Training New Hires
Training New Hires
(OP)
OK, This isn't a technical question but one that I am sure that we are struggling with. We, like everyone, are hiring new stressers everyday. I've been a stress engineer since '91. I was trained in the old Boeing way, find the grizzliest old stress guy you could, then shut-up and listen. In addition, at Boeing we had the Tech Excellence classes.
My problem is this, the OEM I’m at now does not have very good training courses, and there aren’t enough grizzlies to go around. We’re getting worn out explaining the same things over and over to a different person; i.e. IDT, Mc/I, Cripple, Buckle, Repairs, DADT, FEM, Load Paths, FAR’s, what references to buy etc. etc., etc.
My question is this, for all you old timers and newbies out there, what are some training methods you have used or seen that can get them up to speed and quickly? I can think of a few but a fresh perspective would be nice.
My problem is this, the OEM I’m at now does not have very good training courses, and there aren’t enough grizzlies to go around. We’re getting worn out explaining the same things over and over to a different person; i.e. IDT, Mc/I, Cripple, Buckle, Repairs, DADT, FEM, Load Paths, FAR’s, what references to buy etc. etc., etc.
My question is this, for all you old timers and newbies out there, what are some training methods you have used or seen that can get them up to speed and quickly? I can think of a few but a fresh perspective would be nice.





RE: Training New Hires
TTFN
RE: Training New Hires
RE: Training New Hires
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Training New Hires
Wes C.
------------------------------
When they broke open molecules, they found they were only stuffed with atoms. But when they broke open atoms, they found them stuffed with explosions...
RE: Training New Hires
As to getting tired of answering the same questions - now you know how your prof's felt and how your supervisors felt when you were at your first real job.
RE: Training New Hires
many underlings. It was always amazing to
me that many would come back with the same
questions rather than making a reference to
the source that I would give them the first
time they asked. I was quick to copy the
sources from the guy who trained me.
Is that familiar?
RE: Training New Hires
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Training New Hires
RE: Training New Hires
I find the only way to start is proved them my list of newbie references and dircect them to the photocopier. I also tell them which ones to read first. I then will help with questions as we go.
Their reviews or my report to the supervisor will discuss whether they have read it (effort), whether they retained it, and whether they have chosen the correct field.
RE: Training New Hires
Anyways, I run a consulting company and we too have had to hire a couple of new hires BUT we made darn sure to set up a process to train them and make the appropriate time available. It consists of basically the following:
#1. Have them spend several weeks working real aircraft structures problems and getting familiar with all of the terminology, materials, and references (MMPDS, Bruhn, Aircraft Stress Manuals (BDM,SMM,etc.)). Above all, expect them to be able to perform FBD at a drop of a hat and understand all of the basic MS failure modes. This is the most fundamental of capabilities.
#2. Assign them tasks on topical subjects which provide them experience in the various aspects of structures (ie design and detailed joint stress analysis are the basics, then, other tasks such as internal loads, post-buckled behaviour, stiffened panels, etc.)
#3. Assign them increasingly more difficult problems with a focus on getting them proficient in every area.
#4. Make the TIME to provide guidance and help.
Anyway you look at it, it is a time consuming difficult task to train new stress engineers. BUT, we need to do it otherwise the whole industry will suffer. For anyone interested, I can email a pdf of a course MACAIR wrote twenty some years ago to train stress people. It is by no means exclusive but just a good sample of the type of problems to have new stress engineers work.
Also, just as an aside. MACAIR around the late 1960's use to give a test to all new direct hires and shoppers (before all of the employment restrictions were imposed). The test consisted of about 10 difficult but good sound structural problems all of which had to be completed by hand without references. Those who did not pass, were walked out that day. The old stressers of yeasteryear sure left some big shoes to fill. Unfortunately, I am not sure the industry is up to it anymore these days.
Good luck to all and hope this helps someone.
James Burd
Avenger Aircraft and Services
RE: Training New Hires
James-I hope you can retain the engineers that you spend the time to train.
Steve
RE: Training New Hires
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Training New Hires
I too hope that the young engineers who are getting mentoring appreciate it. Hopefully they will see the value of working with someone who is truly interested in helping them into the industry.
As for the time to train:
a) new hires - 1 year to just understand/appreciate the basics / 5 years of good work til they reach journeyman level where they can handle most stress tasks. Other more complex areas require more training such as FDT which requires about 2 to 3 years of solid training and hands on work.
b) mentoring/supervising - about 20% of a 40 hour work week.
