Talk:Parker Hannifin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Should there be discussion of the fact that they produce Boeing 737 rudder control valves? Buckethed (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if the information is factual and accurate, I refer to the NTSB's own documentation of the subject:

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/1992/A92_118_121.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetfall (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC) =

Milestones

What's the reason this article has milestones. I've never seen a Wikipedia article before that had milestones. It seems its sole purpose is glorifying the success of the company. It seems totally arbitrary. I suggest this section be removed immediately.

Boeing 737 Rudder Issues - Main Article

--108.171.131.170 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Wendy Soucie, Global ebusiness social media manager - Parker Hannifin --108.171.131.170 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Cheryl Flohr, Director, Communication, Parker Aerospace --108.171.131.170 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Jeremy Katt, Air Safety Officer, Parker Aerospace

June 3, 2015

Add new introduction

In the 1990s, three accidents involving Boeing 737 aircraft occurred. The causes of the accidents were the subject of extensive, years-long investigations, with mixed and uncertain findings.

(original) In 1995, it was discovered that failures in a servo unit supplied by Parker Hannifin to Boeing for use in their 737 aircraft may have contributed to several incidents, including that of United Airlines Flight 585 and USAir Flight 427.[5][6]

Insert this content after

On March 3, 1991, United Airlines Flight 585, a 737-200, crashed in Colorado Springs, CO, killing 25 people. Initially, the NTSB concluded the accident “could not identify conclusive evidence to explain the loss of United Airlines flight 585.” In its probable cause statement, the Board indicated that it considered the two most likely explanations for the sudden uncontrollable upset to be a malfunction of the airplane’s directional control system or an encounter with an unusually severe atmospheric disturbance. The Board further indicated in its probable cause statement that, although anomalies had been identified in the accident airplane’s rudder control system, it was unable to identify a condition under which any such anomaly would have produced a rudder movement that the pilots could not have easily countered by the airplane's roll controls.

request edit - remove "Additionally" and insert "Instead", the Board concluded that weather conditions in the Colorado Springs area at the time of the accident were conducive to the formation of a horizontal axis vortex (rotor) and that some witness observations supported the existence of a rotor at or near the time and place of the accident. [14]

request edits - add this sentence The Parker rudder power control unit (PCU) was not implicated as the cause of the accident.

On September 8, 1994, USAir Flight 427, a 737-300, crashed near Pittsburgh, PA, killing 132 people. The investigation lasted 5 years and faced many challenges including a Flight Data Recorder (FDR) that only recorded 13 parameters which included basic flight and engine parameters, but not flight control input or surface positions. request edit - add sentence that follows (Today’s typical FDR records hundreds of parameters, including multiple flight control inputs and surface positions.)

The rudder PCU, request edit wording addition, which hydraulically powers the movement of the rudder flight control surface and is manufactured by Parker Hannifin Corporation, was recovered and underwent acceptance testing to determine condition and operation. The acceptance tests did not reveal any disqualifying anomalies.[15] The PCU was subjected to extensive examination and testing which revealed a jam and reversal could be produced under conditions which are unlikely to occur on the aircraft.

request edit - add sentence explaining test The PCU was subjected to a -40⁰ F cold soak without hydraulic pressure applied to the unit. It was then instantly pressurized with hot (170⁰F) fluid. At this point, a hesitation could be produced under these unrealistic conditions. Under normal operation, the rudder PCU would be constantly pressurized by 70⁰F fluid which would keep the PCU warmer than ambient temperature. Any separate hydraulic component failures causing an increase in hydraulic fluid temperature would happen gradually, and the PCU would not be instantly subjected to such a large thermal shock.

A jam of the main rudder power control unit servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position and overtravel of the primary slide could cause the rudder PCU to reverse from the commanded input. [15] request edit - add sentence However, there was no evidence that a rudder PCU reversal occurred on flight 427, as noted by all NTSB investigators in their reports.

