Introduction: Personnel: Method of Test: APPENDIX 3.3.1: LECTROMEC A300 NDT TESTING

Transcription

1 Introduction: APPENDIX 3.3.1: LECTROMEC A300 NDT TESTING Lectromec is pleased to present the following report to the Federal Aviation Administration. This report summarizes test results obtained during the week of December 6 11, Lectromec participated in the intrusive inspection of an Airbus A300 aircraft in Ardmore, OK as part of the FAA s Aging Systems Research Program. Lectromec, a Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) contractor, performed its DelTest, on fourteen zones, previously selected by the FAA s intrusive inspection working group. The purpose of the DelTest is to detect breaches (cracks) in a wire s insulation which extend to the conductor, and to identify both the wire and the breach location. Please see Appendix A for a more detailed DelTest description. These tests were conducted where appropriate with the other NDT contractor (Ecylpse). However, each contractor was fully responsible for the administration and formulation of their respective test results. These tests were performed under contract with the FAA and at the direction of Dr. Chris Smith of the FAA s William J. Hughes Technical Center. Personnel: Lectromec staff present during the testing were: Dr. William Linzey, Dr. Armin Bruning, Mr. Vincent Press Supporting Staff: Jean Luc Ballenghien (Airbus), Dominique Mazzarino (Airbus), Xavier Mas (Airbus), Joe Speilmann (DHL Airways), Gerry Langwell (Sandia), Bob McGuire (FAA), Dr. Chris Smith (FAA) Method of Test: The DelTest was performed in situ on the fourteen selected zones. All of the cables tested were selected for removal for further testing, including destructive tests. Figure shows the location of each of the zones. The wire type targeted for removal was polyimide insulated with a FEP topcoat. The DelTest required connection to only one end of the sample bundle. In most cases the most efficient method of connection to the sample was to cut the target bundle at a position determined by the working group and connect directly to the wire with clip leads. In some cases it was more efficient to connect with pins to connectors associated with the bundle. Where possible the NDT contractors used the same test leads to connect, in turn, to their test equipment. The length of the bundle tested was limited such that the sample bundle could be removed without undue strain and damage. After the sample bundle was connected, a collection electrode was attached to the outside of the bundle, and the test was begun. A small quantity of water was sprayed along the bundle, proceeding from one end of the samples to the other. For each bundle the amount of water used was much less than one quart. Because clip lead connections were made to the second end of the sample harness during other NDT testing, there was the possibility that some of the conductors were crossed after these clip leads were removed. This could lead to double reporting of a single breach (as both the breach wire and the shorted wire would indicate a leakage current). Care was taken to avoid this by fanning the wires at the harness end or clipping the stripped conductor ends, but it is still possible that this occurred in the some of the larger bundles. Note: this would not prevent finding a breach, instead, it would cause one breach to be reported twice. It is also possible for this to occur when two wire are spliced together within the sample harness. The results of the DelTest were analyzed and the wires showing a breach indication were identified and labeled. The location along the bundle was marked with flagging tape. Because the bundles were to be used for further testing after removal, there was no attempt to open the bundle and confirm the results. A quick visual inspection was done on the outside of the bundle and breaches, splices, or other observations 1

2 of note, in the location were recorded. The bundle was then photographed and disconnected from the test apparatus. Results: Lectromec s results are summarized in Tables and A completed description of the results for each location is given in Appendix B. Of the 2083 wires that were tested, 26 (1.25%) had measurements of high leakage current. Of these, 6 were likely to have been caused by leaky splices leaving 20 (0.96%) due to non-splice breaches in the insulation. As noted above, this number may be slightly inflated due to crossed wires, etc. leading to double reporting. The presence of splices can lead to breached insulation indications if the splices are not fully environmentally sealed. This is a different situation than a classical insulation breach in which the conductor is exposed. Therefore, Table summarizes the data, disregarding the measurements of leakage current when it was determined that the signal most probably came from a leaky splice. Figures and display data from Table in bar chart format. 2

3 Figure Locations Tested 3

4 Table Summary of results.. Test Breach # Wire Total (in Order of Lectromec Testing) Order Leaky splice Tested per Wire per Foot 1 ENL Trailing Edge: Inboard Ecly/Lec/Ecly ECD Wheel Well: Ceiling Lec/Ecly LCS Cargo Bay Door: Floor Lec/Ecly EPF Leading Edge: Power Cable Ecly/Lec ENS Trailing Edge: Outboard Ecly/Lec CDT Electronics Bay: Door Ecly/Lec IPF Electronics Bay: Power Cable Ecly/Lec UCL Cabin Galley: Ceiling Ecly/Lec PSU Cabin PSU Ecly/Lec CTM Black Box Cables Lec/Ecly?? ICH Cargo Bay: Aft Ecly/Lec ECH Refueling Panel: Wheel Well Belly Ecly/Lec LCL Electronics Bay: Large Bundle Ecly/Lec CPT Cock Pit Ecly/Lec ,

5 Table Summary of results excluding indications dues to splices Test Breach # Wire Total (in Order of Lectromec Testing) Order Tested per Wire per Foot 1 ENL Trailing Edge: Inboard Ecly/Lec/Ecly ECD Wheel Well: Ceiling Lec/Ecly LCS Cargo Bay Door: Floor Lec/Ecly EPF Leading Edge: Power Cable Ecly/Lec ENS Trailing Edge: Outboard Ecly/Lec CDT Electronics Bay: Door Ecly/Lec IPF Electronics Bay: Power Cable Ecly/Lec UCL Cabin Galley: Ceiling Ecly/Lec PSU Cabin PSU Ecly/Lec CTM Black Box Cables Lec/Ecly?? ICH Cargo Bay: Aft Ecly/Lec ECH Refueling Panel: Wheel Well Belly Ecly/Lec LCL Electronics Bay: Large Bundle Ecly/Lec CPT Cock Pit Ecly/Lec ,

6 1. ENL: Trailing Edge: Inboard 2. ECD: Wheel Well: Ceiling 3. LCS: Cargo Bay Door: Floor. EPF: Lead Edge: Power Feed 5. ENS: Trailing Edge: Outboard 6. CDT: Electronics Bay: Door 7. IPF: E-Bay: Power Feeder 8. UCL: Cabin Galley: Ceiling 9. PSU: Cabin PSU 10. CTM: Black Box Cables 11. ICH: Cargo Bay: Aft 12. ECH: Refueling Panel 13. LCL: E-Bay: Large Bundle 14. CPT: Cock Pit Number of Figure Number of indicated in each zone. 1. ENL: Trailing Edge: Inboard 2. ECD: Wheel Well: Ceiling 3. LCS: Cargo Bay Door: Floor 4. EPF: Lead Edge: Power Feed 5. ENS: Trailing Edge: Outboard 6. CDT: Electronics Bay: Door 7. IPF: E-Bay: Power Feeder 8. UCL: Cabin Galley: Ceiling 9. PSU: Cabin PSU 10. CTM: Black Box Cables 11. ICH: Cargo Bay: Aft 12. ECH: Refueling Panel 13. LCL: E-Bay: Large Bundle 14. CPT: Cock Pit 5% 10% 15% 20% Percentage of Wires Tested with Breach 6

7 Appendix A: Detailed Results Trailing Edge Inboard (Port side) ENL: Area exterior to pressure vessel with large bundle Large Bundle with 32 or 33 wires (30 of which were tested). The sample begins as the bundle comes through a pressure feed-through into Wheel Well. The bundle travels ~2 feet down the wall of the wheel well and then out to the trail edge via a feed-through hole. After ~10 feet travel along the trailing edge the bundle was cut and the sample terminated. The bundle originally continued father along the trailing edge. As the bundle entered the trailing edge (from the well wheel) it was wrapped in red rubber tape for approximately 3 feet. Further outboard the bundle entered ~2 feet of black corrugated plastic tubing. Test Order Breach or Leaky Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 1 Trailing Edge: Inboard Ecly/Lec/Ecly Breach indications 1. Leakage current found at the end of protective red tape wrap indicates failure in that area or elsewhere under the tape. Wire showing leakage was tagged with yellow and location of leakage current indicated with orange flagging tape marked with yellow tape. 2&3. Identical leakage current found in two wires indicating same source. This may mean either crossed wires or a splice in which two emanate from a single splice which may be leaky. Location indicates that Breach (or splice) is under the red protective tape. The two wires showing leakage were not tagged. Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure A. ENL: Trailing edge Inboard A: Trailing edge 7

8 Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure B. ENL: Trail edge Inboard B: Inside Wheel Well. 8

9 Wheel Well: Ceiling (Starboard) ECD: Exterior Conduit Bundle with 42 wires (41 of which were tested, one was capped) that appeared to be polyimide insulated wire with a Teflon topcoat. The sample begins at the centerline of the aircraft and runs perpendicular to the axis of the fuselage along the ceiling to the outside wall of the wheel well. The sample wires were cut at both ends and the length of the sample bundle was ~6 feet. The sample entered a black corrugated plastic conduit several inches from the starting end of the bundle and exited the conduit several inches from the end of the bundle. The middle of the bundle was protected by a sheet aluminum cover for several feet. Test Order Breach or Leaky Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 2 Wheel Well: Ceiling Lec/Ecly Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure ECD: Wheel Well Ceiling. 9