Good luck all and lets hope ours is not a dying field.
James
RE: Training New Hires
Very interesting and useful topic. Crackman, thank you for the tips. If its not too much trouble, may I have a copy of that PDF file on the stress course emailed to me? I am about to sign up also for the correspondance course by the Lake City Publishing group (Based on the Stress Analysis Book by Jean Claude Flabel). This would be an added guide to the course I think. Thank you again for sharing your wisdom.
Cheers
Asanga
RE: Training New Hires
I'd be most grateful if you sent me a stress course PDF file too. How could I obtain it? thanks
RE: Training New Hires
For James Burd: What is the best way to get my email address to you? I would like a copy of the Macair document.
thanks
RE: Training New Hires
James Burd
Avenger Aircraft & Services
RE: Training New Hires
Firstly, the Airbus VP who "stated that the fact that the A380 wing failed at 1.47 DLL proved the accuracy FE analysis" is not at the frontline of Airbus wing stressing. Secondly, Airbus wing stressing is not solid-element FE all the way; it is nothing like that at all. A stiffness model up of plates, shells & bars is run and the stresses arising used in a multitude of computerised manual-type calculations. Maybe more judicious use of FE would have produced a better result...
RE: Training New Hires
James Burd
RE: Training New Hires
The course notes basically do not have an actual document number or title or any restrictions, it is more a compilation of course work and so has not proprietary stamps or references on it since it is all derived from textbook equations. Its the type of course companies and the government used to send engineers to in order to get trained on "real" world problems right after graduating. The information in it is basically what one would get from several structures textbooks but only in a simpler and more focused manner as applicable to aircraft liasion work.
Hope this clarifies some questions.
James
RE: Training New Hires
I'll also contact you for a copy of that training course. The test sounds... humbling.
Steven Fahey, CET
RE: Training New Hires
Cheers
Asanga
RE: Training New Hires
Crackman,
I would be curious to hear your opinion on the use of CATIA/FEA vs. the old hand crank method. In particular, which is the more accurate predictor of the stress levels that get recorded during static test.
RE: Training New Hires
Depending the type of test being performed (small component to full scale) both can make good and/or bad predictions based on how they are applied. Typically though, the most direct and best way in my own opinion for large scale tests is to use some sort of FEA BUT this means a normal industry standard (or that which used to be standard in our industry) "coarse" grid airframe model built by a well experienced stress analyst who knows load path very well following standard modelling practices. NOT, some ultra fine mesh or autogenerated model (dont even think about solid elements) with every minutia modeled as seems to be the practice these days. Another good alternate method for wing boxes and even fuselage structure (as long as you account for cutout redistributions) is to use a Unit Beam method (ie Cozzone method) which was used by most OEMS for decades. In fact, most OEMs designed and built all of the 1940s to late 1960s transports with this method in various forms. Boeing used it on the 707, 727, 737, 747 (and I have heard still does for prelim design purposes). The Boeing fuselage code was named TES057 while the wing was TES170 as I recall. From the old ultimate correlation reports I have seen they did a pretty good job for the most part in predicting the values.
One thing to keep in mind is that whenever you are correlating always pick very clean areas to instrument. That is to say, I have very rarely ever seen test correlations to strain gages in stress concentration areas provide good (within 10%) correlation. For instance, if you are trying to validate a wing coarse grid FEM, place your gages on basic general spar cap, stringer, or skin locations as nearly close to the NA as possible and away from any cutouts, splices or discontinuities. The best way to correlate areas with stress concentrations is to perform very localized tests and even then it is difficult to obtain very good correlation. The main point in any aircraft FEM is to correlate internal loads not necessarily detail stresses. This is typically what regulation agencies are looking for in order to gain confidence in model results.
James Burd
Avenger Aircraft and Services
RE: Training New Hires
Stress engineers tend to want to locate strain gages for the static test right on the "hot spots": areas of very high strain and very high strain gradient. Gages in these location do a lousy job of providing data for a correlation effort.
The best strain gage layout for a correlation is to put gages in areas of high strain but LOW strain gradient. This way the gages are less sensitive to mislocation.
The best way to validate a FEM distribution on a wing, for instance, might be to put axial gages on every stringer and spar cap on both surfaces at a single wing station, with a good number of rosettes scattered on the skins in the bays between stringer gages.