Despite not having evidence of a rudder PCU reversal, the NTSB concluded the probable cause of the accident was “a loss of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder surface to its blowdown limit. The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots as a result of a jam of the main rudder power control unit servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position and overtravel of the primary slide.”[15]

FAA, Boeing, and Parker disagreed with the probable cause. The FAA stated “While the investigation has produced evidence which support the scenarios where the rudder moved to a full-left position after an encounter with wake turbulence, the cause of the movement is still at issue. The FAA upon review of the evidence, cannot conclude that a failure mode which resulted in an uncommanded rudder movement on Flight 427 has been identified. Any causal findings, to be legitimate, must have conclusive evidence to support findings of a hard over or reversal rudder. Such evidence has yet to be found. Consequently, a specific causal finding of this nature may not be appropriate.” [15]

The Boeing submission stated “three of the hypothetical system-related scenarios (a dual slide jam, a secondary slide jam with primary slide overtravel, and an input linkage jam) and one hypothetical flight crew input scenario evaluated during the investigation all “potentially fit a kinematic analysis.” However, with regard to the three hypothetical system-related scenarios, Boeing’s submission commented that “evidence does not support finding as probable cause.” Boeing’s submission further stated that “there is no evidence to support a conclusion that an uncommanded full rudder deflection occurred. While there is no evidence of a crew commanded, sustained left-rudder input, such a possibility is plausible and must be seriously considered, especially given the lack of evidence of an airplane-induced rudder deflection.” [15] After the USAir 427 investigation report was completed, the NTSB revised the United 585 probable cause statement making the cause identical to USAir 427, despite no evidence this had occurred.[14]

request edit - additional sentence There was strong disagreement with this revision. Boeing and Parker noted that there was no evidence in either case that linked Parker’s PCU with the accidents’ causes.

(original) In 2004, a Los Angeles jury ordered Parker Hannifin to pay US$43 million to the plaintiff families of the 1997 SilkAir Flight 185 crash in Indonesia. Parker Hannifin subsequently appealed the verdict, which resulted in an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed amount. The National Transportation Safety Committee could not determine the cause of the crash due to the near total lack of physical evidence and complete destruction, [7] this in contrast to the US National Transportation Safety Board, however, which disagreed and determined that the crash was caused, possibly intentionally, by the pilot.[8][9]

The FAA ordered an upgrade of all Boeing 737 rudder control systems by November 12, 2002.

request edit - remove "Parker" Boeing argued that the request edit - Parker PCU components they supplied were not at fault, citing that the product has one of the safest records in its class, but the FAA directive went through regardless.[10]

insert paragraph

In 1997 a Boeing 737 used in SilkAir Flight 185 crashed in Indonesia. The Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee could not determine the cause of the crash, due to the near total lack of physical evidence and complete destruction of the aircraft. [7]

However, the US National Transportation Safety Board disagreed and determined that the crash was caused, possibly intentionally, by the pilot.[8][9] The NTSB commented on the NTSC report, stating that “It is more likely that the nose-down flight control inputs were made by the captain than by the first officer.”

The NTSB noted that “the investigation of the captain’s background developed evidence that revealed he had experienced multiple work-related difficulties, particularly during the six-month period before the accident.  Additionally, the investigation found that the captain was experiencing significant financial difficulties about the time of the accident, and there were indications that the captain’s behavior and lifestyle had changed before the accident.” [16]   

There was no evidence in any form that the Parker PCU had any role whatsoever in the crash of Flight 185. However, in 2004, a Los Angeles jury ordered Parker Hannifin to pay US$43 million to the plaintiff families of Flight 185. Parker Hannifin subsequently appealed the verdict, which resulted in an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed amount.

(Original) On November 12, 2002, the FAA ordered an upgrade of all Boeing 737 rudder control systems. Boeing argued that the Parker PCU components were not at fault, citing that the 737 and its equipment has one of the safest records in its class, but the FAA airworthiness directive (AD) went through regardless.[10]

According to the FAA AD: “The redesigned rudder control system will incorporate design features that will increase system redundancy, and will add an active fault monitoring system to detect and annunciate to the flightcrew single jams in the rudder control system. If a single failure or jam occurs in the linkage aft of the torque tube, the new rudder design will allow the flightcrew to control the airplane, using normal piloting skills, without operational procedures that are unique to this airplane model.

