would quash it: where would Orville/Wilbur Wright, or Steve Jobs be…if they had to endure 1,000 hours of “groupthink” and pass a government-designed test to ply their trade?

Germans seem to have a general inclination to comply with authority, see it as good, and not question its existence: while that is generally good (in producing orderly social conduct), there are (ahem) certain historical downsides to such fealty…

90

@ Db,one of my old friends(who now resides in a nursing home-after a massive stroke) once told(after washing His hands in some solvent or the other)“Do you want to live forever?“Another Guy I worked for was spraying"Woodlife” on an old log cabin,while we were inside attempting to “rechink” the logs,we had to get out He was choking us to death.I guess He thought we were wuss’s,years later ,He died of throat cancer.
I’ve been around too many of these Folks who thought they were made of steel,yes do what you want,(I used to do it too” but not anymore.

91

@kmccune

What exactly are you doing?

Did I say anything to imply that I inhale these vapors and take showers in gasoline regularly

You have made your point

And it’s up to me to decide if I want to maintain a healthy lifestyle

Nobody is going to make my mind up for me

92

@meanjoe75fan

“that concept hasn’t caught on here”

I believe you are mistaken

There are MANY professions in this country, that you just can’t do because you feel like it. You have to go to an accredited school, pass written and hands-on exams. then you can hang your shingle, so to speak

Unless I’m mistaken, you can’t just show up at the local airport and start wrenching on a 747. Your word that you know what you’re doing is just not good enough

You can’t perform open heart surgery, just because you feel like it, and you saw a youtube video.

Youtube has its pros and cons

It’s better than no knowledge at all

But it doesn’t give you experience, and it doesn’t make you an instant expert

:tongue:

93

After watching “The Great Imposter” with Tony Curtis and “Catch Me If You Can” with Leonard De Caprio, some will believe that you can actually fake it.

You can become a Congressman without having any useful skills, however.

94

Take a deep breath Db,no one is trying to ruffle your feathers,please tell the kids reading this forum its not a good idea.

95

“Kids, don’t wash your hands in gasoline”

:fearful:

96

^Meh.

When you’ve got hair on yer chest…I don’t “wash my hands” with gas: I bathe in it! I run with scissors! I smoke unfiltered cigarettes! Heck, I smoke unfiltered cigarettes while bathing in gasoline! (Only when I’m feeling especially manly, tho…)

97

:cold_sweat:

98

I agree with those who point out that the ASE exams aren’t the final answer, but they do demonstrate that the taker (assuming he/she passes) has at least some basic knowledge of how cars work. IMHO it isn’t simply a multiple-choice guessing game. It demonstrates a foundation in a specific area upon which expertise can be built… or not! And there is no test for integrity. Without that, no amount of knowledge matters.

It isn’t any different in any other field, as has already been pointed out.

I support an apprenticeship system, but not mandated. An apprenticeship system, like any other, is no better than the people involved in it. There’s a big difference between one year’s experience twenty times and twenty years of experience, and apprenticeship systems typically recognize the time above the breadth of knowledge. They also assume that the “master” is capable of not only the work but also the teaching. And is interesting in doing so. Long ago businesses could afford to apprentice people, but today they have to keep revenues flowing. Internships are essentially apprenticeships with third-party oversight. Perhaps an internship requirement would work in the automotive repair industry. I don’t know.

I do think that even with its imperfections ASE exams are the best choice currently available, and I do believe they inject a basic level of knowledge into the field and maybe even some level of integrity, since they’re testing by an objective third part against an established set of standards. It ain’t perfect, but it’s better than nothing at all.

PostScript: kids, don’t wash in gasoline. All kidding aside, it’s a very dangerous practice for a lot of reasons.

99

An ASE exam is “simply a multiple-choice guessing game.”

To use your words, mountainbike

But perhaps not the way you meant it . . . ?

The dealer I was at previously, they did not give a . . . . about ASE certifications. They thought their . . . . didn’t stink. And they thought their manufacturer- and dealer- training was the only thing that mattered. Unfortunately, they were only partially correct

The problem with the dealer- and manufacturer-training was that the instructors had attitude(s) that left something to be desired. They always rushed through the course material, and assumed everybody understood the material. They assumed if no hands were up, everybody had fully grasped the material. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the hands-on training modules, it was quite clear that many had not understood the material AT ALL

Raising your hands to ask a question was frowned upon. The answers given were unsatisfactory, and didn’t clarify anything. And it was clearly stated that asking questions would hold up the works. And nobody really wanted to look like the one guy who didn’t understand. Not in the classroom, anyways.

But in the hands-on training modules, it was clear who hadn’t understood. It was usually the guys in the back, watching everybody else get into it.

I will admit I was sometimes one of those guys that did not understand what the instructor was attempting to teach us

I learned better, when I had the actual new car, transmission, etc. right in front of me, and I figured it out on my own. Or when I read up on it, during my own time, and at my own pace

If I figured something out on my own, that knowledge stayed with me better than when some guy with glazed-over eyes was trying to teach us

Classroom instruction doesn’t work all the time, for all the people

To be fair, these instructors I’m talking about, I don’t think they were accredited teachers. I think they were “certified” by the manufacturer, and nobody else. Many of them were doing it because they no longer wished to turn wrenches, or perhaps the instructing job offered steadier wages. There were also numerous perks associated with being an instructor for the manufacturer. I think few of them actually did it, because they truly enjoyed teaching

100

I remember reading an article in a trade publication some years ago about car manufacturer service training schools; which I’ve attended beau coup of.

The article stated that in a survey that the mechanics in those schools only retained at best about 20% of what was taught. Nothing beats in-shop advice and hands-on experience.

A couple of times I’ve gotten crossways with the Subaru service instructor. He’s a nice guy, but…

He was rambling on once about valve lash and that hokey “audible inspection” BS. He asked if anyone had any questions so my hand went up. I then put him on the spot by trying to explain how a mechanic is supposed to know if a valve(s) are tight if the criteria is being noisy.
He fumbled around for a few minutes and changed the subject while getting irritated with me.

Over a few years time I got sideways with him several more times in a bigger way; once over some BS driveability warranty issues and once over his choice of a place for lunch. I told him I had no desire anymore to suffer botulism at the same old joint so I’m taking my demonstrator and doing my own thing at lunch. Three other guys bailed on him and went with me.
That really torqued him off but I told him lunch time is my time and I don’t work for Subaru of America so…