Boeing 777 loses wing panel over Osaka [Archive]

A0283

24th Sep 2017, 21:10

A panel broke off from the wing of a AF/KLM airlines over Osaka flight to Amsterdam

A car was seriously damaged when part of a 777 wing landed on it in the Japanese city of Osaka.The panel, which weighed more than 4kg (9lb), fell from a KLM plane shortly after it departed Kansai International Airport on Saturday.It damaged the car's roof and smashed its rear window after falling more than 2,000 m. No one was injured in the incident but KLM has launched an investigation.The flight landed safely at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport later on Saturday.
The airline stated: "KLM regrets this incident and has immediately launched an investigation into the causes."
They added they were "in close contact with Japanese civil aviation authorities and Boeing".

Romeo E.T.

25th Sep 2017, 00:35

BREAKING A piece of KLM Boeing 777-200 #KL868 fell into car shortly after takeoff from Osaka | AIRLIVE.net (http://www.airlive.net/breaking-a-4-3-kg-piece-of-klm-boeing-777-200-fell-shortly-after-takeoff-from-osaka/)

http://www.airlive.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/n-panel-a-20170925-696x883.jpg

judging by the color pattern, it is a portion of the fuselage, and not the wing, as reported

jolihokistix

25th Sep 2017, 00:41

In a different article they reported a body panel from the root/base of the right wing.

clark y

25th Sep 2017, 01:17

Not much damage. Was it even screwed on?

Lantern10

25th Sep 2017, 03:01

How can so many rivets just pop at once.

underfire

25th Sep 2017, 03:06

from the internet...

hence the confusion on the wing vs body...

https://i.imgur.com/xVr3agL.jpg

dixi188

25th Sep 2017, 07:17

Looks like a screwed on panel to me.
Did the aircraft have some maintenance done whilst at Osaka?

andrasz

25th Sep 2017, 07:23

Looking at the condition it could just be put back on again. And some people whine that they don't make things like they used to ... :)

I'm sure someone who already realised there is a plastic bag full of small bolts in his pocket is now pretty embarrassed.

Old Fella

25th Sep 2017, 07:28

Looks like a screwed on panel to me.
Did the aircraft have some maintenance done whilst at Osaka?

I'm with you dixi188.

jrmyl

25th Sep 2017, 07:34

Could that possibly be the panel covering the wing escape slide? ANA had a 767 that lost two of those recently due to a malfunction of the escape slide inflation device. Maybe same issue here.

Sqwak7700

25th Sep 2017, 07:41

Let's see the "heavily damaged" car please. That panel looks intact. How much damage could it have made? I'm guessing it gyrocopted down.

fox niner

25th Sep 2017, 07:51

It fell off a 777-200 ph-bqc which does not have a wing slide.

daelight

25th Sep 2017, 07:54

Let's see the "heavily damaged" car please. That panel looks intact. How much damage could it have made? I'm guessing it gyrocopted down.

The car's right-rear window was broken from footage I saw on news channel (was taped over) Looked like it just glanced the rear window, not a scratch anywhere else on the car. Driver was an elderly chap and a bit shocked by it, of course.

DaveReidUK

25th Sep 2017, 08:00

Larger version of the photo here: https://i0.wp.com/www.transponder1200.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PANEL-FUSELAJA-777-KLM-PH-BQC.jpg?resize=1000%2C1268

The countersinks are clearly visible, so we're not looking at screws that have pulled though.

I'd be looking at when the panel was last removed (presumably on a maintenance check) and examining the possibility that the wrong size of fastener was used to reattach it.

At least it wasn't a windscreen ...

TURIN

25th Sep 2017, 08:28

At least it wasn't a windscreen ...

Leave it...:O

Ancient-Mariner

25th Sep 2017, 09:12

Was it correct to continue to Amsterdam? I assume here that the panel and aircraft were identified shortly after the event.

ErwinS

25th Sep 2017, 09:17

The bracket behind the panel cracked. Known issue on the 777. Panel was secured correctly.

So move along pls... nothing to see.

sleeper

25th Sep 2017, 09:48

I doubt the crew was aware of the lost panel. By the time the identification of the panel went up the chain of command to the airline, the aircraft would have been well underway to its destination.

the_stranger

25th Sep 2017, 10:44

Was it correct to continue to Amsterdam? I assume here that the panel and aircraft were identified shortly after the event.

Why not? Mostly it's just a small performance and fuel penalty, not a significant reason to return/divert.

Of course specific information has to come from boeing, but any airline with this problem can gat that information quite easily if needed.

.Scott

25th Sep 2017, 11:23

The bracket behind the panel cracked. Known issue on the 777. Panel was secured correctly.