During our reviews of the new rudder control system, we have found that the new main rudder PCU design is equivalent to two independent PCUs. The main rudder PCU is an assembly with two PCUs arranged in tandem. The new main rudder PCU will have two independent servo valves in lieu of the existing common dual concentric servo valve. Two separate input linkages will control the position of these valves on the main rudder PCU. The pilot can override each of these input linkages and also override the linkage for the standby PCU. The function of the override capability is to enable the pilot to control the airplane in the event of a jam in any one of the three input linkages or associated servo valves in the rudder control system.”[10] The AD was completed in 2008. [10] New source documents:

[14] NTSB Aircraft Accident Report, United Flight 585, DCA91MA023, NTSB/AAR-01/01 PB2001-910401, Dated March 27, 2001.

[15] NTSB Aircraft Accident Report, USAir Flight 427, DCA94MA076, NTSB/AAR-99/01 (PB99-910401), Dated Nov 4, 1999.

Unsourced

Long list of unsourced content removed from article

This is all/almost entirely unsourced. It cannot be restored until it is sourced, and should be sourced not from their website but from independent refs. Moved here per WP:PRESERVE Business groups Parker is divided into 7 operating groups with service to 55 countries on six continents in these 9 technology areas. Aerospace Climate Control Filtration Fluid & Gas Handling Electromechanical Hydraulics Pneumatics Process Control Sealing & Shielding Aerospace group Parker Aerospace is a global leader in hydraulic, fuel, flight control, pneumatic, electronics cooling, and fluid conveyance components and systems and related electronic controls for aerospace and other high-technology markets. Its products are used on aircraft manufactured throughout the world today, including commercial transports, military fixed-wing planes, regional and business aircraft, helicopters, missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Based in Irvine, California, Parker Aerospace operates 39 facilities in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The latest programs include the COMAC C919, Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engine, Bombardier CSeries and Global 7000/8000, Embraer Legacy 500/450, Mitsubishi Regional Jet, Gulfstream G650, Model 850 Citation Columbus, and Airbus A350 XWB. Greener aircraft and reduced emissions Parker Aerospace is a longtime Airbus supplier, with special competencies in multifunctional system integration. Parker is partnering with Airbus to develop fuel cell technology as an alternative energy source for on-ground and in-flight electrical power supply. Within this partnership, Airbus will be responsible for the overall aircraft system architecture and technology integration into the aircraft, and Parker will supply the multifunctional fuel cell system and manage different subsystem suppliers. A fuel cell is a device which transforms the energy contained in hydrogen and oxygen into electricity through a direct chemical conversion at a low temperature without moving parts. The exhaust product is water, and in the case of an air-breathing system, oxygen-depleted air. The electricity produced by fuel cells can be cleaner and more efficient than combustion engines, depending on the hydrogen source. In addition, the water and the oxygen-depleted air (inert gas) can be used on the airplane to substitute the water and inerting systems. The objective of the cooperation is the development of a technology demonstrator followed by a joint flight test campaign for the middle of the decade, including operational and infrastructural tests. With Parker Aerospace involved in the project from this earliest phase, industrialization can be considered throughout the development of the process, rather than at the end. Airbus considers fuel cell technology as a key contributor to meeting the ACARE 2020 goals, which foresee the reduction of CO2 emissions by 50%, NOX emissions by 80%, and noise by 50%. History Milestones: 1917: Parker Appliance Company was founded by Arthur L. Parker. 1919: On a promotional trip to Boston, the truck and trailer carrying the company's entire inventory blew a tire, destroying all of its inventory. Parker Appliance Company became bankrupt, and its founder returned to an engineering post at a Nickel Plate Road plant, but vowed to start again. 1924: Arthur L. Parker saved and restarted the Parker Appliance Company and the pneumatic/hydraulic components division succeeded by serving automotive and aviation customers. 1927: Parker's reputation for producing reliable, high-pressure connections led aviator Charles Lindbergh to specify Parker fittings for the Spirit of St. Louis' historic first Atlantic crossing. 1935: In the midst of the Depression, optimistic Arthur Parker bought a 500,000-square-foot (42,000 m2) Cleveland auto plant from Hupp Motor Car Company to house his 38-employee company. 1939: Parker Appliance sales reached $3 million. 1943: Parker employed 5,000 Clevelanders, all in defense production. 1945: Company founder Arthur L. Parker died; World War II's end halted defense contracts. With no industrial business, the company faced near liquidation. The founder's wife, Helen Parker, refused to give up, and hired new management, who gradually rebuilt industrial business. Son Patrick S. Parker eventually took control of the company. 1953: Parker made its first acquisition, the Synthetic Rubber Products Company in Los Angeles, California. 1957: An acquisition era is underway. With the acquisition of Hannifin Corporation came new cylinder and valve products and a new corporate name: Parker Hannifin Corporation. 1960: A new International Division was formed to market Parker products abroad. 1964: Shares of Parker Hannifin stock (NYSE: PH) were traded on the New York Stock Exchange for the first time. 1966: Parker Hannifin entered Fortune-500 listing of top companies. 1969: Parker has operations in 10 countries in Europe and Latin America. Pat Parker, the founder’s son, was elected President of Parker and Parker products land on the moon with American astronaut Neil Armstrong. 1975: Parker introduced a new company logo. 1977: Parker sales reached $500 million. 1978: Parker strengthened its position in the aerospace market with the acquisition of the Bertea Corporation, which laid the foundation for future leadership in flight controls, hydraulics, and fuel management systems. 1981: Parker sales reached $1.1 billion. 1983: Parker formed a joint venture in China. 1988: Marking its 70th anniversary, Parker made seven acquisitions and exceeded $2 billion in sales. 1992: Parker globalized its business by forming worldwide products groups. 1994: The first retail store, ParkerStore, opened with the objective to reach the aftermarket and gain a greater customer share. 1997: Parker moved to brand new World Headquarters building in Mayfield Heights, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland. 2000: Parker sales reached $5.4 billion. The company merged with Commercial Intertech, its largest deal at the time, and completed four other acquisitions. 2001: Parker introduced the Win Strategy with the single goal to raise the performance of the company to a higher level. In Europe, Parker acquired several large companies in the fluid power business from 1997 and forward, such as Commercial Hydraulics and VOAC Hydraulics. 2005: Patrick S. Parker died. Parker sales reach $8.2 billion, and the company acquired six companies, and was awarded the hydraulic subsystem for the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner passenger jet. 2006: Parker had made 210 strategic acquisitions since the company's founding. 2007: Parker opened its 1,000th ParkerStore. 2011: Parker reached record sales of $12.3 billion. 2016: On 12/1, Parker acquired Clarcor for about 4.3 billion . Clarcor is the most diverse filter manufacturing company headquartered in Franklin, TN. Clarcor also has a 60,000 sqft corporate innovation center in Columbia , TN. References

