Thomson 767 hard-landing at BRS creases fuselage

[korrol]

As just an SLF I see the AAIB is looking at a hard-landing at Bristol on Sunday which - it appears - "bent" a Boeing 767 or at least made creases appear in the crown of the aircraft.

Frankly I'd like to avoid flying anywhere in this one G-OOBK in the future and any other airliners which have been similarly stressed. Is there a register of repaired and damaged airliners anywhere which ordinary passengers can consult?

[potkettleblack]

Why stop there. What about a register for aircraft that have had bird strikes, lightning strikes, put a wheel on the grass. We could tax all passengers 1 quid to cover the administration costs of the database. We would need a big office somewhere, a CEO, a team of IT engineers and a slush fund so we could head off to lots of IFALPA and ICAO safety meetings in each corner of the world. Business class travel and 5 star hotels only!

Actually thinking about it you had better take a ferry or drive as your register would have you avoiding the vast majority of legally flying aircraft today.

Then again you could just have confidence that Thomsons engineers will follow whatever the Boeing procedure is.

[Southernboy]

Such a database has been suggested. Those in authority responded in lukewarm fashion.

[Standard Noise]

Business class travel and 5 star hotels only!

On previously undamaged aricraft, naturally.:}

[gashcan]

Would you drive in a car that has been written off, but repaired by an authorised engineer, tested appropriately and put back on the road?

I'm driving one and have also flown many aircraft that have been damaged and properly repaired.

[PAPI-74]

Text book greaser landing for a 300hr Cadet!;)

[Piltdown Man]

Is there a register of repaired and damaged airliners anywhere which ordinary passengers can consult?

Such a database has been suggested. Those in authority responded in lukewarm fashion.

Such a list would be useless, so quite reasonably, there isn't one. Even well informed engineers would not be able to use such a device to improve their own safety when travelling, so members of the general public would not stand a chance. The reason is that an aircraft is a no more than a collection of components. The big bits (spars, major frames and sub-assemblies) more often than not stay together, but virtually everything else is replaceable. On a regular basis, each airframe, warts and all, is certified as being fit for flight by qualified engineers. Knowing that an aircraft has had a repair in the past tells you zero about the current status of the aircraft. The industry's record speaks for itself in this area and there are very few aircraft which haven't had repairs.

To guarantee a safer travel experience, think more about the hygiene in your own kitchen, the serviceability of your car, the quality of your driving, the roads you drive on, the time you travel etc. Additionally, avoid third world airlines - If the aircraft has an EU registration you should be alright. I for one would be more than happy to travel in this aircraft once it has been declared serviceable.

PM

[Lotpax]

Although the OPs question may be a little naive, I don't think it deserves the vitriol it generated, for three reasons

1) People are encouraged by governments to take more responsibility for themselves

2) There is one aviation precedent, the EU banned airlines list, which is published

3) There is a precedent for flawed repairs, in fact the greatest single loss of life with one aircraft Japan Airlines Flight 123 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123)

Having owned a 33 year old light aircraft, I am aware of the interchangeability of parts, but most SLF would not be.

[His dudeness]

1) People are encouraged by governments to take more responsibility for themselves

Thats the best joke I´ve read in ages, thanks for a good laugh...

@korrol: as Piltdown man pointed out, there is little parts that stay on an airplane for a long time. One of it is the fuselage. When these parts are damaged, for obvious reasons it cant just be replaced, but it will be repaired in a manner that guarantees it works safely and an AND analysis is carried out to make sure other parts, that can´t be seen, aren`t damaged as well. Very often, so called large areas / lots of parts are tested by ultrasonic or other methods to make sure the is no further damage. The aircraft themselves are engineered and designed to withstand partial failures of vital parts (remember the 737 of ALOHA - the one that lost quite a lot of its fuselage?).
All in all, a hard landing is not to uncommon, airlines usually do have quick access recorders or datalink connection to maintenance, that report anything out of the envelope (and a landing that cause dents in an airframe is certainly such an event).
Very very little chance such a thing would go unnoticed and therefore the airframe would fly in an un-airworthy state.

[Squawk7777]

"bent" a Boeing 767 or at least made creases appear in the crown of the aircraft.

The problem lies with the key word appear thus the general public is left to itself drawing its own (usually misleading) conclusions without knowing hard facts. Self-educated "experts" (public or press) seem to run show nowadays and we are all too familiar with the following headlines:

The pilot appeared to be drunk. The flight appeared to be unsafe b/c of turbulence.

(This reminds me of a Cathay or Thai flight where a winglet was deferred and the majority of pax refused to board the flight b/c it appeared to be unsafe.)

I have to admit that it is difficult to comfort those that have a phobia towards flying, but please trust the professionals. At the end of the day (or flight) the most dangerous part of the flight is getting to or from the airport.

[dl1812]

This aircraft "Appears to be" one that had suffered another hard landing (and structural damage) around 10 years ago, while flying for another airline.