Too often the engineer is asked to do a correlation without the right tools.
Another sign of untrained management... asking for FEM results that are "conservative". For a given set of externally applied loads, there is exactly one solution for any given structural system. Inasmuch as the model overpredicts the load in one location, it must necessarily be underpredicting somewhere else.
Maybe the engineers need to be training the management!
</soapbox mode off>
SuperStress
RE: Training New Hires
Thanks for the good answers to my off topic question?
The basis for my question is to see if the reliance on FEA is the reason why manufacturers (especially start-up business jet mfg) miss their empty weight projections so often.
This might make a good topic by itself since there is great effort being expended trying to make lighter and stronger materials, avionics are certainly lighter but everyone keeps missing empty weights.
aerodog
just because a process can be automated
does not mean it should.
RE: Training New Hires
SuperStress
RE: Training New Hires
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Training New Hires
There is inconsistency here. On one hand a lament, industry is losing the ability to do good stress work yet blaming marketing/management for not hitting empty weight targets.
An outsider might assume bad stress work leads to an unsafe airplane. Bad stress also leads to a heavy airplane.
Take the Eclipe airplane for instance. It sailed through static test with no failures and management is thrilled. Their press release proudly proclaimed "no detrimental permenant distortion at limit or ultimate load".
Is that good stress work or extreme conservatism? If an individual sheet metal part is .063 and it could have been made from .050, then it is 25% heavier than it should be.
If .050 called out where .040 would have worked out, again the part is 25% heavier.
If .040 instead of .032, again a 25% weight penalty.
Keep this up and you have an airframe 25% heavier than it should be and it will sail through static test. Is this good stress work?
aerodog
don't just rock the boat...jump up and down on the gunnels.
RE: Training New Hires
The positive correlations between the test data and the analytical tools are what is allowing the 'pushing of the envelope' we are seeing now, IMO. While it may trouble me to see phrases such as "Insights from FEA" (Machine Design just had such a front cover), there is no doubt in my mind that the current tools for analyses such as CFD have enabled signficant evolution of design practices.
RE: Training New Hires
RE: Training New Hires
Back to the topic at hand: it was asked earlier, what training is required for new hires. I work in a mod/repair environment. Being expected to give on-the-spot answers about whether somebody's proposed solution is acceptable or not is common. Other times, the responsibility is upon us to create the solution. These situations require a lot of resources in your head. I find the "socratic method" works well for me: keep asking stupid questions. And, never be afraid to ask the same question again, later! Once you're more familiar with the problem at hand, you may find that you will understand the same answer better the second time around. Or, better yet, the person explaining it to you will include more info, because the process may have clarified their understanding, too.
Steven Fahey, CET
RE: Training New Hires
While I don't have any special insight to the Eclipse program, I would agree that if the press release is correct, having an airplane with no detrimental permanent deformation at ultimate load is indeed overkill.
Boeing would call this "growth potential", but I doubt that's what the boys in Albuquerque are after with a VLJ.
Is this bad stress work? It's impossible to say without more information. Parts of the design might be driven by damage tolerance requirements more than static strength.
Are heavier planes "poorly designed"? Redundant structure and alternate load paths provide added safety for occupants. Think Aloha 737.
Having airplanes that are too light are "poorly designed" as well. Nobody wants to own a hanger queen that can only fly 100 hours between scheduled inspections.
Airplane structure needs to be "right-sized", having just enough strength to meet certification and performance goals, while not carrying unnecessary weight in non-value-added locations. This is where good stress work comes in.
I think the lament about losing the ability to do good stress work comes from the new breed of "FEM analysts" that aren't well-schooled in classic theory and analysis techniques. Allow me to quote from an AV-8 stress memo from 1990.
"There has been a tendency in the last decade for inexperienced people to make finite element models or for the models to be made by a 'model group'. These can be very dangerous approaches. Modelers should be experienced load path persons and must work closely with the Stress and Design people that are sizing the layouts and the parts. Finite element models cannot be a substitute for free body diagrams and load path layout work. Some hard experiences have demonstrated this."
In my career I've come across these types of "FEM analysts" that couldn't free body a simple box; analysts that don't understand what shear center is; analysts that are completely ignorant as to how fasteners transfer load in a joint. Some of these same analysts are fluent only in linear static analysis, and they use it incorrectly! And these were "experienced" engineers and lead engineers! I feel sorry for the new graduates who find themselves being "mentored" by such engineers!
