|
Post by FabienA380 on Jun 17, 2014 17:22:06 GMT 1
Sorry XWB but I can't consider MSN167 rolled out in the state where it appears now... It looks complete but we don't know how much finishing work has to be done inside (and outside?..)... I'm not saying neither that MSN167 will have to go back to FAL, probably the finishing work can be done inside the FL hangar, same as installation of engines... I think MSN167 should go out of storage well before the end of the year, maybe around end-Sept/earlyQ4?... (depending on when BC/Airbus expect the delivery). Also, same situation had happened with MSN065 and MSN071 when they were missing engines, 2.5 years ago at XFW... They were painted and seemingly outfitted (since a few months at XFW already), but then also back and forth out on the FL and inside hangars, and still no engines, nobody knew how much the OF was done inside the frame... and from the begining of this situation at the time, we hadn't considered any of those 'rolled out', we only did when they appeared with engines on the FL. Doesn't matter, as we know what's happening... so many other frames are standing out of statistics because of this, because of that
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Jun 17, 2014 17:31:35 GMT 1
We had considered MSN127 "rolled out" after FAL+wingrepair at 20 weeks......... a380.boards.net/post/1939/threadHow about if we wouldn't have had any picture of MSN167 going into storage today, would we have invented a mistery date, to stick with the statistics?...... From the beginings of the forum back in 2009, it looks to me that 'rolled out' means complete with engines on the FL both XFW and TLS
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jun 17, 2014 17:35:53 GMT 1
While true, the opposite is also true: because we don't know the status, we can't say that assembly has not finished either. But it was worked on while MSN167 will be idle during storage. I'm afraid it's gonna be much, much longer. aviationawareness.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/skymark-a380-deferral-trouble/But we do know .. hypotheses are irrelevant IMO. People make exceptions to rules on a daily basis.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jun 17, 2014 17:47:17 GMT 1
The issue I have is that MSN167 will look like it was worked on for 20+ weeks, which is not the case because it's idle during storage.
The real assembly period should be the day of convoy arrival + FAL work + work after storage, and without the days it was in storage.
|
|
quidam
in Preparation for Body Join
Posts: 118
|
Post by quidam on Jun 17, 2014 19:12:28 GMT 1
Actually I'm with you XWB. But maybe we should consider the roll out date when MSN167 will be complete with engines etc, but substract the months in storage from the time of outfitting? That way Fabien will be happy and the production statistics would be ok
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Jun 17, 2014 19:40:21 GMT 1
I see. The way it would look like then would be
Time for Assembly ... 13 weeks Going into Storage ... 17th June 2014 Roll Out ... XXX
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jun 17, 2014 19:51:46 GMT 1
I like to propose a compromise: we note June 17 (today) as roll out date for MSN167. When it comes back out of storage, we review the date: if it goes to the flightline or to the FAL for 1-2 days, we stick with June 17. If it goes to the FAL for several weeks, we adjust the date. I think if MSN 167 is now sent into storage, then she should be considered as having been rolled out ; if she goes back to the FAL or undergoes an unusually long completion work, then she cannot be considered as having been rolled out. I suggest a small variation on XWB's proposal : - we don't consider MSN 167 as rolled out, we make no decision for the moment ; - we'll decide later when we have further information.
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Jun 17, 2014 21:06:57 GMT 1
The issue I have is that MSN167 will look like it was worked on for 20+ weeks, which is not the case because it's idle during storage. The real assembly period should be the day of convoy arrival + FAL work + work after storage, and without the days it was in storage. XWB while I understand where you are coming from now, it is still the same direction of confusion... Which ever frames were doing after assembly, was still always counted within the 'roll out' time...... and if worked on (MSN131, MSN127, MSN115 etc), it was on something else than Assembly, though still counted inside............ Same for OF+smtgelse at XFW (MSN138 MSN133 MSN135 etc), roll out time always counts the 'whole time' before arrival on the FL ,right?
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jun 17, 2014 21:22:32 GMT 1
It is very confusing - it is pretty similar situation to the QR frames....those were also practically in storage - nothing was going on with them - or went really slow. So I do believe we have to be content with the situation that the timing of those frames could not be accurate.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Jun 17, 2014 21:47:57 GMT 1
In the A380-Prod-List 1 I have 167 as "Rolled out Jun 17, 2014 without engines, stored". It's a bit like all those 787's. They were rolled out without engines and going nowhere (and are still not going anywhere.....). I mean, it left the FAL, so it IS rolled out, no matter what. EDIT: PS I also have 162 as stored at XFW (because it's going to be there for a long time....)
|
|