Does that mean that we should "definitely, definitely" not fly on it ? - perhaps some of us have already, without knowing it....

Sorry, just seing the irony of this thread.

:rolleyes:


DL1812

[blue up]

How about a register of undamaged or unrepaired airframes? Might be a lot quicker to compile.



PS No 'cadets' at Thomson. Nobody below a few thousand hours.

[PAXboy]

To try and reassure the OP (korrol) I can say as a pax, that I read the 767 is eminently repairable and has been oft times - including from creases of this exact kind. This is due to the manner of it's construction and materials used.

The great thing about a/c is that, when it comes to be sold on, the technical log book will have full details of this problem and how it was resolved and by whom. Whereas, 11 years ago, when my lady's car suddenly twisted across the motorway and on to the hard shoulder with a broken steering system ...? Fortunately, she hit no one else and was uninjured as the car stayed right way up. The garage diagnosed that the car had been in a prang before she bought it six years earlier and the weakened part was just waiting to snap. The car had been bought from an authorised dealer of the car but the seller had not had to tell about that prang.

Lastly, before my flight on Sunday from AGP to LTN on a TOM 738, (landing on in rain and a wet runway and a crosswind) the greatest danger was the Spanish taxi driver. :}

[Shack37]

Thats the best joke I´ve read in ages, thanks for a good laugh...

@korrol: as Piltdown man pointed out, there is little parts that stay on an airplane for a long time. One of it is the fuselage.


Now I'm really confused, I thought the fuselage was one of the bigger bits.

[jont]

Never mind avoiding the a/c - think I want to avoid that crew.......:eek:
Cheers
Jont

[akerosid]

Aviation Herald has more information on this:

Accident: Thomson B763 at Bristol on Oct 3rd 2010, hard landing (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=431c99c1&opt=1)

[RB311]

Talking about repairing aircraft, what about the BAC 1-11 that force landed on a motorway in Germany having suffered double engine failure on take off. The only problem was that the German Autobahn engineers never thought to design the loading gauge of the overhead bridges to clear British designed T tailed airliners...

Some oversight..... but that's for another thread.

Anyway, when one came in contact with the other, the bridge won and the tail came off.

I understand that BAC engineers decided on reviewing the remains, that the aircraft could be rebuilt, it duly was, and returned to service.

By all accounts it turned out to be (in it's second life) one of the best flying examples (re) built!!

And to be fair, that would be a crew I would want to fly with again.

[jont]

.......yeh and if this thread turns out to be 'hero crew saves crippled jet' then I'm in, but if this is poor airmanship, then, I'm sorry - I'm out.
Cheers
Jont

[Flightrider]

And don't forget the BMA Viscount which was a "cut n shut" of two Viscounts both trashed in landing accidents. Sadly it met with a sorry end itself at a later date, but G-BMAT was widely regarded as the best one to fly out of the whole fleet. Streets ahead of G-BAPF which you could never get in trim, if I recall correctly.

[750XL]

Is there any images of the damage anywhere?

[PAXboy]

It would be usual for the carrier to try to prevent such images being taken.

[Right Way Up]

RB311,

By all accounts it turned out to be (in it's second life) one of the best flying examples (re) built!!

I think the aircraft you are describing was bought later by Dan-Air registered as G-AZED. It was well known not to land quite right! ;)

Back to the topic if the aircraft referred to by the OP was landing on 09 in recent weather i can only commiserate. That runway is a great leveller especially in a large aircraft.

[davelongdon]

Mod Note;

Image deleted - excessive image size was distorting the thread appearance on PPRuNe - Click HERE (http://daveburns.co.uk/IMG_1587[1].JPG) to see the image at the original site

[clipstone1]

if every damaged aircraft never flew again, that'd wipe out a massive percentage of those operating....how many have had patches, skins replaced, hail damage etc etc

[window-seat]

Yep,

If you are a fairly frequent traveller, than you will have already flown on many repaired aircraft without even knowing it in the same way you will have travelled on a bus, or boat which has at some point been damaged. The passengers should be at ease knowing that the professional drivers, sailors and pilots feel safe and happy enough to operate the repaired equipment without concern for their own saftey and of course the safety of their many passengers and crew.

If your confidence in the crews, engineers and authorities is that low, then I suggest you find another means of transportation.

[jont]

I think there could well be a confidence issue being raised here, after all the aircraft has been bent because something went wrong. I've no idea how close this was to a write off, so at the moment, my confidence is entitled to be low.
Cheers
Jont

[potkettleblack]

Confidence based on what? Extensive experience as a what exactly? Aircraft engineer, manufacturer, pilot or someone sipping shampoo ignoring the safety demos in the back????

