A380: Repeating the 747's history?

Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article ,
"Bob Gardner" wrote:

I just read an article indicating that the various countries involved
used non-compatible software, each thinking that theirs was the best,
and they were wrong.

why, that's hard to believe :-)


If this were the first airplane Airbus designed, the use of non-
compatible software causing delays would be much more believable. How many
airplanes does a company have to design before they learn the necessity to
ensure compatible design design software between all their divisions and
subcontractors?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:00:59 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote:

If this were the first airplane Airbus designed, the use of non-
compatible software causing delays would be much more believable. How many
airplanes does a company have to design before they learn the necessity to
ensure compatible design design software between all their divisions and
subcontractors?

This assumes engineering decisions are made based on engineering issues.
Increasingly, decisions are made for political reasons. If insisting the
engineers of Country B switch to a more up-to-date tool means that the Prime
Minister of Country B (a major stockholder) will call your boss and threaten
retribution, which way do you think the decision will fall?

I worked a program once (non-aviation) where an engineer did a very careful
trade study on suppliers, then was forced to select the one with the highest
cost and lowest quality. The company was trying to gain some critical licenses
in the country where the supplier was based.

Ron Wanttaja

Bob Gardner wrote:
I just read an article indicating that the various countries involved used
non-compatible software, each thinking that theirs was the best, and they
were wrong.

Sounds like a failure of the Project Management Office (PMO). And don't
forget the fact that three delays were announced in the span of about a
year.

Bad PMOs have a habit of creating a slippery slope of cutting corners
coupled with a reluctance to bring up issues for fear of your boss
getting fired.

Will be interesting to watch. I'd hate to be the one to get version one
of the plane.

Marco

Marco Leon schrieb:

Bad PMOs have a habit of creating a slippery slope of cutting corners
coupled with a reluctance to bring up issues for fear of your boss
getting fired.

Ingeneer: We need two years.
Sales: We want you to do it in one.
Ingeneer: That's impossible.
Sales: We've just announced our schedule of one year.
Ingeneer: But I said that's impossible.
Sales: Our schedule is published, do it in one year.
Ingeneer: Aaaargh!

One year leater, a press release: Our ingeneer department has failed to
stay within the schedule. The chief ingeneer has been fired and the
department will be reorganized.

I just read an article indicating that the various countries involved used
non-compatible software, each thinking that theirs was the best, and they
were wrong.

According to an article in today's (Thursday) WSJ, Airbus will be
restructuring to eliminate waste. The article indicated that the dual
political structure will be eliminated. Last week Airbus announced that
it will be outsourcing alot of subassemblies and the currency of record
will be US dollars. Looks like a big shakeup is headed for the EU.

john smith wrote:

According to an article in today's (Thursday) WSJ, Airbus will be
restructuring to eliminate waste. The article indicated that the dual
political structure will be eliminated.

Wow, Stefan hit it on the head!! Do ya think he might work for a
certain airframe mfr based in Toulouse??

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm somewhat surprised to see Airbus having such difficulties
considering the A380's having been designed on a computer (3D digital
mock up). I thought the main benefit of CAD was to have the ability to
test for systems integration before any metal is cut(?) Of course this
is an extremely complex aircraft with many complicated systems that
must all play together, and the latest wiring harness issue may not be
related to any design deficiency.
By comparison, I recall seeing a documentary on the 747's service entry
(1970) that had its share of gremlins. (IIRC a big source of headaches
were the Pratt JT9D fans) The documentary didn't go into much detail
about the program's problems, (I'm sure there were a few) but that
airplane was designed by engineers on drafting tables and not
computers. I just assumed new aircraft designs would have smoother &
shorter development because of modern computing power.

As someone who is involved in the design of industrial equipment and
facilities, I submit that "computerization" - i.e. CADD and other time
saving tools have made it so easy to make design changes that designs are
seemingly *never* frozen. This means that all of the involved parties don't
get the opportunity to make sure their pieces actually fit the product at
its frozen stage. Beyond that, airplanes have closer tolerances and less
margin to move things around than many other items, meaning that making "my"
new assembly fit "your" new component can be extremely difficult. And may
involve the modification of several other components or systems via the
ripple effect.

On top of those issues, the complexity of aircraft systems has increased
several fold over the years. Integrating those systems is a far bigger task
than building a flyable airframe.

Kingfish,

a lot of problems allegedly seem to come through actions of the top
sales person, promising customers more "customizations" than can now be
handled in an effective production process.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

a lot of problems allegedly seem to come through actions of the top
sales person, promising customers more "customizations" than can now be
handled in an effective production process.

Ah-hah!

Now *that* has the ring of truth to it. Anyone who has ever been
responsible for the delivery of complex technical projects can relate to it.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

a lot of problems allegedly seem to come through actions of the top
sales person, promising customers more "customizations" than can now be
handled in an effective production process.

Ah-hah!

Now *that* has the ring of truth to it. Anyone who has ever been
responsible for the delivery of complex technical projects can relate to
it.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

The project doesn't even have to be very techncial for sales people to screw
the pooch.

I once had a sales person promise a client that they could have copies of
their 90-minute video in 60 minutes!!!

Who needs Eintstein's theories on bending time and space when you have sales
people who actually can do it!!??!!

Jay B