• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Army Grounds CH-47 Chinooks

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
5,987
Points
1,040


🍻
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
9,754
Points
1,090
Funny how, when you use parts that don't meet the specifications, you have problems.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
2,157
Points
1,160
They had awful issues with gyros on Blackhawks 10 years ago getting parts from unqualified suppliers.

I don’t understand why some entities accept parts without any sort of first article testing.
Unrelenting and morally corrosive pressure, all the way up and down the chain(s) - inside both government and industry - to be on-time and under-budget.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
14,737
Points
1,160
Unrelenting and morally corrosive pressure, all the way up and down the chain(s) - inside both government and industry - to be on-time and under-budget.

Morgan Freeman Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
6,163
Points
1,010
They had awful issues with gyros on Blackhawks 10 years ago getting parts from unqualified suppliers.

I don’t understand why some entities accept parts without any sort of first article testing.
Not excusing parts being supplied that don’t meet airworthiness standards, but the US military probably has millions of aviation parts. You cannot test them all.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,359
Points
1,140
Not excusing parts being supplied that don’t meet airworthiness standards, but the US military probably has millions of aviation parts. You cannot test them all.
But usually one would buy them from an OEM, not try to source on the market from an alleged subcontractor (at least without testing).

I mean just doing some new stuff on Aircraft takes insane testing for airworthiness— why trust a new and unproven contractor — or trust they where an actual subcontractor— or maybe the reason they had them and hadn’t been supplied via Sikorsky was Sik has rejected them for failures…

Just saying ;)

Yes that came out of the congressional investigation.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,818
Points
1,110
But usually one would buy them from an OEM, not try to source on the market from an alleged subcontractor (at least without testing).
I'd rather pay a few more $ for a proven OEM part than a cheaper after market part.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,359
Points
1,140
I'd rather pay a few more $ for a proven OEM part than a cheaper after market part.
Sadly your attitude isn’t prevalent in procurement.
GSA and DLA often think they are getting good value for the dollar, but one can’t buy certain things like what makes sense for an office printer.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,567
Points
1,040
Sadly your attitude isn’t prevalent in procurement.
GSA and DLA often think they are getting good value for the dollar, but one can’t buy certain things like what makes sense for an office printer.
Don't forget 'fair, open and transparent procurement'. I frequently want to throat punch our public works people who quote that when we try and sole source something from the only supply for a part that has has all the IP and they want us to do an open procurement and look at other alternative parts to see if they meet the tech specs. Tail wagging the dog.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
9,754
Points
1,090
Document. Document. Document. Talk to others who have been successful and copy their approach.

Or reinvent the wheel.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
5,987
Points
1,040
And then there are failed building developments:

Not to mention the failed demolition of the one that wouldn't go down all the way. I'd hate to be the guys having to go into that one to re-rig it.

:oops:
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,818
Points
1,110
Not to mention the failed demolition of the one that wouldn't go down all the way. I'd hate to be the guys having to go into that one to re-rig it.

:oops:
I have viewed a number of videos and whoever rigged these buildings fucked it up.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,352
Points
1,160
And then there are failed building developments:

Clearly, this was terrorism. I've watched a few youtube videos and controlled demolitions always collapse straight in on themselves. Anyone with ALCAN stocks knows that.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,818
Points
1,110
Clearly, this was terrorism. I've watched a few youtube videos and controlled demolitions always collapse straight in on themselves. Anyone with ALCAN stocks knows that.
I prefer to think this was ineptitude of the engineers or explosive enthusiasts who rigged them. They clearly weren't experts. ;)
 
Top