10 Cargo Bay Door: Floor LCS: Lower Cabin area with small wire bundle This harness runs parallel to the axis of the hull in the floor of the cargo bay near the door. The wires were cut in the area of the aft edge of the door where there were 34 wires. Moving forward ~20 inches several wire split from the main bundle and entered black plastic conduit for 1 foot and then terminated with a circular connector. Several wires were cut leaving exposed ends at this point. The rest of the wires continued forward to the 60 inch mark where several more wires split off and terminated after several feet. There were three splices in this branch. The rest of the wires continued parallel to the door frame and terminated near the from edge of the door (96 ) with a circular connector. There was one splice less than a foot from the connector. Test Order Breach or Leaky Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 3 Cargo Bay Door: Floor Lec/Ecly Breach indications 1. Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation at ~32 from the aft end of the harness. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM # Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation at ~52 from the aft end of the harness. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM #32. 3&4. Leakage current found in 2 of the 3 splices and the branch at the 60 mark. The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wires showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM #37 and LM # Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation at ~72 from the aft end of the harness in the branched wire where there was a hairpin turn in the wire. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM # Leakage current at a splice the insulation at ~90 from the aft end of the harness. The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM # Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation in the first branch of wires under the black conduit. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM #20. Note: From 60 to 90 there was a very small leakage current measured the origin of which could not be localized to a wire or position. It is uncertain if this could indicate general degradation of the insulation or was a spurious signal indicating nothing. Time did not permit further investigation. 10

11 Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure LCS; Near cargo bay in the floor. 11

12 Leading Edge: Power Cable EPF: Exterior Power Feeder The power cables were composed of nine large gauge wires held separated from each other and the frame of the aircraft by circular insulating standoff. The harness ran from the base of the wing, along the leading edge to the first pylon where it made a 90 degree turn forward to the front of the pylon. The cable was cut about a quarter of the way along the leading edge and about 1 foot after the 90 degree turn at the pylon. Access was limited in certain sections along the leading edge and these sections were skipped. The tested sections were (measuring from the inboard end) 7 to 19 (A), 49 to 98 (B), and 120 to 158 (C). In addition there was a six conductor shielded cable running parallel to the power cable that was also connected, for testing. However, because of the inability of the conducting fluid to penetrate the outer sheath of the cable it is uncertain if these wires were well tested. We did not attempt to force the conducting fluid up the cable inside the outer sheath. Test Order Breach or Leaky Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 4 Leading Edge: Power Ecly/Lec Cable Breach indications Leakage current at a splice the insulation at ~133 from the inboard end of the harness. The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wire showing leakage was label #2 by an Ecylpse marker Note: The shield of the 6 conductor cable showed a leakage current in a location (~140 ) where the shield was clearly exposed. Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure EPF: Leading Edge Power Feeder. 12

13 Trailing Edge: Outboard (Port side) ENS: area exterior to pressure vessel with small bundle. This harness was composed of 2 bundles (of 25 to 30 wires each) running parallel to each other along the trailing edge. The bundles were cut outboard of the pylon and also at the other end of the sample ~9 feet further outboard. Order Breach Indications # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 5 Trailing Edge: Outboard Ecly/Lec Breach indications Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation several inches form the inboard end of the harness. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM #15 also labeled as Eclypse #15. Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate i i Figure ENS: Trail Edge Outboard 13

14 Electronics Bay: Door CDT: area inside pressure vessel with wire bundles in sheathing or conduit. This harness was cut 1 foot to the port side of the door used to enter the port half of the electronics bay form the cargo bay. It entered a black plastic conduit and ran several inches above the door until it reached the inner edge of the door where it entered an aluminum conduit and traveled down the side of the door about 2 feet. It then exited the conduit and terminated with a circuit connector. Order Breach Indications # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 6 Electronics Bay: Door Ecly/Lec Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure CDT: Electronics Bay, Door; Red arrow indicates connection end. 14

15 Electronics Bay: Power Cable IPF: area inside pressure vessel with Power Feeder cable The power cable was composed of nine large gauge wires held separated from each other and the frame of the aircraft by circular insulating standoffs. The cable was cut above the walkway in the port side electronics bay where it traveled along the ceiling perpendicular to the axis of the hull. When the cable reached the hull it turned 90 degrees and began traveling aft. After 2 feet the cable was cut forming the second end of the sample. 7 Electronics Bay: Power Cable Order Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Breach Indications # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot Ecly/Lec Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure IPF: Electronics Bay Power Feeder. 15

16 Cabin Galley: Ceiling UCL: Upper Cabin area with large wire bundle This harness contained 73 wires and traveled in the ceiling above the galley, and parallel to the axis of the hull. The harness was cut ant both ends, making the length of the sample ~3 feet. Order Breach Indications # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 8 Cabin Galley: Ceiling Ecly/Lec Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure UCL: Cabin Galley: Ceiling 16

17 Cabin Passenger Service Units PSU: area with Passenger Service Unit The wire from two separate PSUs was tested. In one case 13 wires were tested and in the other 14 wires were tested. In both cases, one end of the harness ended at a terminal block while the other end was cut. A clear plastic shrink-wrap covered much of the harness. Conducting fluid was injected under this wrap insuring proper testing on all wires. Order Breach Indications # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 9 Cabin PSU Ecly/Lec Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure PSU: Cabin Passenger Service Unit. 17

18 Black Box Cable CTM: area inside pressure vessel with contaminated wire bundles This harness was removed from the aft cargo compartment and placed on the upper cabin floor before the DelTest was performed. The harness was ~7 feet long and contained about 40 wires, all of which were tested. The sample had both visual and olfactory indications of contamination. Order Breach Indications # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 10 Black Box Cables Lec/Ecly?? Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. 18

19 Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points.. Figure CTM. Black Box Harness 19

20 Cargo Bay: Aft ICH: area inside pressure vessel with Complex Harnesses. This harness was located near the rear of the forward cargo bay on the port sidewall leading to the ceiling of the bay. The end of the harness was cut. There were several branches to the main bundle that terminated with circular connectors or cut wires. The conductors from these cut ends tended to cross, shorting wires together. These wires were manually separated. Order Breach Indications # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 11 Cargo Bay: Aft Ecly/Lec Breach indications 1. Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation at ~12 from the tagged end of the harness. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM #100 and also Eclypse #10. 2 Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation at ~18 from the tagged end of the harness. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM #5 and also Eclypse #16. 3 Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation but the location could not be pin-pointed. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). Identical leakage currents were found on five wires. This probably indicates that the wires were shorted together either by design or accidentally through cut wires crossing. The wires with identical leakage currents were labeled by Eclypse as #27, #29, #42, and #50. The Eclypse label for the 5 th wire was not recorded. 20

21 Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure ICH: Cargo Bay Aft. 21

22 Refueling Panel: Wheel Well Belly ECH: Exterior Complex Harness This harness began outside of the hull of the aircraft at the refueling panel and entered the wheel well through a single feed-through, where it traveled for 1 to 2 feet before being cut or terminating at a terminal block. Inside the refueling panel much of the wire began at 4 circular connectors secured in a row and labeled 676.V.C, 438.V.C, 437.V.C and 675.V.C. The wire from these 4 connectors formed one bundle and traveled forward for ~1 foot and split with about ½ of the wire branching to several other circular connectors and the remaining wire entering three black plastic conduits and moving through the feed-through, into the wheel well. We performed the DelTest in two steps. In the first, each of the pins in the row of 4 circular connectors was connected. In the second, each of the wires in the wheel well was connected. In this way, all the wires in the harness were tested at least once, with many being tested twice. Order Breach Indications # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 12 Refueling Panel: Wheel Well Ecly/Lec Belly Breach indications: 1. Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured in the harness outside the wheel well. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The wire originated at connector 675.V.C pin b. 2. Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured in the harness outside the wheel well. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The wire originated at connector 676.V.C pin S. 3. Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured in the harness outside the wheel well. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The wire originated at connector 676.V.C pin h. Note: There were also three breaches found in step 2 with the wire in the wheel well. It is quite possible that all or some of these are the same breaches indicated in step 1, but this was not confirmed. The 3 wires were marked with yellow tape and labeled as LM 77, LM 100 and LM

23 Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure A. ECH Refueling Panel harness exterior to hull. Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure 15B. ECH Refueling Panel harness in the Wheel Well. 23

