rickair7777

Sounds like some of them have the wrong bolts.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/usaf-grou...l-may-fall-off

JohnBurke

A far cry from a "non-conforming part," to a fear of a "tail falling off."

Evidence once again of why intelligent minds do not lend fox news credence.

galaxy flyer

True that. C-5s flew for years with a non-confirming manufacturing defect—Lockheed put about half as many bolts in the torque deck as the plans called. Media is so dumb, all of it, but some display it more openly.

tnkrdrvr

A KC-135 literally came apart in mid-air due to a damaged part. After a fleet wide inspection, it was determined that something like half the fleet had the same issue. The four star decided to accept the risk of operating the aircraft until depot (several years) since grounding the fleet would have effectively ended the air war over Iraq and Afghanistan and eliminated one leg of the triad.

rickair7777

It has happened...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnair_Flight_394

TransWorld

Causes of many disasters, not just airplanes:

1. Installed different than specified
2. Missing bolts, etc.
3. Improperly torqued bolts
4. Defective or fraudulent bolts

JohnBurke

It's more than a stretch to suggest "many disasters," which is a trumpian way of inference that fiats the imaginary world into a non-specific pseudo-number. The fact is, structural failures are exceedingly rare, and typically have complex reasons, rather than a defective component or bolt.

The Partnair 394 flight cited above is such an example.

The information provided about the KC-135 does not give any reason to suspect the "tails will fall off." The fleet grounding is due to a "non-conforming part." In aviation, we see this all the time. A part may be non-conforming due to an upgrade, AD, recall of a part, or any number of reasons, including the common service-difficulty report. The SDR is simply a means of mechanics submitting their findings during maintenance or inspections, and when a common thread emerges, SDR's often become the basis of airworthiness directives, or in USAF parlance, technical orders. The finding of a part that is not in compliance does not mean that the "tail will fall off," nor does it indicate that the aircraft is unsafe. It means that the part has been deemed in need of replacement, inspection, modification, or some other means.

Non-compliant parts may simply require a visual inspection to make them compliant with a technical order, AD, service bulletin, etc. They may require replacement, marking, re-torquing, safety-wiring, painting, stripping, dye-penetrant inspection, x-raying, or any number of other specified corrective actions that might include replacement with an updated part, removal for inspection of the surrounding surface, before replacement, etc.

Some years ago, the most egregious abuser of unapproved parts, it turned out, was the FAA, which was operating it's fleet of aircraft with a fairly high number of unapproved parts, legally in public-use aircraft. Go figure. Even so, we didn't see them dropping out of the sky, or the tails falling off. Fox news has married a reference to a "non-compiant part" with images of impending disaster and drama. It's quite a leap to suggest that the fleet is grounded for fear of "the tail falling off."

rickair7777

Nobodies arguing that FNC is a shining light of journalistic virtue. I only check it about twice a week since they have on a couple occasions ran with legit and very significant stories that the MSM would not touch with a ten foot pole until it turned out that FNC was right. No need to debate that, we all know which stories I'm talking about.

Note my quotes in the thread title, I found that part humorous.

The FAA may have bought a lot of bogus parts because .gov has to buy from the lowest bidder, or at least it did back in the day. Private entities can consider other factors in addition to price.

With all that said... from the perspective of a senior military leader and planner, grounding the preponderance of our tanker fleet is a very big deal, and was not taken lightly. I don't think they did it solely out of concerns that bureaucratic specifications were violated. The severity is mitigated by the fact that it's a very quick inspection to clear an airframe.

tnkrdrvr

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/air-force-grounds-kc-135-fleet-over-fear-tails-could-fall-off-mid-flight/

It appears that the tails very well could come off. However, it appears the fix is relatively quick and easy. The fly in the ointment being that roughly half the fleet will need the fix and that will still take a significant amount of time. I’m assuming operationally deployed jets will be prioritized, but this significantly impacts our nation’s air power capacity.

rickair7777

Well glad they caught it before something bad happened.