I've witnessed failures in test due to bad modeling assumptions; neglecting cutouts, kick loads, eccentricities, etc. The test I'm thinking about failed catastrophically at 75% of LIMIT load, when we were supposed to go to ultimate load without permanent deformation. This part was deliberately "overdesigned" because schedule didn't allow for a second "test-only" unit to be built - what we were testing was supposed to be flight hardware! The responsible analyst just sat there with his mouth open... he couldn't believe what he was seeing. Worse yet, HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT HAPPENED.
These are the engineers who scare me......
SuperStress
RE: Training New Hires
Right on! Couldnt agree with you more. I worked for a company who recently went thru the same exact experience. They argued and argued with the certification authorities that due to their state of the art finite element modeling capabilities including linear and non-linear analysis, that no full scale ultimate test of their wing was required. Well......, the wing failed at about 137% of limit! So much for state of the art. This ended up costing them millions.
In the past 20 years, I have developed several airframe FEMs and IMO here is what much of the industry has forgetten about analytical methods and particularly FEM from its original inception and use in the aircraft industry. Back in the olden days, EVERYTHING was tested and the results evaluated (that is what all of the OEM stress manuals are based on - the famous Lockheed bathtub fitting method was based on P38 and B17 wing attach fitting tests). Analysis was used only for preliminary estimates until the test could be completed. THEN, and ONLY THEN, would methods be reviewed, modified, altered in order to predict the test failure modes. Having done this and established these methods, THEN the methods could be used to help evaluate new designs without repeating the expensive testing. LESSON NUMBER ONE - ALL methods must be correlated and validated. The FAA does not accept FEM without test validation, period. IMO the industry has become far too arrogant.
Now keeping this in mind, the experienced engineer knows that he must validate his method/FEM throughly at least ONCE and capture all of significant failure modes. Then, the method/FEM can be used subsequently for any new designs, mods, etc. This is the proper way to approach the issue. Most OEMs have spent millions of dollars validating their methods and have a large volume of substantiation data (even if there arent any engineers left at the OEM who know where the find the data). In fact, Boeing has a wonderful manual on exactly how to idealize airframe FEM which is based on decades of validation.
Unfortunatly, the people running companies today have no clue about this. Worse yet, many management teams of upstart companies think ANY testing and/or methods development to be a complete waste of money since CATIA with FEA is the solve all solution. Worste yet, young impressionable engineers start to believe this as well because "senior management must know what they are talking about", NOT. Unfortunately for them, they end up paying thru the nose when the day they submit their mod for an STC, the FAA says the following "...thats all fine and dandy but where's your validation to test data?".....The engineers are left bugeyed and the management team disappers or better yet blames the engineers. Shortly thereafter, the company folds up and lays everyone off. No one benefits from this.
One last comment then I'll get off my soap box. Many an old stress engineer always told me: "If half the design team and management arent pissed off at you, then, youre worthless to me as a stress engineer and you should call yourself one". I believe this to this day. Stress engineers must have a backbone and stand up when need be. Stress is the last defense line for a safe airframe.
Good luck all.
James Burd
RE: Training New Hires
The positive correlations between the test data and the analytical tools are what is allowing the 'pushing of the envelope' we are seeing now, IMO. While it may trouble me to see phrases such as "Insights from FEA" (Machine Design just had such a front cover), there is no doubt in my mind that the current tools for analyses such as CFD have enabled signficant evolution of design practices. "
I agree. The amount of what-if and optimisation that can be done in FEA is an important extension of the engineer's toolkit. We can also run analytical DOEs and end up with a more robust design.
SparWeb (Aerospace) 5 May 06 11:28
"What ever happened to the practice of designing the airplane 15% under the required ultimate strength, and then correcting the failures once the static tests are performed? "
Ah, the Colin Chapman design method! It's a bit bogus - if you truly designed to 85% then you'd have to improve EVERYTHING by 18%, so to some extent it only worked because the design process was generally conservative.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Training New Hires
Steven Fahey, CET
RE: Training New Hires
A designer was working on a suspension bracket. They tested the car, and it broke. So the designer redesigned it, made it heavier, they tested it , it broke. So, he redesigns it again, made it heavier, and they test it. It doesn't break. Chapman looks over the designer's shoulder, and says " Oh, I think we'd better go back to the previous design".
The ideal racing car should fall apart as it crosses the finishing line.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Training New Hires
Step 2: Occasional repeat offenders who are making progress are directed to look in their notebook. Repeat Step 1.