So move along pls... nothing to see.I'm not so sure about that. The screws are missing. And there is one hole in the light blue area that looks damaged - the one that would be at the top left on the plane, top right in the photo. I am suspecting that it was attached with only one or two screws.

A0283

25th Sep 2017, 11:43

Lets assume the panel was found as shown in the photos...

As DaveReidUK says no visible damage to the countersink holes.
Also no visible bolts or parts of them.
Which might suggest the panel had been temporarily fastened by maintenance with one or a few bolts or temporary fasteners.

Take the lady up. Vibration and force shears off the first. Then the second. Releasing the panel. Little visible damage.

Nothing to see ? I disagree with that. Shedding parts is always a serious issue. Both for plane strikes and striking anything else.
Have not heard about the bracket failing. What damage would you have seen on the panel if it did? You would expect at least part of that attached... With some bolts left... Or not?

jolihokistix

25th Sep 2017, 14:45

Might be interesting to see the relevant shots of the aircraft on arrival.

underfire

25th Sep 2017, 16:45

The panel is made of nonmetal compound materials and is part of the base of the right wing.
Explains why it isnt bent....

https://i.imgur.com/6EtREAK.jpg

Lets assume this aircraft was assembled first, then painted. Also assume that if it was a lapped piece, (underneath another) the paint would reflect this.

I do no notice any paint circle of base primer that would indicate fasteners missing. I would think that if it was fastened, then painted, removing the fasteners would leave a ring of base primer. Looking at the image, it appears that some of the holes are painted.

https://i.imgur.com/x64FJtW.jpg

If a piece was lapped, again underneath would prevent paint of the lapped section, and would be evident.
What I note in this portion of the panel, is full paint, and no fastener holes at all.

https://i.imgur.com/saMErnS.jpg

DaveReidUK

25th Sep 2017, 17:16

Lets assume this aircraft was assembled first, then painted.

I think that's a safe assumption. :O

But on the other hand, if the panel has been replaced at some time during the aircraft's 14 years in service, it's likely that it would have been painted before fitting, which would explain the paint in the countersinks.

underfire

25th Sep 2017, 17:25

:Dtrue..

a flexible piece that comes off inflight, with little/no visible damage or paint missing from the fastener holes....it could happen.

a 777 on the way to paint, showing the panel..

https://i.imgur.com/o5EQFFX.jpg

WillowRun 6-3

25th Sep 2017, 17:38

Though not directly applicable to this specific, particular occurrence, nonetheless the facts - as they have emerged so far - do tend to suggest validity and importance to the question whether EU 261 and airline penalties for delays can compromise, and may in fact already be compromising, safety. That is, to the extent maintenance issues are not typically or textually considered to qualify as extraordinary circumstances such as to cancel the penalty obligation, this state of regulatory affairs tends to motivate, or create an incentive for, less rigor in maintenance practice. Not wanting to cause a delay on a flight, someone forgets (forgive the paltry pun) to turn the screws. Or the fasteners.

DaveReidUK

25th Sep 2017, 18:21

I think you are correct in that the pressures of EU 261, if any, aren't relevant to this incident.

The investigation will no doubt be able to determine when that panel was last disturbed, and it's very unlikely to have been on a turnround.

It may or may not be relevant that the aircraft in question had a couple of 3-day spells on the ground at AMS at the end and beginning of August, possibly on some sort of maintenance input.

That panel doesn't look like it's been on the aircraft for all that long.

.Scott

25th Sep 2017, 18:27

If you look at this top row of holes and number them from left to right 1 through 7, then the first two holes (1 and 2) look a bigger than the others.

http://www.sbowden.org/misc/PANEL-777-KLM-2.png

The bush is behind hole #1, and you can see quite a bit of it. My guess would be that the there was a screw in hole #1 temporarily holding the panel in place - and that screw is still with the aircraft.
Hole #2 also looks a bit larger than the next 5, so maybe there was a screw there as well.

Or, perhaps holes 1 and 2 took bigger screws. But even at that, hole #1 looks pretty big.

.Scott

25th Sep 2017, 18:47

Why not? Mostly it's just a small performance and fuel penalty, not a significant reason to return/divert.

Of course specific information has to come from Boeing, but any airline with this problem can get that information quite easily if needed.I don't know. If I was told that I just lost 5 square feet of my fuselage paneling, I would worry about what else was left undone.

ErwinS

25th Sep 2017, 19:16

Lets say I am (very) close to the fire. No need to say more. Just want to clear KLM mx.

DaveReidUK

25th Sep 2017, 19:45

On the contrary. If your aim is to eliminate one of the (several) possible scenarios, you're going to have to come up with a lot more than that.