24 Electronics Bay: Large Bundle LCL: Lower Cabin with large wire bundle The harness was made up of three bundles running parallel and in close proximity to each other. The harness was cut in 2 places about 4 feet apart forming the sample. It was estimated that there were ~1200 wires in this harness. Because the DelTest connects to only one end of the sample, crossing of the stripped ends of these wires could be a problem. Therefore, all of the exposed conductors were cut from the non-connection end of the sample. To test the middle of the three bundles, the Eclypse connections that were already in place were used. A water bath was used to test the wires from the outer two bundles. 13 Electronics Bay: Large Bundle Order Breach Indications # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot Ecly/Lec Breach indications 1. Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured roughly 12 from the tagged end of the harness. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The location was tagged with orange flagging tape that was marked with yellow plastic tape. The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM # Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured. The source of the current could not be localized further. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured. The source of the current could not be localized further. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured. The source of the current could not be localized further. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured. The source of the current could not be localized further. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled LM Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured. The source of the current could not be localized further. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled 66ma. 7. Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured. The source of the current could not be localized further. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The wire showing leakage was marked with yellow tape labeled Leakage current indicating a breach in the insulation was measured in a shielded twisted pair. The source of the current could not be localized further. No visible indications of a breach were observed (i.e. no large cracks or splices). The leakage current was measured in both the shield and a single wire of the pair. This may indicate that the shield and the wire were shorted together at the non-connected end. The cable was marked with yellow tape labeled Sh + wire

25 Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure LCL: Electronics Bay; Large Bundle. 25

26 Cockpit CPT: Cockpit The cockpit wire sample was composed of 5 to 10 harnesses that were terminated with circular connectors. The harnesses merged to form larger bundles that were cut after 1 to 2 feet to form the sample. Again we conducted the test in several steps using the Eclypse connections that were already made to start. Then we connected to the rest of the wire using the Lectromec connection harness. Some of the harnesses were in black plastic conduit while others were not. A total of 331 wires were tested. Order Breach Indications # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 14 Cockpit Ecly/Lec Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. 26

27 Arrows indicate run of target harness. Red arrows indicate connection points. Figure CPT: Cockpit; Cables from instrument panel. 27

28 Introduction: APPENDIX 3.1.2: LECTROMEC 747 TESTING Lectromec is pleased to present the following report to Sandia National Labs & the Federal Aviation Administration. This report summarizes test results obtained during the week of April 4-7, Lectromec participated in the intrusive inspection of an Boeing 747 aircraft in Roswell, NM as part of the FAA s Aging Systems Research Program. Lectromec, a Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) contractor, performed its DelTest, on nineteen zones, previously selected by the FAA s intrusive inspection working group. The purpose of the DelTest is to detect breaches (cracks) in a wire s insulation which extend to the conductor, and to identify both the wire and the breach location These tests were conducted where appropriate with the other NDT contractor (Ecylpse). However, each contractor was fully responsible for the administration and formulation of their respective test results. These tests were performed under contract with the FAA and at the direction of Bob Mata Sandia National Laboratories. Personnel: Lectromec staff present during the testing were: Dr. William Linzey, Dr. Noel Turner Supporting Staff: Bob McGuire (FAA) Method of Test: The DelTest was performed in situ on the nineteen selected zones. All of the cables tested were selected for removal for further testing, including destructive tests. Figure shows the location of each of the zones. The wire type targeted for removal was aliphatic polyimide insulated often refered to by the trade name Poly X. The DelTest required connection to only one end of the sample bundle. In most cases the most efficient method of connection to the sample was to cut the target bundle at a position determined by the working group and connect directly to the wire with clip leads. In some cases it was more efficient to connect with pins to connectors associated with the bundle. Where possible the NDT contractors used the same test leads to connect, in turn, to their test equipment. The length of the bundle tested was limited such that the sample bundle could be removed without undue strain and damage. After the sample bundle was connected, a collection electrode was attached to the outside of the bundle, and the test was begun. A small quantity of water was sprayed along the bundle, proceeding from one end of the samples to the other. For each bundle the amount of water used was much less than one quart. The results of the DelTest were analyzed and the wires showing a breach indication were identified and labeled. The location along the bundle was marked with flagging tape. Because the bundles were to be used for further testing after removal, there was no attempt to open the bundle and confirm the results. A quick visual inspection was done on the outside of the bundle and breaches, splices, or other observations of note, in the location were recorded. The bundle was then photographed and disconnected from the test apparatus. Results: Lectromec s results are summarized in Table A completed description of the results for each location is given in Appendix A. Of the 1003 wires that were tested, 14 (1.4%) had measurements of high leakage current. The results stated in terms of linear feet of wire tested, show there were 14 indications for the 6,705 feet tested or 2.1 indication for every 1000 feet tested (0.0021/ft). 28

29 Figure Locations Tested 29

30 # of visible Breach # Wire Total splices Tested per Wire per Foot 1 LCS2 Cargo Bay Floor Rear LCS1 Cargo Bay Rear (port) IPF1 Cargo Bay Ceiling ICH2 Cargo Bay Rear CTM1 Cargo Bay Ceiling ICH1 Electronics Bay: Rack LCL2 Cargo Bay Floor Rear CDT1 Cargo Bay: Door CPT4 Cockpit Floor PSU1 Crown PSU2 Crown UCL2 Cabin UCL4 Cabin Rear ECD2 Wheel Well ECD1 Wheel Well ECH2 Wheel Well ENL1 Leading Edge EPF2 Leading Edge ENS1 Tail cone Total , Table Summary of results. 30

31 1. LCS2: Cargo Bay Floor Rear 2. LCS1: Cargo Bay Rear 3. IPF1: Cargo Bay Ceiling 4. ICH2: Cargo Bay Rear 5. CTM1: Cargo Bay Ceiling 6. ICH1: Electronics Bay: Rack 7. LCL2: Cargo Bay Floor Rear 8. CDT1: Cargo Bay: Door 9. CPT4: Cockpit Floor 10. PSU1: Crown 11. PSU2: Crown 12. UCL2: Cabin 13. UCL4: Cabin Rear 14. ECD2: Wheel Well 15. ECD1: Wheel Well 16. ECH2: Wheel Well 17. ENL1: Leading Edge 18. EPF2: Leading Edge 19. ENS1: Tail cone Figure Number of indicated in each zone 2 4 Number of 1. LCS2: Cargo Bay Floor Rear 2. LCS1: Cargo Bay Rear 3. IPF1: Cargo Bay Ceiling 4. ICH2: Cargo Bay Rear 5. CTM1: Cargo Bay Ceiling 6. ICH1: Electronics Bay: Rack 7. LCL2: Cargo Bay Floor Rear 8. CDT1: Cargo Bay: Door 9. CPT4: Cockpit Floor 10. PSU1: Crown 11. PSU2: Crown 12. UCL2: Cabin 13. UCL4: Cabin Rear 14. ECD2: Wheel Well 15. ECD1: Wheel Well 16. ECH2: Wheel Well 17. ENL1: Leading Edge 18. EPF2: Leading Edge 19. ENS1: Tail cone 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Percentage of Wires Tested with Breach Figure Percentage of wire tested that indicated a breach in each zone. 31

32 Appendix A Detailed Results Cargo Bay Floor Rear LCS2: Lower cabin with small bundle This bundle consists of 12 single conductor wire and one shielded triplet. The sample was straight and ran parallel to the axis of the fuselage, underneath the cargo bay floor. The sample was 56" long. 1 LCS2 Cargo Bay Floor Rear # of visible splices Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot Figure LCS2: Cargo Bay: Floor rear 32

33 Cargo Bay Rear (port) LCS1:Lower Cabin with small bundle This bundle was composed of 29 wires that ran along the rear of the cargo bay near the ceiling. The sample began ~3 feet from the left wall and ran horizontally toward that wall. As it approached the wall it split into several smaller bundles. There was 1 non-environmental splice was observed on the top of the bundle which appear to be a repair splice. This splice was marked as LM1031 as a leakage current was measured but in subsequent bundles non-environmental splices were not marked. 2 LCS1 Cargo Bay Rear (port) # of visible splices Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot Figure LCS1: Cargo Bay Rear (port). 33

34 Cargo Bay: Ceiling IPF1: Area inside the pressure vessel with power feeder This was a power feeder (3 large gauge wires) that was routed in the ceiling of the cargo bay. The sample began near the right passageway to the Electronics Bay and ran back toward the rear of the Cargo Bay for approximately 8 2/3 feet. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 3 IPF1 Cargo Bay Ceiling Breach indications: 1. There was a large exposed area of conductor, ¼ in diameter (Figure 6B), approximately 18 from the front end of the sample. It appeared to be caused by wire to wire chaffing as the sample wire was lying on top of a 2 nd power feeder cable. The insulation on this 2 nd cable did not appear to be damaged and neither did the insulation on the other two wires of the sample bundle. Figure A. IPF1: Cargo Bay: Ceiling. 34

35 Figure B. IPF1: Bare conductor due to abrasion. 35

36 Cargo Bay: Rear ICH2: Area inside pressure vessel with complex harness This bundle consisted of 96 wires (55 single conductors and 41 conductors that were part of multiconductor cables). The sample began near the ceiling in the right rear corner of the cargo bay and traveled down for ~1.5 feet. It then did a U-turn and split into smaller bundles that terminated with circular connectors. These connectors were mated to a multi-connector panel. The sample continued for another 6 to 12 inches beyond this panel. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 4 ICH2 Cargo Bay Rear Breach indications: 2. Wire labeled and location labeled LM 1322: This was located ~ ½ from the back of the circular connector labeled D18595 that was mated with the panel. The location was marked with yellow flagging tape. 3. Wire labeled and location labeled LM 1035: This was located ~ 1 from the back of the circular connector labeled D1858J that was mated with the panel. The location was marked with yellow flagging tape. 36

