https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/p1chcp8bah1iop15pmqru9031uel6.png (21/03/2021)
Module Title:
Module Code:
Module Leader:
Coursework
Assignment Title:
Case Study: Landing Gear
Weighting: 50%
Introduction
In this coursework, you will carry out a critical evaluation on a case study. You will need to analyse and discuss a case study based on your simulation, research, and international regulation. Undertaking this assignment will enable you to understand, establish and apply the principles of aircraft investigation under the aircraft worthiness.
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of this assignment, the student should be able to:-
- LO3 A critical understanding of the theory behind each reliability, availability, maintainability, safety techniques and ability to choose and apply the technique(s) which is most appropriate for the system under consideration demonstrated by analytical calculations.
- LO4 Comprehensive knowledge and ability to critically evaluate aspects of accident and incident investigation, human factors, safety risk management.
The Brief
You are about to make a critical evaluation on a case study of Korean Airline. The aircraft had problem landing at Narita Airport.
Detail Accident:
Below is copied of the actual report:
On June 29, 2018 at 10:38 in Japan Standard Time (JST: UTC+9 hours; unless otherwise stated, all times are indicated in JST in this report on a 24-hour clock), Boeing 777-300, registered HL7573, operated by Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Operator”) as a scheduled flight 703, took off from Incheon airport in the Republic of Korea, with 335 persons on board consisting of the captain, 15 crew members and 319 passengers, and arrived at Narita international airport at 12:37.
According to the captain, the aircraft touched down, decelerated thereafter and taxied on taxiway without any trouble. Besides, there was no need to increase engine power during taxiing.
Around 12:41, other aircraft, which was taxiing after the aircraft on the right side, reported with radio communication to the Narita Ground that it sighted something, which was seemingly smoke, on the right main landing gear aft of the aircraft; and subsequently, the Narita Ground instructed the aircraft to halt at the position where it was.
Around 12:43, the captain halted the aircraft in accordance with the instruction from the Narita Ground. The position where the aircraft halted was between E6 and E7 on taxiway K.
The damage:
Slightly damaged
・The R-MLG AFT Axle was fractured.
・The R-MLG Truck beam was damaged.
・The R-MLG Steering system was damaged.
・Hydraulic hoses of Brake and the Steering system were cut.
・Hydraulic system fluid leaked.
・Brake components were damaged.
・Electric cables and junction box of the R-MLG were damaged.
Figure 1 3R MLG (rear view)
The detail of the accident and investigation had been included with this assignment (the same folder). The report will be required to be read and fully understood.
The theory:
Fatigue is one of the most important aspects in engineering to predict the failure of component based on the cycle loading or bearing loading apply to it. This would enable prediction to very close based on the critical finite element analysis calculation.
You should be able to expand your knowledge on the fatigue theory during your previous study as this might link closely with the material selection and behaviour.
You will be required to source some literature from prominent journal regarding the fatigue on the landing gear.
The simulation:
You are given a part of landing to be analysed using Finite element analysis software (the tutorial will be on the folder of assignment no 2 under assessment).
You need to understand the result presented by the FEA package and enable you to appreciate the different of the design and real result. The FEA package will provide a preliminary result based on the assume data (cyclic data). Furthermore, the fatigue will provide the number of minimum and maximum cycle and predict the damage location.
Your detail task:
You will need to achieve the LO3 and LO4 after reading the detail report. Based on your critical analysis, write a full technical report subjected to a 2000 word limit.
Your MUST do the following:
- Read and analyse the content of report HL7573.pdf
- Expand the research on the journal papers on related issues (e.g. use the sciencedirect.com)
- Run the simulation with the model provided (video tutorial upload on the folder)
- Write your analysis and complete the report
You should ask number of questions based on your finding in the report such as:
- Was the simulation is closely predicting the cause ?
- Is there anything else that could be used to predict the cause ?
- Was the maintenance procedure correct ?
- What does the rule state it ?
- What is the regulation from ICAO stated ?
- And so on
| Example for the report layout: (please note this is ONLY an example) Cover Content page Figure list Table list Abstract Introduction. Detail accident. Cause of accident. Simulation. Comparison between simulation and finding. Critical Analysis. Conclusion. References Appendix |
The BOLD shows where the word counting would be.