Step 3: Habitual offenders are shown to the door. Small business + at will state.
Generally, a 6 month window to usefulness is expected.
RE: Training New Hires
Did the suspension component that Colin Chapman wanted to revert to undergo static or fatigue failure? Presumably the "ideal" racing car fails in fatigue as it crosses the line...
Louis
RE: Training New Hires
I thought that was GM: The ideal production vehicle should fall apart the day after its warranty expires...
(Sorry, I'm too cynical, and they're too easy to kick when they're down.)
Steven Fahey, CET
RE: Training New Hires
In practice, of course, a car that has finished its warranty will typically be MORE reliable than it was during the warranty period. Cars are massively overdesigned in my opinion.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Training New Hires
Anyways, just my own opinions.
James
RE: Training New Hires
Agreed, that's why the factor of safety on a skyscraper should be higher than that of a gatepost.
However, isn't the dirty little secret that we pile safety factor on safety factor, generally? All with good reason, of course. That is what you exploit as the life of the product is extended.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Training New Hires
RE: Training New Hires
RE: Training New Hires
James - I'm probably one of the ones you're talking about. I came fresh out of college into the referenced company, and immediately placed in the FEA group. After switching to the stress/FDT group, it took me a long time to learn (unlearn) that detailed FEA is NOT the way to do stress analysis, it's only a tool. After much frustration of seeing what goes on in this industry (at least in one major company), it was frustrating and downright scary. Part of the reason I did indeed leave the aerospace industry.
The other issue with regards to training shocked me. There was NO formal training or mentoring program set up for new hires. At least in my case, it seemed the general attitude was throw someone into a job to fill the position, without regards to their career or the quality of the aircraft produced.
I sat next to incredibly talented engineers, and learned the most by listening, and asking queestions. But when I saw vice-presidents walking up to talented stress engineers and forcing them to sign-off a bad design ("make that negative margin positive - we gotta get the plane out the door"), it really made me wonder if its worth it to continue in the engineering field.
I now work more in the Mechanical/IT field supporting engineers designing copiers/office equipment, and I have seen more free-body diagrams, structure/mechanics courses internally for any employee, training & mentoring than I did in aerospace.
RE: Training New Hires
That must be you. Good to hear from you and congrats. You are right on about the difference in attitude towards training in the aero industry versus other industries and its only getting worse day by day.
All
I appreciate everyone's interest in the liasion training course but after emailing out about 50 copies I really cannot keep up with the requests anymore. Could some of you other folks whom I sent copies to disseminate to new requests? Thanks, I have just gotten way too busy at work to keep up with all the email requests.
James
RE: Training New Hires
How about I post it on my ftp site, anybody can download it? Did you ever find the answer key?
You can download the stress course at
ftp://ftp.
RE: Training New Hires
Russ
RE: Training New Hires
one company i worked with started a training internship for new grads, trying to fill the gapping void between school (today) and the practical needs of the work place, where they went through several departments (hopefully figuring out how the plane was put together, at least finding people in these various departments to go to later) and they also went through the rivet school, learning how to buck rivets. i always thought that was a valuable lesson.
as for interview testing, what people here are starting calling "the inquisition", its depressing how few grads can solve a simply supported beam, let alone stress a bracket.
TTFN
RE: Training New Hires
In addition to the structural repair course, Boeing has some great training books which they use in their stress, fatigue and DTA courses. They give a very good review of structural analysis for all components of the airplane and then get into specific details of analysis. I believe it used to be contained in two notebook binders if I remember correctly.
I do agree as well that training must be both in the classroom and hands on to get the most out of it. Much of this relies on your boss and his willingness to expose you to the various aspects of being a stress engineer.
It is unfortunate that most new grads have very little to no experience with real world problems. Heck, most dont even know what Mil-hndbk-5 is. In my own opinion, this has alot to do with the fact that professors today have little to zero experience in industry. In the old days, most professors came from industry and valued exposing their students to real world problems and not just ivory tower projects to get them funding for the next several years. I have approached universities in the past to have them do structural testing for me only to be turned away because they were not considered cutting edge.
James
RE: Training New Hires
Airplanes must be made of carbon fibre,
Airplanes must be designed with highly detailed 3-d models,
What's with all these dusty old books?
