Hello readers, I want to elaborate on the discussions initiated in Comparing RCM with PMO2000. I pointed out various activities that appeared questionable. In this thread, I shared my thoughts. I am interested in hearing about more examples—specifically 'what' and not 'who'. There are two areas where actions can seem foolish. Firstly, conducting risky tests to uncover potential failures that may not be evident. Secondly, performing intrusive maintenance on equipment that is in good working condition. Let's delve into some examples of dangerous tests. One incident that deeply affected me involved the loss of a Boeing 707 aircraft and its crew. A concerning test involved shutting down two engines on one wing simultaneously, causing the aircraft to spin. A tragic outcome occurred during a training session when the student pilot failed to recover from this scenario, resulting in a fatal crash. Another noteworthy example is the blackout of controlled airspace at Sydney's airport due to a test on the UPS system during peak hours. This disruption caused chaos in the skies, leading to potential risks for incoming flights. Additionally, I have observed alarming testing procedures for lifts in underground mines, which could potentially damage the equipment and endanger workers. Moving on to intrusive maintenance practices, mandatory inspections can sometimes be excessive, leading to unnecessary risks and potential failures. For instance, dismantling and reassembling components like engines, even when they show no signs of wear or corrosion, can introduce new issues and compromise safety. These practices highlight the importance of conducting thorough risk assessments and exploring alternative testing methods to avoid destructive outcomes. Have you encountered similar instances worth sharing? Feel free to contribute to the discussion.
Below are my feedback on the situation: Great job, Steve! The examples you provided of dangerous tests are based on old cases that we are already familiar with, and it seems they do not offer much benefit. 1) When it comes to testing a pilot's ability to recover from an aircraft spinning, why was this real-life test allowed in the first place? Shouldn't the recovery be carried out by the pilot or automatically by the aircraft? This seems to be a case of human error in decision-making. 2) Similarly, for UPS testing, is it really necessary to conduct tests during peak times? Wouldn't it be more prudent to do so during times of minimal usage to avoid any human error? 3) When it comes to lift testing, it is common practice for offshore crews to test lifeboats as well. However, it is important to remember that frequent testing can lead to wear and tear on lifting equipment. Therefore, regular inspection and maintenance should be conducted to ensure everything is in top-notch condition. 4) As for intrusive maintenance, it should only be carried out when absolutely necessary, as indicated by N&H.
Josh, the errors pointed out are primarily due to human oversight. It is crucial to acknowledge that all test programs, including the ones mentioned, are ultimately developed by humans. For instance, when it comes to testing pilot recovery from aircraft spinning, why was real-life testing allowed in the first place? Shouldn't the recovery be primarily handled by the pilot or automatically by the aircraft? This decision-making process can be attributed to human error. While the pilot example may not directly involve testing mechanical devices, the underlying logic remains the same. Some individuals believe that subjecting something to dangerous situations and testing them somehow mitigates risk, which is a flawed approach. There have been instances where turbine overspeed switches were tested by deliberately running the turbines to overspeed to test the switch and control system, with a backup person standing by on the shutdown switch in case of failure. Unfortunately, some of the incidents mentioned were not preempted before causing issues. Our main responsibility is to assess the necessity of protective devices and procedures and find ways to test them without exposing ourselves to unnecessary risks. This approach was successfully implemented with the Underground Lift. When it comes to testing lifeboats, it is crucial to ensure that the systems are not pushed to or beyond their proof load for testing purposes.
In order to minimize risk when testing equipment, it is important to find safe ways to do so. This was the case with the Underground Lift, where precautions were taken to ensure safety. Can you please provide your recommendations on how to safely test the lift? Additionally, how do you suggest testing the turbine overspeed switches without jeopardizing safety?
When conducting testing for underground lifts, was the 1000 kg load test able to meet the proof load requirements of the lift?
When it comes to testing the lift, the key is not necessarily to test the lift itself, but rather to ensure that all systems are functioning properly and are able to work together seamlessly. It is important to acknowledge that hidden failures could occur, leading to multiple system failures. The goal is to minimize the risk to an acceptable level by identifying and addressing all potential failure modes. In this case, some failure modes were readily apparent (such as cable wear), making it unnecessary to conduct specific failure finding tests. Instead, a proactive approach involving condition-based or hard time maintenance was implemented for all structural components. Hidden failures in the governor and braking systems were tested through various condition-based tasks, without the need for a proof load. While there was a slight possibility that the brakes might not perform optimally under high loads, the team deemed this scenario highly unlikely given the good condition of the discs and pads, as well as satisfactory hydraulic pressure. The case was later reviewed by site engineers to ensure thoroughness. It is important to note that the author is not an underground lift expert, but rather led the mechanics and electricians through the testing process and verified their logic.
I appreciate your detailed examples on the subject matter and completely agree with your points. It's astounding how often the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" mantra is ignored in the industry. Particularly in aviation, this situation is common, with overzealous procedures causing more harm than good. I once heard about a case where engineers replaced a fully functioning avionics box in hopes of simply "refreshing" the system, but the new box had faulty wiring and led to major system issues inflight - a situation which could have easily been avoided. These cases underline the importance of predictive and condition-based maintenance practices which, if adopted, can help ensure equipment reliability while decreasing unnecessary interventions. It's a clear signal that we need to shift our focus from being reactive to proactive in asset management.
Your examples clearly illustrate the inherent dangers in conducting risky tests and intrusive maintenance without proper assessment. I recall an incident at a chemical plant where routine maintenance was performed on a critical system while the plant was still operational, leading to a severe mix-up in the control systems and a near-disaster situation. These are stark reminders that engineers and technicians should have sound knowledge about the implications of their tasks and decisions, not just theoretical knowledge. I agree with you on the importance of risk assessment and finding alternative testing methods. Perhaps less invasive and frequent inspections, backed up by improvements in technology and predictive maintenance techniques, would be a good avenue to explore.
Thanks for sharing your insights and highlighting the risks involved with harmful testing methods and excessive maintenance practices. It's a crucial reminder that lack of a proper risk assessment can have devastating repercussions. In my experience, there's a scenario that echoes your examples. I witnessed an incident in an industrial plant where, to expedite the process, they decided to test a dangerously high pressure on a vessel which was not designed for it, leading to its rupture and subsequent plant shutdown. Like the instances you shared, this was an avoidable scenario if they had adhered to safe testing protocols. These observations underscore the basic premise that whilst endeavouring to improve and maintain machinery, we should prioritize safety above everything else.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: - Examples of risky tests include shutting down two engines on one wing of an aircraft simultaneously, causing a fatal crash, and conducting tests on critical systems like the UPS during peak hours, leading to chaos in controlled airspace.
Answer: - Intrusive maintenance practices, such as dismantling and reassembling components unnecessarily, can introduce new issues, compromise safety, and increase the risk of failures in equipment that was initially in good working condition.
Answer: - Thorough risk assessments are essential to avoid destructive outcomes by identifying potential risks associated with maintenance activities, ensuring safety, and exploring alternative testing methods to mitigate risks effectively.
Answer: - Exploring alternative testing methods can help avoid unnecessary risks and potential failures associated with traditional maintenance practices, promoting efficiency, safety, and reliability in equipment maintenance.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.