The Case of the ‘Dusted’ Airport Vehicles
We had an account with Newark airport, NJ, testing and reporting on lube samples from ground service vehicles. Over a period of a couple of years, nothing particularly alarming occurred. Suddenly, samples from gasoline engines were showing high abrasives and correlating Fe (iron) wear, in lockstep with Si (silicon), usually an abrasive indicator. But, the problem presented itself only in the cold months. This didn’t make sense because with wetness and snow, no significant environmental dirt or dust would be prevalent. There were a dozen similar vehicles involved, all with the same pattern of Fe and Si, too coincidental.
The airport was close to our New Jersey lab, so I decided to make a visit to the tarmac to see if anything could be learned. I looked inside an engine compartment, checking for a possibly compromised air intake system. Initially, things looked normal and the air cleaner housing seemed intact; in fact, the air cleaner filter looked nearly new. I went to another vehicle with the same results. But this time, I spotted a few half-inch slotted holes in the side of the housing collar, almost like from a screwdriver. In fact, the holes WERE from a screwdriver. Closer inspection of all the vehicles of this type disclosed similar holes. This had been a particularly cold winter and the maintenance crew had resorted to using ether to start the engines; not uncommon, but this approach was careless and stupid, given a bypass was created, allowing dirt and dust to enter the combustion chamber, ergo abrasives got into the lube past the rings. Maintenance chose expediency over taking the time to remove the housing (a bit of a chore, especially when one is cold) to use the ether, then restore the housing after start. A root cause was cured.
Customer failure: Lack of common sense, a mechanic’s sin of commission; Indifference and lack of commitment (laziness)
Customer change and gain: A root cause was identified and cured, and a newfound respect for Fa’s value resulted in a successful program going forward, with no one terminated. Lesson learned, including the vendor: being suspicious can be a good thing.
The Case of the Catastrophic Gas Engine Failure
A large gas company used huge gas engines to pump its product to homes and businesses, also using its product as fuel for the engines. We had received samples on their engines for nearly a decade. At no time were there any mechanical issues, nor did the lube get sufficiently contaminated to suggest a drain recommendation. These being very large, slow-speed, two-cycle reciprocating engines operating at relatively low speeds and load, it was not unusual to show clean results.
One day, we got a phone call that an engine had cratered, with failed bearings and a crankshaft loss – big $$. The Fa reports showed no indication of that event. I was on the phone with the customer for about fifteen minutes and finally asked, from where are you drawing your samples? The gentleman didn’t know, so he put the phone down and went over to the engine, along with his mechanic who’d taken the sample. The sampling point turned out to be a dead-end leg that never had circulating fluid possibilities. The same old oil was being sampled for each engine. That’s why their data all looked the same. There were no wear metals.
The fix, of course, was to install sampling valves in a circulating line upstream of the filters. Now, each engine had its own data profile. The profiles were similar, but not identical. We were now monitoring correctly.
Customer failure: Lack of common sense, error of omission
Customer change and gain: The root cause was identified. Installing proper sampling hardware ensured no further “surprises” of the type experienced.
Vendor failure: We should have visited this customer at least once over the years – we did not – laziness and assumptions.
Vendor change and gain: Another example of being suspicious, in this case, when things look too good.
The Case of the Unattended In-Basket
We had a huge account with a well service company for drillers. We had a complaint about an engine failure we “didn’t catch.” I pulled reports on the subject engine and found we had telephoned results from our latest test, including a recommendation to perform diagnostics and consider a visual inspection, based on the diagnostics. I visited the foreman in his office. He didn’t say a word for what seemed like forever, then sheepishly showed me a report in his in-basket, verifying what I’d said. It turned out one of his crew had received the phone call, as the foreman wasn’t available. Somehow, the phone call had not been relayed to the foreman for a decision (no email in these days of the 1970s). We were exonerated, though I felt badly about it.
Customer failure: Leadership issue, closure; Human error, though this type of human error wasn’t all that common.