To accommodate these changes, the report concluded, the repair and maintenance process needs a major overhaul on the part of the industry, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and other bodies. Four experts interviewed by the report's authors suggested that the FAA or industry members should consider implementing certification requirements (similar to those for welders) for technicians who work with composite structures.
Several maintenance and repair organizations (MROs) already provide training for composite aircraft, though few of them offer certification. One exception is the Advanced Composites Training Institute in Canada. The institute provides certified courses on composite repair and manufacturing technologies for aircraft, and it has full accreditation from the FAA and the Canadian Council for Aviation and Aerospace. It is the training division of Renaissance Aeronautics Associates, which performs structural repair on aircraft structures.
Meanwhile, the FAA recently updated its guidance on composites and proposed additional guidance to address concerns related to training and awareness. For example, it updated guidance on quality systems for composite manufacturing and composite aircraft structures. It has also drafted guidance for developing training or qualification programs for composite maintenance technicians.
The agency is updating guidance on composite and bonded aircraft structures, which will target all facilities that conduct composite repairs and alterations. It offers a composite materials training course for its aviation safety inspectors, and it is incorporating new terminology and industry input for a new composite awareness course for designers.
How are the composite materials when it comes to stress fracturing? Believe it or not, with aluminum, airline companies bolt a patch over the cracks until it can be sufficiently repaired, which may take months and in some cases years.
TJ, your points are well taken. The biggest problem of all in composite repair, though, compared to metal repair, is the lack of knowledge to identify damage in the first place, since it's much more difficult to detect. The next biggest problem is figuring out how to repair so many different materials with so many different uses and so many different possible procedures. And, by extension, lack of knowledge there, as well.
Bombardier may go for traditional repair techniques on the areas in danger of ground support damage, but if composites shrug off the damage that would ding aluminum, then composites would seem to be the better bet.
Follow-up from last night's comment: After I mentioned the American Airlines flight that crashed in 1979 after a design flaw left it vulnerable to maintenance damage, I tried to remember where I had once read about that accident. Here's the answer: Our distinguished columnist, Henry Petroski, wrote about it in his book, "To Engineer Is Human."
Thanks, Alex. The news just keeps coming out on this subject. Regarding standards, that's a really good question. One of the key critiques in the GAO report was the point that you can't base repair standards and best practices for composites on the same ones that were created for metal. There are too many differences across the board, and making the same assumptions or using the same templates would be ineffective and dangerous. That may be another reason why we're not hearing much yet about the details of repair whens and hows. I suspect it's a WIP.
@Charles: You're absolutely right; materials selection involves many considerations besides the material's response to stress and strain -- which can be complicated enough, since the material may respond very differently at different temperatures and strain rates, and its properties may be different in different directions. But how a given material will perform in your application also depends on its location in the galvanic series, among other things. Cost and manufacturability are always major concerns, too. Then there are externalities such as recyclability and end-of-life issues, sustainability and lifecycle emissions, etc. And -- although I may be somewhat biased in this regard! -- this is why having a good materials engineer is a necessity.
This is a classic example of the need to beware that what looks good on paper may not always be so. As design engineers, we are often trained to consider matters of stress and strain -- bending, shear, torsional capacity, etc. But here we have a situation where the composite is apparently appropriate in matters of material strength, but not in matters of maintenance. Obviously, maintenance is a huge consideration for aircraft. In 1979, an American Airlines flight leaving Chicago O'Hare crashed, killing 271 people, after a design flaw left the engine pylon vulnerable to maintenance damage.
I'm impressed by the breadth of your recent coverage on composites, Ann. I'm wondering if you see new standards emerging out of the FAA as regards composites repair, or will we see industry-standard practices come into play first, which will become de facto methodologies for both repair and recycling?
Rob, that's the $64,000 question. I think the answer here is also 'both." Composites are definitely moving forward in aerospace, as shown by all the aircraft makers using them in greater amounts. And detection of at least certain types of damage is difficult, but apparently not impossible.
I think the answer is a bit of both. Beth, the industry apparently has been working on solving this problem along with the FAA. At least, that's what they all tell us. But it's quite difficult to find out any details. And that's where ScotCan's point comes in. As the report delineates, industry has been extremely secretive regarding the details about their materials--the type of details which must be well known for determining when and how to repair--in the name of trade secrets.
Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones used to fare quite well in the repairability department, but last year's flagship S5 model took a tumble, scoring a meh-inducing 5/10. Will the newly redesigned S6 lead us back into star-studded territory, or will we sink further into the depths of a repairability black hole?
In 2003, the world contained just over 500 million Internet-connected devices. By 2010, this figure had risen to 12.5 billion connected objects, almost six devices per individual with access to the Internet. Now, as we move into 2015, the number of connected 'things' is expected to reach 25 billion, ultimately edging toward 50 billion by the end of the decade.
NASA engineer Brian Trease studied abroad in Japan as a high school student and used to fold fast-food wrappers into cranes using origami techniques he learned in library books. Inspired by this, he began to imagine that origami could be applied to building spacecraft components, particularly solar panels that could one day send solar power from space to be used on earth.
Biomedical engineering is one of the fastest growing engineering fields; from medical devices and pharmaceuticals to more cutting-edge areas like tissue, genetic, and neural engineering, US biomedical engineers (BMEs) boast salaries nearly double the annual mean wage and have faster than average job growth.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.