37 Figure ICH2: Cargo Bay: Rear 37

38 Cargo Bay: Ceiling & Wall CTM1: Area inside pressure vessel with contaminated wire bundles This bundle consisted of 23 single conductor wires. The sample began in front of the cargo bay door and traveled straight down along the wall and ended near the floor. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 5 CTM1 Cargo Bay Ceiling Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. 38

39 Figure CTM1: Cargo Bay: Ceiling & Wall 39

40 Electronics Bay: Rack ICH1: Area inside pressure vessel with complex harness This bundle was made up of well over 100 wires that were terminated by 6 circular connectors on the right and left side of the rack and by terminal blocks and rectangular connectors (14) in the front and back. The sample was tested by connecting to the individual pins of connector D1285P, D1301P and D1211Pon the right side and D1207P, D1205P and D1202P on the left side. Wires not terminated by one of this connectors were not tested. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot Electronics Bay: 6 ICH Rack Breach indications: 1. Fault location labeled as LM1401; Connector D1285P pins 55, 2, 3 showed the same leakage current and it was determined that this pins were shorted together perhaps by design. The location was about 12 from the connector near a hairpin turn back in the wire. 2. Fault location labeled as LM1402; Connector D1207P pins 9, 23 showed the same leakage current and it was determined that this pins were shorted together perhaps by design. The location was about 18 from the connector. Figure ICH1: Electronics Bay: Rack 40

41 Cargo Bay Floor LCL2: Lower cabin area with large harness This bundle consisted of 21 shielded twisted pairs and 15 shielded triplets for a total of 87 conductors. The sample ran under the floor in the front of the cargo bay. The sample was straight and ran parallel to the axis of the fuselage. At least one of the shields showed leakage current and was labeled LM1116. Other shields may also show leakage currents but this was not pursued. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 7 LCL2 Cargo Bay Floor Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Figure LCL2: Cargo Bay: Floor 41

42 Cargo Bay: Door CDT: Area inside pressure vessel with wire bundles in conduit This harness contained 16 single conductors and 1 shielded triplet. The sample started at the ceiling of the cargo bay near the door in black corrugated conduit. It then was routed along the door in steel conduit running horizontal to the floor. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 8 CDT1 Cargo Bay: Door Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Figure CDT: Cargo Bay: Door 42

43 Cockpit Floor CPT4: Cockpit This was a large bundle running along the floor near the wall on the left (pilot s side) of the cockpit. The sample was straight except for a small (~30 wire) bundle that branched off midway through the sample. The sample contained roughly 185 single conductor wires that were tested. It also contained many multiconductor cables that were not tested. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 9 CPT4 Cockpit Floor Breach indications: 1. Wire labeled LM 1327: Location not determined. 2. Wire labeled LM 1330: Location not determined. 3. Wire labeled LM 1317: Location not determined Photo not available 43

44 Crown: Ceiling PSU1: Area with passenger service unit This harness was routed along the ceiling of the crown cabin. It contained 13 wire and had 2 short branches that terminated with circular connectors. The sample was about 10 feet long. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 10 PSU1 Crown: Ceiling Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Figure PSU1: Crown: Ceiling 44

45 Crown: Wall PSU2: Area with passenger service unit This harness was routed along the wall of the left side of the crown cabin. There were several groupings of splices where the harnesses branches off to the personal service units. The harness was not tested in the immediate area around these groupings, as they were non-environmental splices. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 11 PSU2 Crown: Wall Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure PSU2: Crown: Wall 45

46 Mid Cabin: above Door UCL2: Upper cabin area with large wire bundle This sample was located above a door on the left side of the mid-main cabin. It was oriented perpendicular to the axis of the fuselage and horizontal to the cabin floor. It was fairly straight with a couple gentle curves and contained 38 single conductor wires. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 12 UCL2 Mid Cabin: above Door Breach indications: No breach indications were measured Figure UCL2: Mid Cabin: above Door 46

47 Main Cabin: Rear UCL4: Upper cabin area with large wire bundle The harness was located in the rear of the main cabin above the ceiling with access made through a ceiling hatch door. The bundle contained 37 single conductor wires and was straight except for one large curve with a radius of ~ 6. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 13 UCL4 Main Cabin: Rear Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure UCL4: Cabin: Rear 47

48 Wheel Well ECD2: Exterior in conduit This bundle consisted of 31 single conductors and 1 shielded triplex cable. The sample began near the ceiling of the right main wing well and traveled down along the forward wall. Several wires branched off in aluminum conduit midway down the wall and were terminated with a circular connector. The other wire continued down the wall and made a 90 turn outboard before being terminated with a circular connector after several feet. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 14 ECD2 Wheel Well Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Figure ECD2: Wheel Well 48

49 Wheel Well ECD1: Exterior in conduit This sample consisted of 42 single conductors and 10 shielded twisted pairs. This sample ran in two aluminum conduits side by side with each other on the rear wall of the left main wheel well from near the ceiling to the bottom of the wheel well. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 15 ECD1 Wheel Well Breach indications: 1. Wire labeled LM 1313: Location not determined because sample was in conduit. Figure ECD1: Left Main Wheel Well: Rear Wall 49

50 Wheel Well ECH2: Exterior Complex Harness This harness was composed of 30 single conductor wires and 2 shielded triplets. The sample began on the forward wall of the left main wheel well and traveled down the wall. After several (8 to 10) feet the bundle turned inboard and run along the lower portion of the wheel well parallel to the ground. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 16 ECH2 Wheel Well Breach indications: 2. Wire labeled and location flagged with LM 1013: A large leakage current was found about a foot from the top of the sample. Eclypse ID Wire labeled and location flagged with LM 1017: A large leakage current was measured about a foot from the top of the sample. Eclypse ID Several other wires were found to have a low level leakage current that could not be localized. They were label LM 1048, LM 1321, LM 1027, LM 1302 and eclipse ID 01, 02, 03, 05, 06, 09, 10. It was determined that the leakage was not due to breached insulation but the true origin of the current was not determined. Perhaps the back shells of the connectors were contaminated with soot that was very prevalent in the zone. Figure ECH2: Wheel Well Leading Edge 50

51 ENL1: Area exterior to pressure vessel with large bundle The bundle was made up of 72 single conductor wire and 2 shielded triplets. The sample began at the root of the left wing and ran along the back wall of the leading edge for 17 feet where the sample was cut. There were several branches of 3 wires that came off the main bundle and terminated after several feet with a circular connector. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 17 ENL1 Leading Edge Breach indications: 1. Wire labeled and location flagged with LM 1020: A leakage current was found on the first 3 wire branch near the root of the wing. It was located about 2 feet from the end of the branch. 2. Wire labeled and location flagged with LM 1036: A large leakage current was found in the main bundle ½ way down the sample. It was on the outside of the bundle and was visible confirmed. 3. Wire labeled and location flagged with LM 1034: A large leakage current was found in the last branch from the bundle before the sample ended. The current was found near a clamp one the breach was not visible. Figure ENL1: Section of the leading edge including branch. Leading Edge 51

52 EPF2: Exterior Power Feeder This sample was a power feeder cable with three wires that ran along the leading edge of the right wing between the inboard and outboard motor. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 18 EPF2 Leading Edge Breach indications: 1. There was one location where high leakage current was measured. After visual examination it was determined that there had been a tape repair done on the on the wire in that location. It was marked with flagging tape labeled LM1501. Figure EPF2: Leading Edge 52

53 Tail cone ENS1: Area exterior to pressure vessel with small bundle This sample had many splices that were non-environmentally sealed. The sample was composed of 129 wires and was straight except for one 90 turn. It was routed along the wall of the tail cone and then turned down and ran another 3 or 4 feet. The areas near the splices were not tested. # of visible splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 19 ENS1 Tail cone Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Figure ENS1: Tail cone 53