Marking allocation and criteria
1). Correct format (10%)
The whole report should be logically structured and follows format of a full engineering report. Correct citation of reference and proper numbering of equations and figures. Interesting background information and updated literature survey.
2) Detail Accident (10%)
3) Cause of accident (10%)
4) Simulation (10%)
Short and concise of the result analysis
4). Comparison (10 %)
This should be your own word based on the report.
5). Critical Discussion and Conclusion (50%)
It provides critical evaluation of accident and related to the LO3 and LO4.
Reading Materials
Module lecture and support notes.
Ronald Sterkenbur and Michael Kroes (2019), Aircraft Maintenance & Repair, Eighth Edition, McGraw-Hill Education
Harry Kinnison (2012), Aviation Maintenance Management, McGraw-Hill Education
Dingle Dingle and Mike Tooley (2013), Aircraft Engineering Principle, Taylor & Francis Aerospace and Aviation Engineering.
Shevantha K. Weerasekera (2020), Introduction to Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul of Aircraft, Engine and Components.
Note: These sources are guides only to commonly available material. Students will also be expected to consult other relevant source material.
Submission Requirements
The assignment will need to be approximately maximum 2000 words in length. You will be penalised if the word count is over.
The final report will be one report needs to be submitted through online e-submission point within the module blackboard before the deadline.
DON’T MISS THE DEADLINE FOR THIS E-SUBMISSION.
Understanding and Managing Coursework Assessment Checklist
This brief checklist is designed to help you avoid some of the common mistakes which can lose you marks on your coursework. After you have completed your coursework assignment, then check through your work and ‘tick off’ each point once you are sure you have fully addressed that aspect.
YOU NEED TO THEN SUBMIT THE COMPLETED CHECK LIST WITH YOUR COURSEWORK.
| Have you utilised the assessment brief to ensure you have correctly addressed the coursework grading criteria? | |
| Have you check your content is correct and up-to-date, preferably through use of at least one peer-reviewed reference (not Wikipedia!)? | |
| Have you cited the reference(s) you have used in the correct format? | |
| Have you used a colour scheme which is easy to read? | |
| Have you got a good balance between the amount of text and the number of pictures/figures/tables/diagrams? | |
| Have you labeled all figures/tables and diagrams? | |
| Have you included an introduction and conclusion? | |
| Have you used a Table of Contents and glossary of terms? | |
| Have you used an appropriate front sheet? | |
| Have you proof read your work and checked your spellings and punctuation? |
DMU generic postgraduate taught mark descriptors
Modules are marked on a range of 0-100%. Mark descriptors are given in the table below. A mark below 50% indicates a Fail grade (the shaded boxes).
| Mark Range | Criteria |
| 90-100% Distinction | Demonstrates an exceptional ability and insight, indicating the highest level of technical competence. The work has the potential to influence the forefront of the subject, and may be of publishable/exhibitable quality. Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at the highest possible standard. |
| 80-89% Distinction | Demonstrates an outstanding ability and insight based on authoritative subject knowledge and a very high level of technical competence. The work is considered to be close to the forefront of the subject, and may be close to publishable/exhibitable quality. Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a very high level. |
| 70-79% Distinction | Demonstrates an authoritative, current subject knowledge and a high level of technical competence. The work is accurate and extensively supported by appropriate evidence. It may show some originality. Clear evidence of capacity to reflect critically and deal with ambiguity in the data. Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a high level. |
| 60-69% Merit | Demonstrates a sound, current subject knowledge. No significant errors in the application of concepts or appropriate techniques. May contain some minor flaws. The work is well developed and coherent; may show some originality. Clear evidence of capacity to reflect critically. Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a good level. |
| 50-59% Pass | Demonstrates satisfactory subject knowledge. Some evident weaknesses; possibly shown by conceptual gaps, or limited use of appropriate techniques. The work is generally sound but tends toward the factual or derivative. Limited evidence of capacity to reflect critically. Relevant generic skills are generally at a satisfactory level. |
| 40-49% | Demonstrates limited core subject knowledge. Some important weaknesses; possibly shown by factual errors, conceptual gaps, or limited use of appropriate techniques. The work lacks sound development. Little evidence of capacity to reflect critically. The quality of the relevant generic skills do not meet the requirements of the task. |
| 30-39% | Demonstrates inadequate subject knowledge. |
