On top of that, a runway that can’t take a 737, a highway, or a long stretch of flat terrain are all generally better options than water.
1 Like
Haha, I can imagine going through security: “sir, why do you have this bag of bolts”
“Just making sure we have enough to finish the flight”
1 Like
Yep. And if water is all there is, then you want someone as good as Captain Sullenberger at the controls to make a last ditch attempt at landing.
(I realised the last three words of that sentence were superfluous, once I’d typed it.)
1 Like
Does anyone know if that would work; or are aircraft bolts serialized for tracking purposes?
That seems like the sort of measure that would sound kind of extreme; but could (in the context of a hopefully-demanding QMS environment and the appropriate level of integration) potentially be cost-competitive with the extra effort involved in tracking unmarked bolts.
Would probably go nicely with the network-connected torque wrenches you can get(just maybe not the Bosch Rexroth ones that have been in security research news for the wrong reasons lately; until they get that patched out): slap a couple of barcode scanners on and the tool can verify that the right hole is getting the right bolt(or which bolt out of a set of interchangeable right bolts) to the correct tightness…
1 Like
Wow. We live in an age of miracles - network-connected everything. Bolts with RFID, tell torque wrenches where they are and the torque wrenches record when they were tightened and how tight.
Quality system bleeps red and sounds an alert if anything is not within prescribed parameters.
When the air accident investigation guys come looking, it’s all there.
/s (is there an ‘ends fantasy’ tag?)
1 Like
I was just asking if that’s actually how it works; I don’t know what the practice actually is in aircraft assembly; just to be clear.
Networked torque wrenches that can be remotely adjusted and remotely report data are definitely a thing, however; and, given the relatively low cost of lasering QR codes onto things, it struck me as entirely plausible that such measures could easily end up being the faster and cheaper option in cases where QM demands are significant enough that doing it manually would involve a great deal of doing.
For less critical applications just treating all fasteners of the same dimensions(and trying to reduce the number of distinct types in a product assembly) as fungible is presumably vastly cheaper; but in a situation where you are talking larger, easier to mark, fasteners(many with recommended service lives or inspection intervals) traceability seems like it would be a perk.
1 Like
Oh, I get that. But that’s how it COULD work. But, you know, shareholders.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