54 Introduction: APPENDIX FIRST DC-9 TESTING Lectromec is pleased to present the following report to the Sandia National laboratory. This report summarizes test results obtained during the week of April 25-27, Lectromec participated in the intrusive inspection of Boeing DC9 aircraft in Ardmore, OK as part of the FAA s Aging Systems Research Program. Lectromec, a Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) contractor, performed its DelTest, on thirteen zones, previously selected by the FAA s intrusive inspection working group. The purpose of the DelTest is to detect breaches (cracks) in a wire s insulation that extend to the conductor, and to identify both the wire and the breach location. Please see Appendix A for a more detailed DelTest description. These tests were conducted where appropriate with the other NDT contractor (Ecylpse). However, each contractor was fully responsible for the administration and formulation of their respective test results. These tests were performed under contract with Sandia National Laboratory and at the direction of Robert Mata. Personnel: Lectromec staff present during the testing were: Dr. William Linzey, Dr. Armin Bruning, Mr. Vincent Press Supporting Staff: Bob McGuire (FAA) Method of Test: The DelTest was performed in situ on the thirteen selected zones. All of the cables tested were selected for removal for further testing, including destructive tests. Figure shows the location of each of the zones. The wire type targeted for removal was PVC/Glass/Nylon insulated. The DelTest required connection to only one end of the sample bundle. In most cases the most efficient method of connection to the sample was to cut the target bundle at a position determined by the working group and connect directly to the wire with clip leads. In some cases it was more efficient to connect with pins to connectors associated with the bundle. Where possible the NDT contractors used the same test leads to connect, in turn, to their test equipment. The length of the bundle tested was limited such that the sample bundle could be removed without undue strain and damage. After the sample bundle was connected, a collection electrode was attached to the outside of the bundle, and the test was begun. A small quantity of water was sprayed along the bundle, proceeding from one end of the samples to the other. For each bundle the amount of water used was much less than one quart. The results of the DelTest were analyzed and the wires showing a breach indication were identified and labeled. The location along the bundle was marked with yellow flagging tape. Because the bundles were to be used for further testing after removal, there was no attempt to open the bundle and confirm the results. A quick visual inspection was done on the outside of the bundle and breaches, splices, or other observations of note, in the location were recorded. The bundle was then photographed and disconnected from the test apparatus. Results: Lectromec s results are summarized in Table A completed description of the results for each location is given in Appendix A. Of the 718 wires that were tested, 4 (0.6%) had measurements of high leakage current. Put in terms of linear feet tested; of feet tested there were 4 breaches indicated or 1 per 1000 feet (0.001/ft). 54

55 Figure :Sample locations for the DC9 55

56 . Visible Breach # Wire Total Splices Tested per Wire per Foot 1 ICH1 Forward Galley Ceiling ULC2 Mid Cabin Wall/Ceiling CDT2 Forward Cabin Ceiling CPT4 Cockpit LCS1 Rear Cargo Bay CDT Rear Cargo Bay IPF E Bay ECH1 Tail Cone EPF Tail Cone ENL1 Tail Cone ECD2 Wheel well ENS1 Leading Edge LCL1 E Bay Table Summary of Results ,

57 1. ICH1: Forward Galley Ceiling 2. ULC2: Mid Cabin Ceiling 3. CDT2: Forward Cabin Ceiling 4. CPT4: Cockpit 5. LCS1: Rear Cargo Bay 6. CDT: Rear Cargo Bay 7. IPF: E Bay 8. ECH1: Tail Cone 9. EPF: Tail Cone 10. ENL1: Tail Cone 11. ECD2: Wheel well 12. ENS1: Leading Edge 13. LCL1: E Bay 2 4 Number of Figure Number of indicated in each zone. 1. ICH1: Forward Galley Ceiling 2. ULC2: Mid Cabin Ceiling 3. CDT2: Forward Cabin Ceiling 4. CPT4: Cockpit 5. LCS1: Rear Cargo Bay 6. CDT: Rear Cargo Bay 7. IPF: E Bay 8. ECH1: Tail Cone 9. EPF: Tail Cone 10. ENL1: Tail Cone 11. ECD2: Wheel well 12. ENS1: Leading Edge 13. LCL1: E Bay 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% Percentage of Wires Tested with Breach Figure313-3 Percentage of wire tested that indicated a breach in each zone 57

58 Appendix A: Detailed Results Forward Galley Ceiling ICH1: area inside pressure vessel with complex harness There were 246 wires tested in this bundle most of which were PVC/Glass/Nylon insulated but there were also a substantial number of X-ETFE insulated wire as well. The sample was routed along the ceiling of the main cabin. It began above the center aisle at the forward galley and ran back toward the main cabin. After ~3.5' the harness went through a panel of circular connectors and continued toward the main cabin for several more feet. There several 90 turn in the harness but each had a relatively large radius of curvature. There were three splices approximately 2 3/4 feet from the start of the sample that showed leakage current. 1 ICH1 Forward Galley Ceiling Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot Breach indications 2. Wire label and location marked as LM 1301: PVC/Glass/Nylon: This breach was located ~3 feet from the start of the sample. No visible damage observed. 3. Wire label and location marked as LM 1308: PVC/Glass/Nylon: This breach was located ~2.5 feet from the start of the sample. No visible damage observed. 4. Wire label and location marked as LM 1306: PVC/Glass/Nylon: This breach was located ~0.5 feet past the connector panel. No visible damage observed. Wire ID HV-L865A24. Figure ICH1: Forward Galley Ceiling looking up from the floor 58

59 Mid Cabin Wall/Ceiling ULC2: Upper cabin area with large bundle This bundle contained 109 PVC/Glass/Nylon insulated wires and was routed along the mid-main cabin ceiling near the right wall. The sample was straight and 5' in length. 2 ULC2 Mid Cabin Wall/Ceiling Visible Splices Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot Figure ULC2: Mid Cabin Ceiling 59

60 Forward Cabin Ceiling CDT2: area inside pressure vessel with wire bundle in conduit This harness contained 5 wires and ran in plastic conduit along the forward main cabin ceiling/right wall. The sample was straight and 10" feet long. 3 CDT2 Forward Cabin Ceiling Visible Splices Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot Figure CDT: Forward Cabin Ceiling 60

61 Cockpit CPT4: Cockpit This bundle consisted of 13 PVC/Glass/Nylon wires wire in the instrument panel that terminated with a circular connector. Each of the wires contained a splice and it appeared that the connector had been replace with the new connector being splice on to the existing harness. The large number of splices in the short sample made testing difficult but what could be tested was. Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 4 CPT4 Cockpit Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure CPT4: Cockpit. 61

62 Rear Cargo Bay LCS1:Lower cabin area with small wire bundle This bundle consisted of 27 PVC/Glass/Nylon insulated wire. The sample began at the left wall and ran along the back wall of the aft cargo bay to the right wall. Several wire branched out the a smaller harness that was terminated with a circular connector after a ~1.5 feet. There were two non-environmental splices observed. Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 5 LCS1 Rear Cargo Bay Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure LCS1: Rear Cargo Bay looking to the rear. 62

63 Rear Cargo Bay CTM1: Area inside pressure vessel with contaminated wire bundles This sample consisted of two coax cables routed along the right wall of the aft cargo bay. The had large gentile curves. Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 6 CTM1 Rear Cargo Bay Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure CTM1: Rear Cargo Bay Starboard side. 63

64 Electronics Bay IPF: area inside pressure vessel with Power Feeder cable This was a power feeder that ran along the left wall of the E-Bay. The wire was insulated with PVC/Glass. Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 7 IPF E Bay Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure IPF: Electronics Bay Port side 64

65 Tail Cone: Port side ECH1: Exterior Complex Harness This harness contained 114 wires most of which were PVC/Glass/Nylon with several wires appearing to be insulated with a fluorinated material. The sample began near the ceiling and ran down the left wall of the tail cone. The sample ended ~1 foot above the floor. There were two branches that terminated with circular connectors. Midway down the sample there was a turn back with several splices and pigtail terminations. Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 8 ECH1 Tail Cone: Port side Breach indications 1. Wire labels and location marked LM1316: This was a small gauge wire that appeared to be insulated with a fluorinated material. The breach was located near/under a clamp about 12" from the start of the sample. No visible damage was observed. Figure ECH1: Tail Cone Port side 65

66 Tail Cone: Port side EPF: External power feeder This harness was a power feeder with 3 power wires and a fourth ground wire. The sample began midway on the left wall of the trail cone and ran along the wall until it exited the tail via a panel to the outside of the aircraft. Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 9 EPF Tail Cone: Port side Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Figure EPF: Tail Cone: Port side 66

67 Tail Cone: Starboard ENL1:Exterior with large bundle This consisted of 64 PVC/Glass/Nylon insulated wire. The sample began on the right wall of the tail cone and ran down the wall ending about 1 foot above the floor The sample was straight except for some gentile bends in the harness. Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 10 ENL1 Tail Cone: Starboard Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Figure ENL1: Tail Cone: Starboard 67

68 Wheel Well: Starboard ECD2: Exterior Conduit This harness consisted of 40 wires that were insulated with PVC/Glass/Nylon. The sample began on the front wall of the right main wheel well and was routed outward toward the wing. There were several branches from the main bundle that ran in aluminum and plastic conduit and were terminated in circular connectors. The sample then entered an aluminum conduit and went through the wall of the wheel well to the wing where it ended after several feet. While the sample was in the wheel well it was routed in a small (4" diameter) circle that contained several splices. Several other wire terminated at a terminal block located near the start of the sample. There was a high background current measured in this location which may have been do to the soot and grime in the zone. Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 11 ECD2 Wheel Well: Starboard Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure ECD2: Wheel Well: Starboard 68

69 Leading Edge: Starboard ENS1: Exterior with small bundle This sample consisted of ~25 wire located along the leading edge of the aircraft. The sample began midway along the wing and travel in a fairly straight line 10 feet where the bundle was cut. Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 12 ENS1 Leading Edge Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Figure ENS1: Leading Edge Starboard 69