We've overcome some of these things by working on the basics - how to draw good drawings, what materials to choose, looking through fastener catalogues. While re-stocking some shelves in the shop, he had a 4130 tube in his hand and asked "this is steel?" Yes... "But it's so light!" Of course... "How can steel be so light?" A lesson was learned.
University courses really don't give students much contact with materials, so a teacher telling them that graphite is the most structurally efficient material leads them down a rather costly path. Students then get themselves into design competitions, and lord help them, these 20 year-olds are sawing and grinding CFRP projects with no masks on!
The foregoing discussion prepared me a little for the task, so thanks to all. When it's time, I'll bring out the course notes (thanks again Crackman).
Steven Fahey, CET
RE: Training New Hires
You can download the stress course at
ftp://ftp.
Does anyone have lesson 14 and 15. The pdf above stops at page 14-2.
Many thanks
RE: Training New Hires
durn, I didn't even notice that. I was going through the PDF, didn't get to the end yet. The PDF unfortunately is how I received it.
RE: Training New Hires
The PDF I put on my ftp site had pages in wrong order; looks to me as if they are all there, just mixed up.
RE: Training New Hires
Just a note to say that I am not ignoring peoples request for the liasion course notes but hoping rather that people will see the links that prost and compositestress kindly provided for copies of the notes.
Sorry but I really just dont have the time to email everyone back.
Also, this is to prost or compositestress, I do have the answer key. When I get a chance to scan it in, I can email it to either or both of you so you can post it. But, you should probably make people send you a copy of their work first so they can demonstrate they actually worked the problems, ha ha. Would be interesting to see the grade distribution. Anyways, will post when they are available.
James
RE: Training New Hires
Did you get a chance to scan the answer key?
Also, what is MAC 339?
CS
RE: Training New Hires
MAC 339 is McDonnell Aircraft Company Report 339 - a strength (stress/structures) manual from the days in St. Louis before Boeing or even Douglas. It came from back when they called themselves Mac-Air.
FBDANDLOADPATH
RE: Training New Hires
One helpful publication was a compilation of historical lessons learned. It helped one get over the stupid and inexperienced phase.
I remember the evolution of nozzle actuator mounts. It went from the 'suitcase handle' thru the 'shearplate and floating pin' to the current thrust tube and ring arrangement. (We killed more German pilots in the F104 program than during some major air battles over Europe. The exhaust nozzles kept separating from the engine.)
RE: Training New Hires
I presume you are into fracture analysis, among other things. My early exposure to fracture analysis was from an attached MME who specialized in fracture. I used his work in my jet engine components, and it got the attention of Wright Field. They ran with it and used it to get fracture of major components under control.(circa 1975)
RE: Training New Hires
I finally have the solutions for each chapter of the Liasion Course scanned in, just email me separately (at my personal email address) and I will forward it to both of you so you guys can post it on your sites. There's no way I can keep up with other individual requests.
By the way, as I was digging through my references, another good reference for basic structures training is the book entitled "Aircraft Structural Analysis" by the Martin Aircraft Company, 1947. Its a practical reference on aircraft structural analysis with numerous problems to work out which are realistic.
RE: Training New Hires
thanks for scanning the solutions!
Compositestress / Prost,
Thanks in advance for the upcoming post!
RE: Training New Hires
RE: Training New Hires
Thanks for the efforts in putting the solutions out there.
Crackman, can't believe that you old school blokes had solution manuals
RE: Training New Hires
thanks!! - worked like a charm!
RE: Training New Hires
RE: Training New Hires
Steven Fahey, CET
RE: Training New Hires
I stumbled across this website and your 30 April 2006 entry regarding training new stress engineers. I am new to the aircraft structuaral analysis scene. Meanwhile, my current employer treats its employees well but there is a vacuum of in-depth, industry specific technical training. And yes, it is frustrating, especially for someone who background is mechanical engineering.
In your 30 April 2006 entry, you offered to email anyone a PDF file of a training class from MACAIR. ("For anyone interested, I can email a pdf of a course MACAIR wrote twenty some years ago to train stress people.") I will take your offer and a copy of that class and any other information regarding training, text books, and any references that you may be willing to offer. Any suggestions regarding the best way to exchange contact information would be appreciated. Thanks.
Dave
RE: Training New Hires
crackman graciously provided me with two PDFs--the questions, and the solutions, which crackman allowed me to put on my companies ftp site. Due to the overwhelming volume of requests, crackman requests that you get those two PDFs there, rather than ask for direct email. Here's the site:
ftp://ftp.apesolutions.com/pub
currently there are two files there, download them both.