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You OK with me adding that collapse to the above? - X201 (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry not sure what you are asking... Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I put collapse tags around the unsourced stuff that you removed from the article. Just checking out of courtesy to see if you're OK with me editing your comment to add the tags; to tidy up the talk page. - X201 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh i see. sure that is fine. thx for asking. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

COI edit request: Revised History section

Hi, I work for a communications firm that represents Parker Hannifin. I request that the History section (archived above) be partially restored to this article. I've revised it and added sources, below.

==History==

===1917-1950===

Arthur L. Parker founded Parker Hannifin as the Parker Appliance Company in Ohio in 1917. In its early years, the company built pneumatic brake systems for buses, trucks and trains. In 1919, Parker's truck slid over a cliff, causing the company to lose its entire inventory and forcing the founder to return to his previous job. However, Parker restarted Parker Appliance Company in 1924.

By 1927, Parker had expanded into airplanes. For his flight across the Atlantic Ocean, Charles Lindbergh requested Parker parts be used in the construction of his aircraft the Spirit of St. Louis. Parker contributed the system that linked the aircraft's 16 fuel tanks.

During World War II, Parker experienced a boom in business as the U.S. Air Force's primary supplier of valves and fluid connectors. By 1943, Parker employed 5,000 Cleveland, Ohio, residents. After Arthur Parker's death in 1945 and the end of the war, the company neared bankruptcy due to the sudden drop in demand. Parker's wife, Helen Parker, assumed control of the company and prevented its liquidation. She hired new management staff and directed the company's focus back to industrial manufacturing.

