PAINTSQUARE BLOG

“The kinds of errors that cause plane crashes are invariably errors of teamwork and communication.” — Malcom Gladwell from his seminal book, Outliers: The Story of Success

I’m fascinated by failures. Some would say obsessed. While Chicago Corrosion Group’s focus is primarily in the corrosion mitigation field, I study modes of failures from every conceivable industry.

And I spend a lot of time focusing on failures within aerospace, because they are so well researched, documented and understood. And if I can understand why airplanes and spacecraft (the most complex machines ever created) fail, then I can do a better job of understanding corrosion mitigation failures. And if I can understand failures better, then I can do a better job of helping my clients design systems to prevent them.

I’ve just finished reading a book called, Why Planes Crash, An Accident Investigator’s Fight For Safe Skies by David Soucie. Soucie was a former FAA investigator obsessed with flight safety. He would likely agree that his obsession started when managing a helicopter ambulance firm, when he declined to purchase what are called “wire strike protection systems” for the firm helicopters. These systems, as the name implies, cut or otherwise reduce the impact if a pilot accidentally flies into power lines.

A friend of the author, who was also a pilot for the firm, hit some wires on takeoff, killing all the passengers and leaving the pilot gravely ill in the hospital. Among the pilot’s last words were to Sucie. I’m paraphrasing, but they were something like, “Dave. This could have been prevented.”

The author spent the rest of his career working on improving flight safety. Like the author—though no lives are at risk—I am obsessed with preventing paint and coating failures.

Let me take a moment to explain why looking at flight failures is an appropriate analogy for corrosion mitigation (and, anything else involving design for that matter). Going back to Malcom Gladwell’s quote from the top of the blog: “The kinds of errors that cause plane crashes are invariably errors of teamwork and communication.”

Of the hundreds, likely thousands, of corrosion mitigation failures I’ve personally worked on or read about, if there was one common denominator to all of them: poor communication at the early stages of conception, which, unfortunately, often continue throughout the project.

Images: The National Transportation Safety Board

And I spend a lot of time focusing on failures within aerospace, because they are so well researched, documented and understood. And if I can understand why airplanes and spacecraft (the most complex machines ever created) fail, then I can do a better job of understanding corrosion mitigation failures.

Let me share just one incredible example from Sucie’s book.

Way back in 1988 (I remember hearing about it when it actually happened), Aloha Flight 243 was flying at 24,000 feet at roughly 350 miles per hour. All was well with the Boeing 737 until, when, without any warning, a chunk of the fuselage tore off the top of the plane. It looked as if a giant had taken a bite out of the top of the plane, just behind the cockpit.

Miraculously, the pilots were able to safely land the plane with only one fatality.

Everyone in the investigation was focusing on the “root cause,” which was quickly identified as corrosion and metal fatigue associated with rivets and the aluminum fuselage. However, when looking deeper, investigators found a more complex issue.

When Boeing designed the plane back in 1967 (roughly 20 years earlier), they assumed the aircraft would be flying roughly two-hour flights on a regular basis. Based on the flight time, engineers assumed a certain number of cycles of pressurizing and de-pressurizing the plane. So, in a given 24 hours of flying, with a two-hour flight, the plane would complete 12 cycles.

But when the jet was tasked with shorter duration flights, landing and taking off more frequently, the number of cycles naturally increased.

The true root cause began in 1967 when engineers made assumptions about the aircraft usage, which, at the time, were apt. But there was no apparent system for retaining and sharing the cyclical assumptions aerospace engineers made more than 20 years earlier when the plane was built. Further, general fatigue and corrosion issues were known, and the aircraft was being maintained, but the extent of the corrosion and fatigue was underestimated.

Communication of the engineer’s cyclical expectations were not, apparently communicated forward.

Teamwork

Gladwell also attributes most aviation mishaps to failures of communication and teamwork. In the Aloha crash, the National Transportation Safety Board report sites the first contributing cause as, “The failure of Aloha Airlines management to supervise properly its maintenance force…”

The true root cause began in 1967 when engineers made assumptions about the aircraft usage, which, at the time, were apt. But there was no apparent system for retaining and sharing the cyclical assumptions aerospace engineers made more than 20 years earlier when the plane was built. Further, general fatigue and corrosion issues were known, and the aircraft was being maintained, but the extent of the corrosion and fatigue was underestimated.

I would characterize teamwork as synonymous with collaboration. And I think anyone in the corrosion mitigation, coating and painting field would agree, that teamwork is very hit-and-miss once a project begins.

In fact, I would argue (and have in past blogs) that the third-party inspection system is fundamentally flawed in that it creates an inherent atmosphere of adversity between the contractor and inspector, rather than one of collaboration. This is not a necessary connection, but rather the default within the industry.

And, in fact, we don’t typically provide traditional third-party inspection services for just that reason. We provide, what we have termed, third-party inspection and associated consulting services. Our inspectors (all of whom are senior and have extensive experience) are told that they have the authority to communicate with the contractor and owner.

If the inspector has experience or thoughts that would benefit the overall project, he is told to share them (I can hear traditional third-party inspector advocates cussing me out). Further, they are told, whenever possible, to facilitate a framework of teamwork (collaboration) among all stakeholders, where everyone is motivated to provide optimal painting, coating or associated work, for the exclusive benefit of the client.

The technical aspects of our work within the corrosion mitigation field is far less complex and challenging than anything in aerospace or aviation. And yet failures continue to happen at an alarming rate. Where commercial air travel is the safest mode of transportation in the history of mankind, we still have trouble painting bridges and coating floors.

And it’s not a matter of more resources or costs. It’s a matter of thinking, communicating more clearly and effectively and cultivating teamwork during paint and coating operations.

ABOUT THE THE BLOGGER Warren Brand Warren Brand’s coatings career has ranged from entry-level field painting to the presidency of two successful companies. Over nearly three decades, he has project-managed thousands of coating installations and developed specs for thousands of paint and coating applications. NACE Level 3 and SSPC PCS certified, Brand, an MBA and martial-arts instructor, now heads Chicago Corrosion Group, a leading coatings consultancy. Contact Warren. SEE ALL CONTENT FROM THIS CONTRIBUTOR