For all those who have never worked in an Aerospace Manufacturing environment, and surely there must be some out there, here is a quick beginners' guide to "Traceability".
When aircraft are assembled the aircraft manufacturer needs to know that the finished product conforms to the definition he Certified. That is to say, the everything in the aircraft is the same as the aircraft that passed the original certification - or individual component certification - and has been manufactured using the same processes. This is a HUGE simplification that doesn't mention the Modification process, variations due to the combined effect of drawing tolerances, accepted alternate processes and accepted non-conformances following a Concessions / Materials Review Board (MRB) / Dérogation procedure. (Pauses to catch breath).
To simplify this for all, purchased components are supplied with a magic piece of paper called a "Certificate of Conformity" (CofC) and if the supplier is authorised to do so they will also issue a Certificate of Release to Service (an EASA Form 1 or FAA Form 8130). The CofC is the link that forms the chain of evidence that helps the aircraft manufacturer to demonstrate to the authorities that all is well with the everything that goes into the aircraft.
These are important, powerful documents.
Except, of course, they're not. They are just bits of paper. What makes them so important is the regulation and control, the vigilance and the best practice of you and of all your suppliers. By accepting the value of the CofC you are accepting the ability of any given supplier and sub-supplier to promptly identify when things have gone awry during the manufacturing and assembly processes, to have isolated all other hardware with the same issue and to rectify by rework or repair every part supplied before each of the CofC's are signed. You are accepting that your supplier will not make changes to his or your design without supporting documentation and testing if required or without informing you. You are trusting that everything that goes into his component and everything that has happened to his component is exactly what he believes it to be. You are trusting that he has read, understood and complies with all of the possibly hundreds of specifications you have quoted as your requirements. It starts to become clear how it could be that a CofC could be signed in good faith for non-conforming hardware.
I am in no means trying to undermine or undervalue this system; it is long tested and robust. The system works because the Industry expends a lot of energy to manage it. Suppliers gain contracts only after they can demonstrate that they have a working Quality and Concessions System. Manufacturers that purchase hardware have themselves a Quality process that includes review and periodic audit of their suppliers.
It suffices to say how important it is that these systems work and work well.
It might be considered easy enough to pass an audit if there are enough documents
available to demonstrate the Quality system is active; but that would be
the big picture and I am talking about details..., that would be the structure and I am talking about the attitude. Once the hardware is
delivered, the magic of the paper starts to work and the aura of
conformity can have the tendency to stick even to hardware that has
since been identified as non-conforming. More than once I have heard
"But it must be conforming, it has a CofC". Lips moving, eyes glazed by
the power of the paper.
"Supplier Quality" is sometimes a small and orphaned department. They are often not directly related to their sibling "Manufacturing Quality" and their cousin "Concessions / MRB". They regularly come under great pressure from their more powerful relation "Manufacturing" or the sometimes overbearing parent "Programmes". When things work well, their employees are quite difficult to track
down as they are out visiting one supplier or another. If not then
their people are mostly fire-fighting Quality "Escapes" discovered once
the supplier parts have already made it to your production line. On their shoulders rests the responsibility of keeping the CofC system working.
It is for this reason I read with great interest the item in Flight by Lori Ranson, "FAA willing to improve oversight of manufacturer-supplier relationships". I will definitely be watching for how this subject develops.
In their day the Aerospace Industry was better... ...they swear it regularly and tell me what a shame that I missed it.
I have two colleagues here with whom I regularly pass a lunchtime. Not being employed by the owner of the factory means that we're socially isolated from those around us, so we talk to each other about this and that. But there is a difference between us, apart from our three different nationalities, and that is my colleagues have a significantly longer history in the Aerospace Industry than I have, each in their own way.
So what is it that I missed? What I am told, forthrightly and with nodded confirmations, is that sometime around the late 80's or early 90's the Aerospace Industry became different: the halo faded, the mystique evaporated, it became less fun and more serious. That's a coincidence - I graduated in the early 90's.
I had assumed it was true for airline pilots and cabin crew; the difficulties in recruiting increasing now that the magic of the 50's and 60's has worn thin and people have realised that the expense and inconvenience of becoming and being an airline pilot or that cabin crew essentially spend long hours on their feet working in confined spaces for often unappreciative people. Gone the glow of Pilot as portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in "Catch Me if You Can", replaced by discussions about pilot workload and "Did they / didn't they both fall asleep whilst overflying their destination?".
But is the same true of the manufacturers and engineers? What could have changed that eroded this warm feeling? When I applied for university in the UK in the late 1980's, the number of people headed to engineering courses was dropping, but the number of people going into aerospace related courses was actually increasing. (note: this is a recollection, I have no evidence to present to support this). My university did add several other Aerospace related courses to their portfolio whilst I was studying there.
I can say that in my working career, such as it is, I have seen acquisitions and consolidation. The end of McDonnell Douglas in 1997 was a tough thing to watch as a recent aerospace graduate. Evolving techniques, sharp competition and cost reduction have been present along the way, but has this not always been the case?
So were my fellow graduates and I really all too late to benefit from being in Aerospace? Can anyone tell me what changed?
