4 ms·

>200k to keep four highly specialized military planes in the air is, as stupid as it sounds, almost a no brainer. That implies that the trashcan designed for l

>200k to keep four highly specialized military planes in the air is, as stupid as it sounds, almost a no brainer. That implies that the trashcan designed for less would cause failures. Also the cost of the program was 1.3M or something.

hef19898 3y ago
That actually depends on how you define failure. Now we come to a peculiarity of aerospace, so excuse the tangent. All aircraft have to be airworthy to be allowed to fly. Those airworthiness criteria are set during initial Type Certification, and more or less set in stone. Changing them requires various amounts of testing, re-certification and abton of paper work nobody in their right minds does voluntarily. One reason one does it is obsolescence of parts or technology. One of things I insist on, for that very reason, is in being smart in defining begnin things like BoMs and maintenance plans. Because deviating from those grounds a plane. So, if (I have no idea of the E-3 specifics as those arw most likely classified to a certain degree) said trash bins are part of the airworthiness requirements, not having them (and them being up to spec) grounds the plane. Because the absence of said trash bin is a defect in itself. Whether or not the trash bins are a signigicant safety problem is, decades after the E-3 got certified, no longer relevant. Aerospace is fun sometimes.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  My background is medical devices (21CFR), not aerospace. The "story" I like to tell about how much procedures matter is the stack of $1,200 single board computers I was offered because when they arrived on the loading dock, the person from Receiving didn't follow the proper procedure, so they couldn't be sent to Manufacturing to be assembled into the $700,000 instrument we sold but were instead heading for the dumpster. $12,000 in perfectly working hardware that had to be scrapped because someone didn't fill out the proper paperwork. Luckily, we (software dev) intercepted them and found other uses for them.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Lately I saw quite some mobility from aerospace to the medical world, since basic processes are similar enough. The message behind your example was driven home to me almost on day one by grizzeled, old ops procurment collegue of mine: parts without proper documentation are basically worthless. Lucky for you so being able to reuse that hardware!

hef19898 3y ago

That actually depends on how you define failure. Now we come to a peculiarity of aerospace, so excuse the tangent. All aircraft have to be airworthy to be allowed to fly. Those airworthiness criteria are set during initial Type Certification, and more or less set in stone. Changing them requires various amounts of testing, re-certification and abton of paper work nobody in their right minds does voluntarily. One reason one does it is obsolescence of parts or technology. One of things I insist on, for that very reason, is in being smart in defining begnin things like BoMs and maintenance plans. Because deviating from those grounds a plane. So, if (I have no idea of the E-3 specifics as those arw most likely classified to a certain degree) said trash bins are part of the airworthiness requirements, not having them (and them being up to spec) grounds the plane. Because the absence of said trash bin is a defect in itself. Whether or not the trash bins are a signigicant safety problem is, decades after the E-3 got certified, no longer relevant. Aerospace is fun sometimes.

HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
My background is medical devices (21CFR), not aerospace. The "story" I like to tell about how much procedures matter is the stack of $1,200 single board computers I was offered because when they arrived on the loading dock, the person from Receiving didn't follow the proper procedure, so they couldn't be sent to Manufacturing to be assembled into the $700,000 instrument we sold but were instead heading for the dumpster. $12,000 in perfectly working hardware that had to be scrapped because someone didn't fill out the proper paperwork. Luckily, we (software dev) intercepted them and found other uses for them.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Lately I saw quite some mobility from aerospace to the medical world, since basic processes are similar enough. The message behind your example was driven home to me almost on day one by grizzeled, old ops procurment collegue of mine: parts without proper documentation are basically worthless. Lucky for you so being able to reuse that hardware!