70 Electronics Bay: Large Bundle LCL1: Lower Cabin with large wire bundle This bundle consisted of 100s of wires, all of which were not tested. A smaller sub-bundle of 66 wires was chosen to be tested. These were the same ones that Eclypse tested and have their wire markers on them. The sample began on the left side of the Electronics Bay and along a partial wall to the right side where it was cut Visible Splices Breach # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 13 LCL1 E Bay Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure LCL1: Electronics Bay; Large Bundle. 70

71 Introduction: APPENDIX SECOND DC-9 TESTING Lectromec is pleased to present the following report to the Sandia National laboratory. This report summarizes test results obtained during the week of May 30 June 1, Lectromec participated in the intrusive inspection of Boeing DC9 aircraft in Miami, FL as part of the FAA s Aging Systems Research Program. Lectromec, a Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) contractor, performed its DelTest, on fourteen zones, previously selected by the FAA s intrusive inspection working group. The purpose of the DelTest is to detect breaches (cracks) in a wire s insulation that extend to the conductor, and to identify both the wire and the breach location. Please see Appendix A for a more detailed DelTest description. These tests were conducted where appropriate with the other NDT contractor (Ecylpse). However, each contractor was fully responsible for the administration and formulation of their respective test results. These tests were performed under contract with Sandia National Laboratory and at the direction of Robert Mata. Personnel: Lectromec staff present during the testing were: Dr. William Linzey, Dr. Armin Bruning, Mr. Vincent Press Supporting Staff: Bob McGuire (FAA) Method of Test: The DelTest was performed in situ on the fourteen selected zones. All of the cables tested were selected for removal for further testing, including destructive tests. Figure shows the location of each of the zones. The wire type targeted for removal was PVC/Glass/Nylon insulated. The DelTest required connection to only one end of the sample bundle. In most cases the most efficient method of connection to the sample was to cut the target bundle at a position determined by the working group and connect directly to the wire with clip leads. In some cases it was more efficient to connect with pins to connectors associated with the bundle. Where possible the NDT contractors used the same test leads to connect, in turn, to their test equipment. The length of the bundle tested was limited such that the sample bundle could be removed without undue strain and damage. After the sample bundle was connected, a collection electrode was attached to the outside of the bundle, and the test was begun. A small quantity of water was sprayed along the bundle, proceeding from one end of the samples to the other. For each bundle the amount of water used was much less than one quart. The results of the DelTest were analyzed and the wires showing a breach indication were identified and labeled. The location along the bundle was marked with yellow flagging tape. Because the bundles were to be used for further testing after removal, there was no attempt to open the bundle and confirm the results. A quick visual inspection was done on the outside of the bundle and breaches, splices, or other observations of note, in the location were recorded. The bundle was then photographed and disconnected from the test apparatus. Results: Lectromec s results are summarized in Table A completed description of the results for each location is given in Appendix A. Of the 394 wires that were tested, 10 (2.5%) had measurements of high leakage current. Put in terms of linear feet tested; of feet tested there were 10 breaches indicated or 5 per 1000 feet (0.001/ft). 71

72 72

73 Breach Visible # Wire Total Splice Tested per Wire per Foot 1 UCL Mid -Cabin Ceiling ICH Mid Cabin Ceiling LCS1 Rear Cargo Bay ISTA Wing Tip ENS1 Leading Edge ECH-1 Right Wheel Well ECD Inboard Trailing Edge CDT Forward Cargo Bay ENL Tail Cone EPF Tail Cone LCL Main Cabin Floor PSU Main Cabin Bin IPF E Bay CTM Forward Cargo Bay Table Summary of Results ,

74 1. UCL: Mid -Cabin Ceiling 2. ICH: Mid Cabin Ceiling 3. LCS1: Rear Cargo Bay 4. ISTA: Wing Tip 5. ENS1: Trailing Edge 6. ECH-1: Right Wheel Well 7. ECD: Inboard Trailing Edge 8. CDT: Forward Cargo Bay 9. ENL: Tail Cone 10. EPF: Tail Cone 11. LCL : Main Cabin Floor 12. PSU: Main Cabin Bin 13. IPF: E Bay 14. CTM: Forward Cargo Bay Figure Number of indicated in each zone 2 4 Number of 1. UCL: Mid -Cabin Ceiling 2. ICH: Mid Cabin Ceiling 3. LCS1: Rear Cargo Bay 4. ISTA: Wing Tip 5. ENS1: Trailing Edge 6. ECH-1: Right Wheel Well 7. ECD: Inboard Trailing Edge 8. CDT: Forward Cargo Bay 9. ENL: Tail Cone 10. EPF: Tail Cone 11. LCL : Main Cabin Floor 12. PSU: Main Cabin Bin 13. IPF: E Bay 14. CTM: Forward Cargo Bay 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentage of Wires Tested with Breach Figure Percentage of wire tested that indicated a breach in each zone. 74

75 Appendix A: Detailed Results Mid-Cabin Ceiling UCL: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 1 UCL Mid -Cabin Ceiling Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Figure UCL: Mid-Cabin Ceiling. 75

76 Mid Cabin Ceiling ICH: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 2 ICH Mid Cabin Ceiling Breach indications: No breach indications were measured. Figure ICH: 76

77 Rear Cargo Bay LSC1: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 3 LCS1 Rear Cargo Bay Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure LCS1: 77

78 Wing Tip ISTA: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 4 ISTA Wing Tip Breach indications 2. EC ID09 6 < from wire end + multiple places. Insulation discolored brown/black. 3. EC ID05 9 from wire end. Insulation discolored brown/black. Figure ISTA 78

79 Leading Edge ENS1: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 5 ENS1 Leading Edge Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure a. ENS: Leading Edge Inner 1/3 of sample Figure b. ENS: Leading Edge Middle 1/3 of sample 79

80 Figure c. ENS: Leading Edge Outer 1/3 of sample. 80

81 Right Wheel Well ECH-1: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 6 ECH Right Wheel Well Breach indications: 1. LM 1010 (EC-ID26)Twisted pair. 2. LM 1016 (EC-ID47) gash 6 before terminal block: 3 wires connected together (L414K16, L414H16, L414J16) 3. LM1045 (ID02) Figure ECH 81

82 Inboard Trailing Edge ECD: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 7 ECD Inboard Trailing Edge Breach indications 1. LM 1002 (ID 42) 1 st 30 of conduit. Figure a. ECD: Inside the wheel well. 82

83 Figure b. ECD: Along the trailing edge. 83

84 Forward Cargo Bay CDT: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 8 CDT Forward Cargo Bay Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure CDT 84

85 Tail Cone: ENL: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 9 ENL Tail Cone Breach indications: 2. LM 1002 (ID 37) near splice 3. LM 1047 (ID 27) 2.5 ft from top Figure ENL: Tail Cone: Port side 85

86 Tail Cone: EPF: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 10 EPF Tail Cone Breach indications: 1. LM 1609 (ID 01) in conduit. Figure EPF: Tail Cone: Starboard 86

87 Main Cabin Floor LCL: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 11 LCL Main Cabin Floor Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure LCL: Wheel Well: Starboard 87

88 Main Cabin Bin PSU: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 12 PSU Main Cabin Bin Breach indications: 1. LM 1023 (ID 04) indication by yellow marker. Figure PSU 88

89 Electronics Bay: IPF: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 13 IPF E Bay Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure IPF: Electronics Bay; Internal Power Feeder. 89

90 Forward Cargo Bay CTM: Breach Visible Splice # Wire Tested Total per Wire per Foot 14 CTM Forward Cargo Bay Breach indications No breach indications were measured. Figure CTM: Electronics Bay; Large Bundle. 90

91 Introduction: APPENDIX LECTROMEC DC-10 TESTING Lectromec is pleased to present the following report to the Sandia National Laboratories. This report summarizes test results obtained during the week of July 3-4, Lectromec participated in the intrusive inspection of Boeing DC10 aircraft in Venice, Italy as part of the FAA s Aging Systems Research Program. Lectromec, a Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) contractor, performed its DelTest, on thirteen zones, previously selected by the FAA s intrusive inspection working group. The purpose of the DelTest is to detect breaches (cracks) in a wire s insulation that extend to the conductor, and to identify both the wire and the breach location. Please see Appendix A for a more detailed DelTest description. These tests were performed under contract with Sandia National Laboratories and at the direction of Roberto Mata. Personnel: Lectromec staff present during the testing were: Dr. William Linzey, Roberto Mascetti Supporting Staff: Bob McGuire (FAA) Method of Test: The DelTest was performed in situ on the thirteen selected zones. All of the cables tested were selected for removal for further testing, including destructive tests. Figure shows the location of each of the zones. The wire type targeted for removal was crosslinked Tefzel (X-ETFE) insulated but many of the bundles had a few aromatic polyimide insulated wire in them. The tail cone (ECH) was entirely aromatic polyimide insulated wire. The DelTest required connection to only one end of the sample bundle. In many cases the most efficient method of connection to the sample was to cut the target bundle at a position determined by the working group and connect directly to the wire with clip leads. In some cases it was more efficient to connect with pins to connectors associated with the bundle. The length of the bundle tested was limited such that the sample bundle could be removed without undue strain and damage. After the sample bundle was connected, a collection electrode was attached to the outside of the bundle, and the test was begun. A small quantity of water was sprayed along the bundle, proceeding from one end of the samples to the other. For each bundle the amount of water used was much less than one quart. The results of the DelTest were analyzed and the wires showing a breach indication were identified and labeled. The location along the bundle was marked with yellow flagging tape. Because the bundles were to be used for further testing after removal, there was no attempt to open the bundle and confirm the results. A quick visual inspection was done on the outside of the bundle and breaches, splices, or other observations of note, in the location were recorded. The bundle was then photographed and disconnected from the test apparatus. Results: Lectromec s results are summarized in Table Of the 758 wires that were tested, 6 (0.8%) had measurements of high leakage current. Put in terms of linear feet tested; of 4,588 feet tested there were 6 breaches indicated or 1.3 per 1000 feet (0.0013/ft). 91

