"It is the biggest pile of doo doo you will ever have to cast your eye over ...

a caesam/samsef mish mash of Spanish/French/German analysis methods (Note the la

ck of UK involvement), badly coded by numties who seemingly don t know that loads
are not measured in MPa! Coupled with an attitude of we know the answer but we re n
ot telling you !
User manuals are rubbish and made further useless by the addition of an exportabl
e version ... yes you guessed it ... a version with all the relevant useful info
like methodology removed for the suppliers to use .
The help system invariably tells you to ring the BOS team (colloquially referred
to the Bag Of Sh1te team) who speak a multitude of languages ... mainly spingli
sh but just keep referring your query to a higher power who never responds.
I can honestly say that if it gets to be a requirement for work at Airbus (and i
ts getting close) I will not be here much longer. Airbus collection programs are
the proverbial Dogs B s compared to ISAMI.
It s causing all sorts of mayhem here with suppliers loving it as it just adds to
the time/cost, etc. [One supplier] allegedly spent 50% of annual budget just get
ting the ISAMI licences!
I think most people who have contact with ISAMI will empathise with my thoughts.
..
Allegedly the composite part is more evolved (than the metallic) but I used the Bo
lted Joint Tool and I found it very cumbersome and you re left with minimal output
that is difficult to check. If I can t do a fag packet calc and get within 20% of t
he answer then I get worried as most established methods (Lockheed, Melcon, etc.
) are very visible and understandable. If ISAMI was over cautious then that migh
t be acceptable (if weight wasn't an issue) but unfortunately some of the result
s aren't."