It's all free, thanks to crackman and my company providing a tiny bit of space on a server. Let me know if you can't download them for some reason.
RE: Training New Hires
Thanks for your efforts but I was able to access the website. When I clicked on the provided link, my PC responded with a dialogue box titled "FTP Folder Error". The dialogue box stated "Windows unable to access this folder." Any suggestions?
Dave
RE: Training New Hires
I tried it both ways; typing in the address, and just clicking on the link above. Maybe there was a hangup in the server just when you were trying to do it. Please try again, and come back to this thread if you still have problems. We'll stick it on our company's commercial website temporarily and you can download from there.
RE: Training New Hires
ftp://ftp.apesolutions.com/anonftp/pub
try downloading both documents there.
RE: Training New Hires
http://www.apesolutions.com/pub
You'll see two files there below the Parent Directory. Right click on a file, a menu pops up, use Save Link As option, and put the file on your PC wherever you like.
I apologize for the inconvenience and the screwiness of our ftp. It's never screwed up for me before; are there sun spots today?
RE: Training New Hires
I was able to open the ftp site when I got home. Love the typed pages... all 500+ of them. I have lots of work to do! Thanks.
-Dave
RE: Training New Hires
ftp://ftp.apesolutions.com/pub
ftp://ftp.apesolutions.com/anonftp/pub
http://www.apesolutions.com/pub
Depending on the phase of the moon or some other arbitrary event, either or both or neither of the first two works. As far as I know, the last one always works. If you are still cannot get these two documents, please let me know and we'll figure out some other way to get those documents to you.
RE: Training New Hires
Seems like an asinine question (not that that stopped me before), but what are your views on an old dog learning new tricks? Can someone from a design background (or any other such as Quality) actually change positions and go into Stress and make it? More importantly, would any sane company manager consider this as a worthy investment over training a newbie? As for me, I want to learn about stress analysis simply to increase my understanding of Aero Structures, but I couldn't help wondering.
RE: Training New Hires
You'll be far better prepared than most grads these days.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Training New Hires
Asanga
RE: Training New Hires
The big thing is a willingness to learn. Your design background should actually help since you will already have an understanding of materials, fastening systems, loading actions etc. that you would need when stressing.
Regards
Andries
RE: Training New Hires
I really appreciate the pdf being made available. I was able to ftp OK, but the solutions file is no longer in ftp.apesolutions.com/pub, the http link is 403'ed, and ftp.apesolutions.com/anonftp/pub doesn't exist.
Any chance that the soultions file could be put back on the ftp site?
Thanks,
Jeffrey
RE: Training New Hires
ftp://ftp.apesolutions.com/pub
ftp://ftp.apesolutions.com/anonftp/pub
ftp://f
http://www.apesolutions.com/pub
You're looking for these 2 files, though you can download anything else there if you like.
Stress_Course_for_Liasion_Engineers.pdf
Aircraft_Structures_for_Engineers___Solutions.pdf
If none of those 4 locations works, email me at
drfeaNOSPAMYOUSCUM@yahoo.com (removing the obvious letters! lol).
Sorry about the problems, it was really not under our control (even our company website has been FUBAR for a week. It's darn frustrating!).
RE: Training New Hires
RE: Training New Hires
RE: Training New Hires
http://www.apesolutions.com/spd/public
Stress_Course_for_Liasion_Engineers.pdf
Aircraft_Structures_for_Engineers___Solutions.pdf
Go to this HTTP location right click on the desired file(s), copy to your computer where you like. If you double click on either of the files, ADOBE Reader opens up so you can see the file directly.
Sorry for the inconvenience. You can still send me email and I'll send you the two files.
RE: Training New Hires
Also, by the way, I just want to clear up one misunderstanding about the notes. These course notes are NOT a MACAIR document, I mispoke in the very first email. The course notes are simply a set of old informal clasroom textbook training notes which air force liasion stress engineers were given and were not classified or proprietary material and were not official in any manner shape or form. They were just plain textbook type problems and solutions for structures related work which were given as part of training for liasion engineers. So, there is no reference document number, title, or code related to it. Its simply unofficial course notes no different than those you would have had in any aircraft structures book and which you could obtain from any number of good books such as Bruhn. The only benefit is that the problems are made to relate to practical problems. Hope that answers everyones questions.