92 92

93 Breach Visible # Wire Total Splice Tested per Wire per Foot 1 UCL2 Main Cabin Rear ceiling UCL1 Main Cabin Rear ceiling CTM Center Accessory Comp CPT1 Cockpit Pedestal CPT Cockpit Circuit Breaker Panel LCL Forward Avionics Bay ICH1 Forward Avionics Bay LCS1 Forward Avionics Bay Rear ECH1 Leading Edge ECD1 Inboard Trailing Edge ENS2 Wheel Well CDT2 Rear Cargo Bay: Rear floor ECH Tail Cone Table Summary of Results ,

94 1. UCL2: Main Cabin Rear ceiling 2. UCL1: Main Cabin Rear ceiling 3. CTM: Center Accessory Compartment 4. CPT1: Cockpit Pedestal 5. CPT: Cockpit Circuit Breaker Panel 6. LCL : Forward Avoninic Bay 7. ICH1: Forward Avoninic Bay 8. LCS1: Forward Avonic Bay Rear 9. ECH1: Leading Edge 10. ECD1: Inboard Trailing Edge 11. ENS2: Wheel Well 12. CDT2: Rear Cargo Bay: Rear floor 13. ECH: Tail Cone Figure Number of indicated in each zone Number of 1. UCL2: Main Cabin Rear ceiling 2. UCL1: Main Cabin Rear ceiling 3. CTM: Center Accessory Compartment 4. CPT1: Cockpit Pedestal 5. CPT: Cockpit Circuit Breaker Panel 6. LCL : Forward Avoninic Bay 7. ICH1: Forward Avoninic Bay 8. LCS1: Forward Avonic Bay Rear 9. ECH1: Leading Edge 10. ECD1: Inboard Trailing Edge 11. ENS2: Wheel Well 12. CDT2: Rear Cargo Bay: Rear floor 13. ECH: Tail Cone 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Percentage of Wires Tested with Breach Figure Percentage of wire tested that indicated a breach in each zone 94

95 Appendix A: Detail Results 1 UCL2 Main Cabin Rear ceiling: No breach indications 2 UCL1 Main Cabin Rear ceiling: 1. LM201: 2.5 ft. from end. 3 CTM Center Accessory Compartment: No breach indications 4 CPT1 Cockpit Pedestal: No breach indications 5 CPT Cockpit Circuit Breaker Panel: No breach indications 6 LCL Forward Avionics Bay: No breach indications 7 ICH1 Forward Avionics Bay: No breach indications Breach Indications by 8 LCS1 Forward Avionics Bay Rear: 1. LM 202: 12" from non-stripped end 9 ECH1 Leading Edge: No breach indications 10 ECD1 Inboard Trailing Edge: No breach indications 11 ENS2 Wheel Well: No breach indications 12 CDT2 Rear Cargo Bay: Rear floor: No breach indications 13 ECH Tail Cone: All aromatic polyimide wire. 1. LM LM LM LM

96 Introduction: APPENDIX LECTROMEC L1011 TESTING Lectromec is pleased to present the following report to the Sandia National Laboratories. This report summarizes test results obtained during the week of July 18-19, Lectromec participated in the intrusive inspection of Lockhead L1011 aircraft in Tucson, Az as part of the FAA s Aging Systems Research Program. Lectromec, a Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) contractor, performed its DelTest, on fourteen zones, previously selected by the FAA s intrusive inspection working group. The purpose of the DelTest is to detect breaches (cracks) in a wire s insulation that extend to the conductor, and to identify both the wire and the breach location. Please see Appendix A for a more detailed DelTest description. These tests were performed under contract with Sandia National Laboratories and at the direction of Roberto Mata. Personnel: Lectromec staff present during the testing were: Dr. William Linzey, Shailesh Mishra Supporting Staff: Bob McGuire (FAA) Method of Test: The DelTest was performed in situ on the fourteen selected zones. All of the cables tested were selected for removal for further testing, including destructive tests. The wire type targeted for removal was aromatic polyimide (Kapton ) insulated. The DelTest required connection to only one end of the sample bundle. In most cases the most efficient method of connection to the sample was to cut the target bundle at a position determined by the working group and connect directly to the wire with clip leads. In some cases it was more efficient to connect with pins to connectors associated with the bundle. The length of the bundle tested was limited such that the sample bundle could be removed without undue strain and damage. After the sample bundle was connected, a collection electrode was attached to the outside of the bundle, and the test was begun. A small quantity of water was sprayed along the bundle, proceeding from one end of the samples to the other. For each bundle the amount of water used was much less than one quart. The results of the DelTest were analyzed and the wires showing a breach indication were identified and labeled. The location along the bundle was marked with yellow flagging tape. Because the bundles were to be used for further testing after removal, there was no attempt to open the bundle and confirm the results. A quick visual inspection was done on the outside of the bundle and breaches, splices, or other observations of note, in the location were recorded. The bundle was then photographed and disconnected from the test apparatus. Results: Lectromec s results are summarized in Table Of the 613 wires that were tested, 20 (3.3%) had measurements of high leakage current. Put in terms of linear feet tested; of 3,594 feet tested there were 20 breaches indicated or 5.6 per 1000 feet (0.0056/ft). 96

97 Breach Visible # Wire Total Splice Tested per Wire per Foot 1 PSU1 Forward Main Cabin Wall CDT1 Forward Main Cabin Wall UCL1 Forward Main Cabin Ceiling CPT Cockpit Instrument Panel LCL Electronic Bay Ceiling ICH Electronic Bay ENS Hydraulics Bay ENL Hydraulics Bay CTA Hydraulics Bay IPF Accessory Compartment LCS Rear Cargo Bay ECD1 Strbd Wing wheel Well ECH1 Strbd Wing Trailing Edge EPF1 Strbd Wing Leading Edge Table Summary of Results ,

98 1. PSU1: Forward Main Cabin Wall 2. CDT1: Forward Main Cabin Wall 3. UCL1: Forward Main Cabin Ceiling 4. CPT: Cockpit Instrument Panel 5. LCL : Electronic Bay Ceiling 6. ICH: Electronic Bay 7. ENS: Hydraulics Bay 8. ENL: Hydraulics Bay 9. CTA: Hydraulics Bay 10. IPF: Accessaty Compartment 11. LCS: Rear Cargo Bay 12. ECD1: Strbd Wing Wheel Well 13. ECH1: Strbd Wing Trailing Edge 14. EPF1: Strbd Wing Leading Edge Figure Number of indicated in each zone Number of 1. PSU1: Forward Main Cabin Wall 2. CDT1: Forward Main Cabin Wall 3. UCL1: Forward Main Cabin Ceiling 4. CPT: Cockpit Instrument Panel 5. LCL : Electronic Bay Ceiling 6. ICH: Electronic Bay 7. ENS: Hydraulics Bay 8. ENL: Hydraulics Bay 9. CTA: Hydraulics Bay 10. IPF: Accessaty Compartment 11. LCS: Rear Cargo Bay 12. ECD1: Strbd Wing Wheel Well 13. ECH1: Strbd Wing Trailing Edge 14. EPF1: Strbd Wing Leading Edge 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percentage of Wires Tested with Breach Figure Percentage of wire tested that indicated a breach in each zone. 98

99 Appendix A: Detailed Results Breach Indications by 1 PSU1 Forward Main Cabin Wall No breach indications 2 CDT1 Forward Main Cabin Wall No breach indications 3 UCL1 Forward Main Cabin Ceiling 1. LM ft from end 4 CPT Cockpit Instrument Panel 1. LM1315: under grey tape 2. LM1323: under grey tape 3. LM 1314: under grey tape 5 LCL Electronic Bay Ceiling 1. LM1046: 2' from connection end 2. LM1001: 2' from connection end 3. LM1325: 6" from unconnected end 6 ICH Electronic Bay 1. LM 1309: 6" from connector 2. LM 1304: 6" from connector 3. LM 1040: 2' from connection end 7 ENS Hydraulics Bay 1. LM1610: 1.5 ft from end 2. LM 1611: 3.5 ft from end 8 ENL Hydraulics Bay No breach indications 9 CTA Hydraulics Bay 1. LM1620: 2.5 from connection end near branch 10 IPF Accessory Compartment No breach indications 11 LCS Rear Cargo Bay No breach indications 12 ECD1 Strbd Wing wheel Well 1. LM1640: concealed in Wing 13 ECH1 Strbd Wing Trailing Edge 1. LM 1630: 18" from connection end 2. LM 1631: 6" from connection end 3. LM 1632: 24' from connection end 4. LM 1634: 24' from connection end 5. LM 1635: 24' from connection end 6. LM 1366: 6' from connection end 14 EPF1 Strbd Wing Leading Edge No breach indications 99

