Posted on 10/06/2006 8:42:26 AM PDT by phantomworker
Use of incompatible programs takes the rap, but behind that is a management team cobbled together from formerly separate companies.
It sounds too simple to be true. Airbus' A380 megajet is now a full two years behind schedule--and the reason, CEO Christian Streiff admitted on Oct. 3, is that design software used at different Airbus factories wasn't compatible.
Early this year, when pre-assembled bundles containing hundreds of miles of cabin wiring were delivered from a German factory to the assembly line in France, workers discovered that the bundles, called harnesses, didn't fit properly into the plane. Assembly slowed to a near-standstill, as workers tried to pull the bundles apart and re-thread them through the fuselage. Now Airbus will have to go back to the drawing board and redesign the wiring system.
It's shaping up to be one of the costliest blunders in the history of commercial aerospace. Airbus' parent, European Aeronautic Defence & Space, expects to take a $6.1 billion profit hit over the next four years. Airlines that have ordered the A380 are fuming, and though none so far has canceled an order, Airbus will have to pay millions in late-delivery penalties.
INTEGRATION DISINTEGRATION. How could the global No. 1 aircraft maker have messed up so badly?
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
My brother in law is an engineer for a (now) worldwide firm that manufactures commercial lawn mowers, shredders, hedge trimmers, and the like. Everytime they buy a new company, they convert the CAD software, so that every engineer, in one of several states, or two European countries, uses a compatible system.
They do that to build lawn mowers and shredders. And Airbus tried to build the largest passenger airliner in the world without bothering to to take the time and trouble to make sure their CAD programs were compatible? They just allowed everybody in different plants in different nations to work on their own piece of the A 380 and hoped that when they tried to assemble it, the parts fitted together?
Even for a multi-national committee of bureaucrats from European socialist nations, that is a staggeringly bad business decision.
And the 777 was entirely designed with CAD/CAM software, and the very first plane fit together without shims -- and it is better than the 747.
You're right about the engineering judgement -- but the CAD/CAM stuff provides an incredible boost to moving something from the design specs to the manufacturing floor.
What is that, one step up from clay tablets...? I never liked CADKey, never will, but that's just my preference.
Practice, practice, practice.
The major problem is that everone wants to be in charge, therefore there is no reason to talk with one another.
YMMV
How could the global No. 1 aircraft maker have messed up so badly?
Canned cabling kits never work. You need to precable to mock-ups before the equipment goes on board. Works for subs.
When the 767 and 777 were in the design phase Boeing directed, (dictated!), that if you wanted to be a certified sub then you had to adopt the Boeing standardized CAD CAM software. This way whenver a modification was ordered by Boeing due to operational or regulatory directives, the sub could immediately deal with the issue vis a vis their component. The subs screamed at first but they would come around!
One big happy and those Boeing products can "slip the surley bonds..."
Exactly right. This is not a design tool problem. This is a product data management problem.
Pulling all the right data together, and doing a virtual test "fit" of the components is the main thing that was missing.
Airbus tried to do this on the cheap (using 2D prints, not setting a software standard and demanding compliance as a requirement for doing business, no 3D virtual assembly, apparently no product version control). Now it's gonna cost them big $$$. Two words: Management ignorance.
Pity the poor CAD admins that have to take the fall for the integration team's ignorance of the imporance of having the right design tools. Once again, it rolls down hill (even in France...)
I do design software and product data management admin every day at a major manufacturing player (not naming names). Dassault won't sit still for having their software (CATIA) publicly thrashed like this. You can bet UGS (Dassault's competition) is broadcasting this out to everyone that will listen. Design software is a cut-throat business.
CATIA V5 is an amazing tool(s) that will do anything given the right hands are controlling it. All the way to manufacturing plant design and human-ergo interaction.
A great tool is the fly-thru feature of the Digital MockUP (DMU). You virtually turn yourself into any size you want and fly thru any assembly no matter how complex. If a wire intersects a wall without clearance, BAMM you're on it.
Boeing is right there and getting better all the time.
BTW: That speech by Airbus CEO reminded me of a highschool pep rally way back. Our 2-12 football team was going up against the 14-0 state champs. The rally was loud, fun, exciting. But outside the gymnasium we all new we were going to get our butts handed to us.
Rumor has it EADS has accepted Streiff's resignation.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1310AP_France_Airbus.html
Yeah, sure. Blame the software.
Works for me.
Or rather, everyone I've ever written software for.
< }B^)
Well, some of the providers were using software metrics, and others were using software englishes.
Now, just how did they get hold of those IMs?
< }B^)
"Internet bloggers publish entire transcript of Airbus CEO Christian Streiff's frank speech to employees over A380 delay"?
Interesting that EADS accepted the resignation, yet Airbus denies it. More infighting?
Remember, France is the country that built an aircraft carrier 10 years ago whose launch platform was too short for planes to use it. Not kidding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.