===1950s-1960s===

In the early 1950s, Parker executives set a goal to make Parker, as The New York Times put it, "the General Electric of fluid power", a goal it generally achieved in the coming decades. In 1957, the company purchased Hannifin, a producer of valve and cylinder products, and changed its name to Parker Hannifin. Many more acquisitions followed, with the company reaching 40 acquisitions by the year 1979.

In 1953, Arthur Parker's son Patrick S. Parker began working full-time at the company. He rose to become its president in 1968, and then served as CEO from 1971 to 1983 and chairman from 1977 to 1999. During and after his tenure, Parker Hannifin grew dramatically, with revenues rising from $197 million in 1968 to over $7 billion in 2005.

Parker Hannifin debuted on the New York Stock Exchange in 1964, under the ticker symbol PH. In 1966, the company joined the Fortune 500. The company designed parts for the craft used in NASA's first manned moon landing in 1969.

===1970s-1990s===

An economic downturn in 1970 forced the company to expand beyond its focus on fluid power. In the following years Parker Hannifin began to expand into the automotive aftermarket, considered a more stable industry. The company also directed itself toward growth in aerospace, acquiring companies that created flight controls and wheel brake equipment for airplanes. By 1979, Parker Hannifin employed 20,000 people in 100 plants, selling 90,000 items for machinery, airplanes, cars and construction equipment to 60,000 customers. The company even created some of the equipment inside the mechanical shark in the 1975 movie Jaws.

In 1982, Paul G. Schloemer replaced Patrick Parker as the company's president (although Parker remained chairman and CEO). That same year, Parker Hannifin entered the Mexican market. By 2008, Parker Hannifin Mexico would come to operate 11 plants in the country, seven of which made parts exclusively for the U.S. market. In 1988, the company reached $2 billion in sales.

Parker Hannifin opened its first retail "ParkerStore" in Cleveland in 1993. Within 10 years, the network of ParkerStores expanded to 200 locations in the U.S. and more than 400 worldwide. ParkerStores offer a variety of Parker products, including hydraulics, automation, and hose and fitting components, at locations close to industrial product buyers. Parker Hannifin systems also helped control the massive replica of the Titanic in the 1997 film of the same name. In 1997, Parker Hannifin moved its headquarters from Cleveland to a new building in Mayfield Heights, a suburb of Cleveland. In 1999, the company's sales reached approximately $5 billion.

===2000s-present===

Parker Hannifin acquired Commercial Intertech Corporation, a maker of hydraulic systems, in 2000. With a cost of $366 million, this was at the time Parker Hannifin's biggest acquisition.

In 2001, CEO Don Washkewicz introduced the company's new Win Strategy for bringing lean startup methodologies to company operations. In the subsequent years, lean operations became a major priority within every department at Parker Hannifin, reducing the time to obtain price quotes by 60% and cutting product development lead times by 25%. Ultimately, the Win Strategy played a major role in creating consistent bottom-line growth for the company.

Parker Hannifin won $2 billion in contracts to build fuel and hydraulic systems for Airbus A350 airliners in 2008, giving the company new significance in the aerospace industry. Two years later, Parker Hannifin's products played major roles in repairing the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

Thomas Williams took over the CEO role from Don Washkewicz in 2015. In 2016, Parker Hannifin completed its largest acquisition to date, buying Clarcor, a filtration systems manufacturer, for $4.3 billion.

References

My hunch is that it would make sense to turn the two sections currently in the article into subsections of the History section, but I'll leave that to your discretion.

I'd also like to request that the COI template be removed from the top of the article. I don't believe any of the article's current contents reflect a bias, but happy to discuss if anyone disagrees.

I do anticipate that I'll probably request additional edits to this article down the line, but holding on those until I've nailed down all the sources and needed information. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, and would appreciate any help. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Hi! Pinging you here because I see you've worked on this article in the past. Would you be up for taking a look at the above? Thank you as always. Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It has been on my to-do list. will try to get to it today. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the contribution - needed only minor tweaking. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)