I don't know if you've noticed, but everyone is getting younger. Yes, it might just be me getting older but I'm not so old as to be ready for my mid-life crisis just yet.
What I mean to say is the average age in the various engineering offices in which I have worked has been dropping considerably. When I was 28 I was in charge of an engineering team facing one of my then employer's biggest customers. And by "In charge" I mean the Lead Engineer and Engineering Team Leader. I was responsible for all the technical decision and the management of the people day to day, including doing their annual appraisals. I answered to the Head of Engineering and a Programme Manager, sure, but I calculated the team staffing levels, made the day to day engineering calls and signed off the drawings. I had already spent over a year running a team of 15.
OK big deal, I mean RJ Mitchell was the Chief Engineer at Supermarine before he was 30. Thing is, I'm not RJ Mitchell, Sir Frank Whittle, Barnes Wallis or Sir Sydney Camm. I love the aerospace industry but I am not the driven, focused, all or nothing character that designed the revolutionary. I am not Isambard Kingdom Brunel, driving great programmes against great odds. I am good at what I do, but not exceptional.
So it sets me thinking: where are these people? Or, just as importantly, where are the people that were apprentices in their offices. Where are the people that sat and watched an engineer draw out the springs and bellows and levers that made up the early jet engine fuel controls, or took down the readings from the gauges next to Sir Frank.
What perturbs me is that I'm afraid of is that they've all retired or passed on. At one company I know (and excuse me for being cryptic but I am operating a policy of not mentioning company names) a departing CEO bemoaned in the press that the average age of his engineering staff was in the late 20s. Their materials expert is only a handful of years out of university. That's the expert!
I have appreciated the opportunity that a young workforce has always given me, the progression I have made, but I know we make the same mistakes again and again. The world is changing, the products and techniques are changing and therefore the skills needed are changing, but have we enough people left that hold on to the feel for the subject?
Have we retained enough of the greatness now that the link is broken?
For all their woes, Boeing and Airbus are doing something right.
My wife asked me the other day if people would have to pay extra to fly on the A380 or 787, if they are really that much nicer to fly in than older aircraft. That set me thinking..., for all the publicity that the 777 generated during its development in the 1990s, the press, the documentaries, the general coverage...., I can't remember ever hearing that kind of question. In fact, as interested as I was at the time (I was studying for a degree in Aerospace Engineering in the early 1990s) I can't remember ever thinking that the final product was going to be much different to actually fly in.
Same goes for the A340, A330 and family. I remember being interested in the technology in a geeky sort of way, but I can't recall ever imagining them feeling any different to be in.
So, apart from Concorde that I never got to fly in, are there any (wide-body) jetliners that actually are markedly different to sit in?
I'm a firm believer in presentation. Content is key, but presentation gets the message across.
My first job as a graduate was clean sheet design of gas turbines - those ground based cousins to aircraft engines. And when I say "Clean Sheet" I mean start from scratch and fill the gap in the computer model with the most imaginative, elegantly designed component possible. What a great thing for a Graduate to do. Before I could do anything, though I had to learn 3D Computer Aided Design (CAD) using Unigraphics software.
My employer provided the training and during the course I filled the gaps by learning how to use the rendering software that quietly sits for most on a little-used menu in one corner of the screen. This was a revelation. Apply materials and virtual lighting to your plastic looking computer generated creations and suddenly they look real. Need to show off internal detail? Easy, apply glass or perspex as a material on one side and suddenly you see through the picture. By the end of the few day's training one wag asked if I was going to be transferred to a "Colouring-in Department".
But what was the point? The company in question had a special approach to concept design review. They had access to several retired gentlemen that had been building knowledge on gas turbines since gas turbines came to be. The only problem was, hold a design review about putting a nose on a snowman and these gentlemen would spend an hour discussing if the man should be snow in the first place. I learnt fast: present simple clear information, say as little as possible and as much as necessary and make your work LOOK like you know what you're doing.
How do I know the pretty pictures made a difference? The next couple of engineers that followed me through the review spent 10 minutes discussing why their images made the turbine blades look wooden and not made of metal.
I'm toying with the idea of blogging. I like the idea and ran a non-aviation photoblog on MOBLOG for quite a while..., but then I got a conscience and actually decided that the "no cameraphones on site" rule ought to apply to me even if it didn't to anyone else in this French factory. If the French supplier I'm based with didn't pay enough attention to this rule for their own staff, the American factories I hope to work in CERTAINLY will. So that was the end of the "Wow that looks cool", snap, post that was my moblog.
Yes, most (English and French) aviation factories in which I've worked had a generic no camera rule..., except for the ones in Inspection...., oh and Development & Test..., sometimes in Engineering too, but generally Engineers are at the bottom of the pecking order and have to borrow theirs. But these are all company issue so won't be used for industrial espionage. Cameraphones are forbidden. Kinda.
BTW, just how difficult IS it to find a non-camera mobile phone in Europe now, one that actually does all of the shiny high-tech stuff and doesn't resort to the big buttoned black and white, frozen in time, first user style. Can you guess which one I chose?