[jont]

.......all of those if you wish. Bottom line - if I'm on board, I expect the highest of airmanship skills from the sharp end, at all times. I've said this before, if the aircraft was troubled, then this was a good result. If not, then I have the right to worry. Lets wait for the report.
Cheers
Jont

[TightSlot]

G-OOBK was previously involved in a hard landing incident at Ho Chi Minh City on Sep 19th 2000 resulting in what would appear to be similar damage to the same area. It was properly repaired, and given the fact that it has safely flown many thousands of hours since then, this would surely be of some reassurance to the OP.

It is probably unwise to become excessively interested in the maintenance and incident history of the aircraft on which you will fly in the future - I'd suggest that this is a potential pathway to madness! :)

After flying as crew for what is beginning to get dangerously close to 35 years (some of them with the technically outstanding airline company in question) I find it easiest not to ask such questions. I simply assume that our engineers provide their usual excellent maintenance standards, and that our flight crew act in a similar fashion. I have not yet been disappointed.

It's up to you, of course: Should you wish to be concerned, or monitor such incidents, please be our guest - I simply can't see that it will change your flying experience for the better.

Not trying to be unpleasant at all - simply trying to help.

[clipstone1]

Jont....

it should also be born in mind, the repair 10 years ago to this airframe was not actually undertaken by any airline operator, it was completed by the AOG team of the manufacturer of the airframe, which is likely to be the same position today.

repair cost wise, it's only likely to be about 20% of the insured value of the aircraft.....generally an aircraft becomes a "total loss" or "constructive total loss" when the repair cost is likely to exceed 60% of the hull value.

So there will be other aircraft out there which have suffered considerably more damage (ask Qantas) and are happily back in revenue service.

[airsmiles]

There's also a related thread somwhere about a RAM B763 with the same problem. Planes are the same as any other machine. If you damage it, as in the case of the RAM a/c, you fit a new panel, new frames or whatever and it is as good as new. In that case it was a Boeing repair project, carried out by Delta who had the local facilities. What's the problem?

If you marked each aircraft down for a past incident they'd be none left to fly on. There are many, many incidents like this each year and the repairs are professionally carried out by skilled engineers. The evidence just doesn't support the fact that aircraft are falling out of the sky due to previous damage/repair problems.

Just my few pence worth. I'll carry on sleeping in business class thanks and not worry about it.

[Saintsman]

I've seen some major repairs carried out in my time and some incredible engineering in order to do it. But they were all carried out in accordance with the manufacturer's structural repair manual requirements and quite often with the manufacturer's help. They end up as if they were new and sometimes stronger than new.

When an aircraft is correctly repaired, they do not take short cuts and they don't just make it cosmetically better. It's a complete job and the end product is just as good as the original and just as safe.

[Lotpax]

Clipstone1

Jont is not expressing concern about the repair, he is expressing concern about the root cause.

[750XL]

Apparently it's still sat in Bristol awaiting Boeing engineers to come and have a look at it.

Not the best airport to be stuck at either :ok:

[jont]

Lotpax. Thank you.
My concerns are indeed around the root cause. I have indicated this throughtout my contributions. I'm not quite as relaxed about this incident as others seem to be. I'm of course stating the obvious by saying that this aeroplane should not have been bent in the first place. If the crew were wrestling with factors beyond their control, then this was indeed a happy outcome. If this was a result of poor flying skills, then I have airmanship confidence issues. We know that it has been bent before - so the lessons should not be about how best we repair, but more about, how best we prevent.
Cheers
Jont

[TightSlot]

Absurd. Nobody is "relaxed" about an incident such as this.

There will be an enquiry by the AAIB. The results will be published and in the public domain. You will be able to read them. You will them make a decision as to when and if you choose to fly with this airline in the future as a result. While you are waiting for the results of the investigation to be published you may while away the time by reading other AAIB reports about other incidents affecting this and other airlines and make similar decisions. Your 'confidence' will be raised or lowered accordingly.

The OP's original point was about the maintenance and repair of the aircraft: Discussions about whether or not your confidence in the 'flying skills' of the crew involved should be maintained are off-topic and pointless, as are hand-wringing proclamations about "how best we prevent".

Back on topic please

[jont]

I am indeed awaiting the AAIB report.
Thought your post was a little harsh, but many apologies for going off topic.
Cheers
Jont

[TightSlot]

Well, I'm sitting outside my HKG hotel at midday having just woken up, paid a fortune for an espresso and fired up a marlboro light as consolation. This thread was waiting to perform the rest of the wake-up call.

I've deleted a number of posts that were off topic, but noted the comments. Thank you to those who chose to post in a balanced and reasonable way.

I am absolutely certain that my moderating style is less than perfect: However, it is what it is, which is the best that we're all going to get given that this is a part-time unpaid job, squeezed in between rostered flights. I don't propose to justify it further than that.

Let's all get back on topic please

It's Tequila time.

[RingwaySam]

It appears the aircraft has now been repaired and will position from Bristol to London Gatwick today - The flight should depart at 1010z and arrive into Gatwick at approximately 1045z.