A bomb retaining ring fabricated from type 302 stainless steel unwrapped during a practice flight, causing the bomb fins to deploy. The retaining ring was able to unwrap itself because it was thinner and softer than required. Hardness testing, metallography, and tensile testing confirmed that the component was in the annealed condition and not in the required work-hardened 1/4-hard condition.

Welded low-carbon steel bomb fins were rejected because of poor weld practice. Visual and metallographic examination revealed that the resistance plug welds that attach the outer skin to the inner spar displayed inadequate weld penetration. Recommended changes to the resistance welding parameters resulted in acceptable welds.

Cluster bomb tailcone assemblies each containing two aluminum die-cast components were rejected because of the poor surface condition of the die castings. Numerous heat checks were found on the surfaces of the tailcones and radiographic inspection revealed inclusions, gas holes, and shrinkage defects in the castings. Most of the components failed to meet required mechanical properties because of these casting defects.

Suspension lugs fabricated from AISI 4340 steel used to facilitate loading of bombs onto the underside of military aircraft could not sustain required loads during routine proof load testing. Three failed lugs underwent visual examination, chemical analysis, metallography, hardness testing, scanning electron microscopy, and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy. It was determined that the failures were due to forging defects. Both forging laps and seams acted as stress concentrators when the lugs were loaded during proof testing.

Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) is a systematic methodology for preventing failures. This article begins by discussing the history of RCM and uses Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) all-industry standard JA1011 as its model to describe the key characteristics of an RCM process. It then expands on questions involved in RCM process, offering definitions when necessary. Next, the article describes the approach of RCM to failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), the failure management policies available under RCM, and the criteria of RCM for deciding when a specific failure management policy is technically feasible. Then, after discussing the ways that RCM classifies failure effects in terms of consequences, it describes how RCM uses failure consequences to identify the best failure management policy for each failure mode. Next, the building blocks of RCM are put together to create a failure management program. The article ends with a discussion on some practical issues pertaining to RCM that lie outside the scope of SAE JA1011.