100 Introduction: APPENDIX 3.1.7: FOLLOW-UP LECTROMEC TESTING The results reported here come from examination of the wire harnesses that had been removed from the NDT aircraft and sent to Sandia National Laboratories. The examination was done by Dr. Robert Bernstein (Sandia) and Dr. William Linzey (Lectromec). Only the harnesses/wires that had breach indications found by the DelTest were examined closely. The examination was both visual and by detection of leakage current. If need be the harnesses were disassembled. Results: The results of the examination of the 74 breach indications found during the NDT testing of the 6 aircraft are summarized in Table A description of the results from each of the 74 breach indications is found in Appendix A. It should be noted that 3 additional breaches were observed on wire adjacent to DelTest breach indications. Table presents these results per 1000 feet of aircraft wire tested. A DC9 2nd DC9 DC10 L1011 Total Physical Breach Hot Stamp Splice Wire Cut Off Did Not Find Harness Not Available Total Table Physical Breach: Any breach in the insulation that reaches to the conductor due to external trauma or aging (excluding Hot Stamp damage, splices or cuts off wires). Hot Stamp: Breach to conductor caused by the hot stamp process. Splice: A Splice that allowed current leakage when wet and was location in the middle of the bundle or under chaffing tape etc. so that the source of the current was not known at the time of the DelTest. Wire Cut off: Some wires were cut off apparently on purpose and left in the bundle. Because the conductor was exposed this gave a positive DelTest result. Did Not Find: The source of the breach indication was not found during the examination Harness Not Available: The wires in question were not available for further examination Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 100

101 A DC9 2nd DC9 DC10 L1011 Total Physical Breach Hot Stamp Splice Wire Cut Off Did not find Harness Not Available Total Table Summary of DelTest results as checked at Sandia per 1000 feet of wire tested. The overall results for the six aircraft are shown in graphically in Figure Figure Overall Results of the follow up examination of the breach indications. Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 101

102 Appendix A: Detailed Results Results for the A300 Breach Aircraft Indication Lectromec ID Result of Examination at Sandia 1 ENL(ECD) Yellow Tag Breach under red tape: Some black soot 2nd breach found near 1st (also some soot) 2 LCS LM#25 Hot Stamp 3 LM#32 Mechanical Trauma 4 LM#29 Splice 5 LM#20 Did Not Find 6 ENS1 LM#15 Breach in insulation 7 ICH LM#100 Splice 8 LM#5 Did Not Find 9 None Splices 10 ECH LM#100 1/8" Oval missing 11 LM#114 cut-through or crack 12 LM#77 Splice 13 LCL LM#5 Wire cut off in Bundle after 38" 14 LM#106 Wire cut off in Bundle after 38" 15 LM#6 Wire cut off in Bundle after 38" 16 LM#7 Mechanical Trauma 17 66mA Delamination? Tape looks like it is unreavelling 2nd delaminated wire. 18 LM#40 Mechanical Trauma 19 LM#8 1/2" split or cut in insulation 20 Sh + wire 170 Did Not Find Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 102

103 Results for the 747 Breach Aircraft Indication Lectromec ID Result of Examination at Sandia 1 IPF1 None Large exposed area caused by chaffing 2 ICH2 LM1322 Hot Stamp or Mechanical Trauma 3 LM1035 Hot Stamp 4 ICH1 LM1401 "2" in hot stamp 5 LM1402 pin 9 connector D1207P: Split or Cut pin 23 connector D1207P: Hot Stamp 6 CPT4 LM 1327 Small (1/8") split or cut 7 LM 1330 Splice 8 LM 1317 Insulation Split or cut 9 ECD1 LM ECH2 LM1013 Wire cut off in Bundle 11 LM1017 Wire cut off in Bundle 12 ENL1 LM1020 Under Clamp: Wire Split: Conductor exposed 13 LM1036 1/8" to 1/4" breach in wire: Conductor exposed 14 LM1034 Crack in insulation Results for the DC9 (Ardmore) Breach Indication Aircraft Lectromec ID Result of Examination at Sandia 1 ECH1 LM1316 Mechanical Trauma (possibly due to clamp) 2 ICH1 LM1301 Mechanical Trauma 3 LM1308 Splice 4 LM1306 Wire cut off in Bundle after 38" Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 103

104 Results for the DC9 (Miami) Breach Aircraft Lectromec ID Result of Examination at Sandia Indication ISTA 1 1. EC ID09 Confirmed: 6"< from wire end + multiple places 2 2. EC ID05 Confirmed: 9" from wire end ECH LM1010 (EC-ID26) Twisted Pair, Did not Find 4 2. LM1016 (EC-ID47 Confirmed: gash 6" before terminal block 5 3 LM 1045 (ID02) Confirmed ECD 6 1. LM 1002 (ID 42) 1st 30" of conduit. Harness Not Available ENL 7 1. LM1028 (ID37) Confirmed (Joe Kurek, Raytheon): near splice 8 2 LM1047 (ID27) Confirmed (Joe Kurek, Raytheon): 2.5 ft. from top. Found one additional breach (Joe Kurek, Raytheon) EPF 9 1. LM 1609 (ID01) Confirmed: Chaffing in conduit PSU LM 1023 (ID 1023) Fault by yellow marker. Harness Not Available Results for the DC10 Breach Aircraft Indication Lectromec ID Result of Examination at Sandia 1 UCL1 1. LM201 Confirmed: External Trauma (Gash ) 2.5 ft. from end. 2 LCS1 1. LM 202 Confirmed: External Trauma (scrape ), 12" from non-stripped end 3 ECH 1. LM 203 Cut Wire 4 2. LM 204 Cut Wire 5 3. LM 205 Cut Wire 6 4. LM 207 Cut Wire Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 104

105 Results for the L1011 Breach Aircraft Indication Lectromec ID Result of Examination at Sandia UCL LM1032 Did not find in lab, Located in field at 4 ft from end CPT 2 1. LM1315 Confirmed: Cracked under gray tape 3 2. LM1323 Confirmed: External Trauma under gray tape 4 3. LM 1314 Splice under gray tape LCL 5 1. LM1046 Confirmed: External Trauma 2' from connection end 6 2. LM1001 Confirmed: Hot Stamping 2' from connection end 7 3. LM1325 Confirmed: Hot Stamping 6" from unconnected end ICH 8 1. LM 1309 Confirmed: External Trauma (Crushed wire) 6" from connector 9 2. LM 1304 Confirmed: External Trauma 6" from connector LM 1040 Confirmed: External Trauma 2' from connection end ENS LM1610 Confirmed: Cracking does not appear to be External Trauma, 1.5 ft from end LM 1611 Confirmed: Cracking does not appear to be External Trauma, 3.5 ft from end CTM LM1620 N/A The fault was cut out of the wire when bundle was removed, 2.5 from connection ECD LM1640 Confirmed: External Trauma concealed in Wing ECH LM 1630 Confirmed: Cracking does not appear to be External Trauma, 18" from connection end LM 1631 Confirmed: Cause uncertain, 6" from connection end LM 1632 Not Found in lab, In field at 24' from connection end LM 1634 Not Found in lab, In field at 24' from connection end LM 1635 Confirmed: Cause uncertain, 24' from connection end LM 1366 Confirmed: External Trauma (scrape ) 6' from connection end Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 105

106 Figure A300 Breach LM114 Refueling Panel / Wheel Well Figure A300 Breach yellow Tag: Trailing Inboard Edge Notes: Found under Red Chaffing Tape Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 106

107 Figure A300 Breach LM#100 Refueling Panel / Wheel Well. Figure A300 Breach LCL: 66mA Electronics Bay Notes: Possible Delimitation Found in Middle of Bundle. Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 107

108 Figure Breach LM1317 Cockpit Floor. Figure Breach LM1020 Leading Edge Note: Under Clamp Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 108

109 Figure Breach LM1034 Leading Edge Figure Breach LM1036 Leading Edge. Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 109

110 Figure DC-9 Breach LM1301 Overhead Galley. Figure Hot Stamp LM1402 pin 23 Electronics Bay Note: Leaky Dash in Hot Stamp. Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 110

111 Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 111

112 Figure Breach Cargo Bay Ceiling Note: Power Feeder Cable Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 112

113 LM LM 202 Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 113

114 LM LM1611 Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 114

115 LM LM 1636 Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 115

116 LM LM 1304 Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 116

117 LM LM1040 Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 117

118 LM LM 1001 Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 118

119 LM LM LM 1315 Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 119

120 LM LM 1609 Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 120

121 LM LM 1045 Appendix 3.1.7: Follow up Inspection: 6 Aircraft 121