AF Orders McDonnell to Fix 75 Defects on C-17 : Aerospace: The military alleges that, among other things, the landing gear isn’t strong enough. The firm says that the problems are minor and that some have been corrected.
The Air Force has notified McDonnell Douglas that its C-17 cargo jet has 75 deficiencies that must be corrected, ranging from a main landing gear that is not strong enough to generators that lack sufficient electrical output, according to a letter obtained by The Times.
Senior Air Force officials in the program say the notice--which is the most comprehensive list of C-17 problems to become public--was issued in late March, after the service became concerned that the firm’s Douglas Aircraft unit in Long Beach was not putting sufficient effort into solving the problems.
Air Force officials and Douglas spokesmen assert that the 75 defects do not represent major technical problems that would threaten the viability of the $30-billion program. But the full extent of some problems is still under study, including an analysis of whether the airframe itself will wear out prematurely.
“We weren’t seeing enough activity in these areas, and we didn’t want them to be last-minute crises,” Col. Charles Siefert, the deputy program manager, said in an interview Friday. “We have had our fill of those.”
Siefert said the letter reflects Air Force concern that Douglas was putting its full energy into achieving the first flight of the C-17--which the firm has scheduled for June--but was less attentive to other aspects of the program that would be more important in the long run.
“There were many other items that needed to be addressed. We put it all together and dropped it on them,” he said.
“Being the government, we want to make sure we are not being given shoddy goods,” Siefert added.
The list was accompanied by a cover letter that demanded a corrective action plan in 45 days, a period that expires in mid-June.
The Air Force sternly advised Douglas: “This letter is issued with the understanding that it will not result in an increase in funding allotted to the contract or a change to price schedule or any other contractually specified requirements.”
The letter appears to underscore the serious problems that McDonnell has encountered in developing the C-17, which is significantly behind schedule and an estimated $500 million over its contract ceiling. The Air Force plans to buy 120 of the four-engine cargo jets.
Douglas spokesman James Ramsey downplayed the Air Force letter, saying that the defects are all minor and that many have already been corrected. But Ramsey declined to discuss the specific defects or identify which had been fixed.
Ramsey said the company has “responded” to the demand for a corrective action plan, but he declined to describe the nature of the response.
“None of the items mentioned affect the cost, safety or performance or would impact our ability to safely achieve first flight,” Ramsey said. “It is really a non-story, in my estimation.”
The list of problems includes the notation that the C-17’s cockpit “does not present an acceptable habitable compartment for crash conditions. All risks with this hazardous condition have not been reduced to an acceptable level.”
Separately, it was learned Friday that Douglas agreed to provide a $14-million rebate to the Air Force on the first six C-17s that are in production, because the aircraft will fail to meet its required range. The cargo jet, for instance, cannot fly 2,400 nautical miles with 167,027 pounds of payload.
That deficiency, along with four others, will be resolved in the next C-17 production contract, Siefert said.
The nine-page list of deficiencies touches on almost every aspect of the C-17--the aircraft’s computer capacity, its ability to land in certain wind conditions, its ability to meet required drops of payload and paratroopers, its refueling capabilities and the use of improper materials.
Other deficiencies noted include:
* The C-17’s main landing gear “does not meet ultimate load-strength requirements,” the list notes. Siefert said McDonnell is beefing up the gear.
* The airframe of the first aircraft, designated T-1, “does not meet the two-lifetime, design-life requirement.”
Siefert said the Air Force is still studying whether subsequent aircraft will also fail to meet this requirement that they withstand double the specified 30,000 hours of flying time. Such “double-life” requirements are typical in the aircraft industry.
* Air Force officials expressed concern about the C-17’s ability to land in winds that blow perpendicular to the landing path of the aircraft.
“Piloted simulation shows that C-17 can not meet crosswind landing requirements,” the list states. It also notes that the service has withheld paying Douglas $100,000 because of the defect.
* Siefert also indicated that Douglas is upgrading by 67% the capacity of the jet’s generators, after a recent Air Force analysis showed that they lacked sufficient capacity. Douglas was still using an analysis developed in 1986.
“Douglas will pay for it. It is a requirement of the contract,” Siefert said. Another source said the cost would be millions of dollars to develop and purchase the more powerful generators.
Some of the deficiencies seem minor, but Douglas has not corrected them, Air Force officials said. For example, Douglas neglected to install handles for paratroopers to grab just before jumping from the aircraft, despite complaints several years ago by the Army.
“It is aggravating to us that it didn’t get done,” Siefert said.
Siefert, noting that one Douglas executive was formerly in a special forces unit in the military, said: “We told him, ‘OK. Now we’ll let you jump without any handhold and see how you like it.’ ”
One engineer complained, though, that the Air Force was subjective in pressing many of its claims and in some cases had browbeaten the firm to absorb costs when the service was in error.