A0283

25th Sep 2017, 21:29

Aerospace safety investigations on accidents and in this case an incident ... are about finding out what happened, then why it happened, followed by devising and implementing ways to prevent it from occurring again. They are neither about clearing nor blaming anyone.

At this stage it still is about ...'What'... Which means, like @DaveReidUK posted, listing possible scenarios. Hope for better and more detailed pictures as well as more information.

@ErwinS... Would be interesting if you could provide public domain links to similar cases (you suggested there are some) or Boeing bulletins.

TURIN

25th Sep 2017, 22:02

Depends which part of the world you live/work. :(

clark y

25th Sep 2017, 22:06

Be good to see a photo of the panel surround on this particular aircraft as it arrived.
Also the back of the panel.

Jet II

25th Sep 2017, 22:34

ErwinS

26th Sep 2017, 10:16

A I said;-) Thiswas indeed a bracket failure. But people like to speculate ....

Old Fella

26th Sep 2017, 12:39

The bracket behind the panel cracked. Known issue on the 777. Panel was secured correctly.

So move along pls... nothing to see.

If we are to accept the info from Erwin S quoted above we should also ask "where is the bracket and, if a bracket failed, where are the numerous attachment screws which held the panel in place?" Having removed and replaced many panels during my aviation career I have no doubt this is the result of a maintenance error.

ErwinS

26th Sep 2017, 13:27

Think what you want. Just saying it is not a mx error.

And no I won't post any official Boeing docs.

underfire

26th Sep 2017, 19:46

Sure, blame it on the old "bracket failure" thing :*

Okay, fair enough

DaveReidUK

26th Sep 2017, 22:02

A I said;-) This was indeed a bracket failure.

Out of interest, which side(s) of the panel are attached to the bracket in question ?

And what are the other sides of the panel attached to ?

If the bracket failed, why isn't the failed part of the bracket still attached to the panel ?

In fact, how come every single screw has disappeared ?

Wodrick

26th Sep 2017, 22:39

This is a panel with about 36 screw fasteners. It is not a quickly removable panel therefore not removed during line maintenance. What lies behind it I wonder.
Got to be maintenance error although I don't have any 777 familiarity, I do have a few other types in 36 years LAE.

Chu Chu

26th Sep 2017, 23:13

Maybe if the bracket cracked through the screw holes? Or through some of them and then the rest of the screws broke or pulled out? I'm not really even convincing myself, though.

lomapaseo

27th Sep 2017, 00:20

there is always the possibility that the screws were in place and unscrewed by themselves due to undamped vibrations stemming from another supporting bracket that failed.

but gee gosh why are we pursuing this in R&N ?

ErwinS

27th Sep 2017, 06:59

Unbelievable to see that some of you are stretching this discussion.

I told you what the reason was for the departing panel. If you don't believe this be my guest. But know this that it's complete nonsens to say it's a mx error.

KLM is not to blame.

Maybe a schock to ya'll but things can break on aircraft, It is not immediate human error.

.Scott

27th Sep 2017, 11:27

Unbelievable to see that some of you are stretching this discussion.
I think we need to extend the discussion at least to the point where we understand your report.
So far, all you have said is that there is bracket that commonly fails. Presumably one that is holding this panel in place. If that is the only information you have, I would not conclude that a bracket failure was the immediate cause of the panel separation - because all of the screws are missing. Although I might guess that a bracket problem triggered the maintenance that left the panel with most or all of its screws missing.

But you seem to be convinced otherwise, and perhaps justly so. That would mean that you have other evidence that you have not shared. Perhaps you have seen other photos, or the bracket itself, or you know some other detail of the previous panel bracket issues.

Whatever it is, can you fill us in? At least in broad terms? Otherwise we are left with your assertion and the suspicion that you are misinterpreting whatever that additional evidence is.

A0283

27th Sep 2017, 12:21

@ErwinS - I have no cause to doubt what you say and think that it is said with the best intentions. But would like to add that the JTSB will most likely stretch a discussion like this into an independent Incident Report. It is not for the airline or maintenance organization, nor the manufacturer, to have the final say in what happened and why.

What surprises me and a number of others in this thread is, that on the photos that we have there is hardly any visible damage and the are no (bend or sheared) bolts or other tears or fragments. So what was the detachment sequence? Did the flight crew register it?

It put me on the track of thinking about what would be the difference in damage between hinged-panels (with failing latches) and non-hinged bolted-panels. In this case it looks like the panel popped or blew straight outward and did not hit the fuselage or any surfaces. Sounds special. And if it happened like that you could wonder if a pilot would be able to notice anything at all.

In another case of an 777, a hinged ADU-door of about 70lbs, detaching at 6,000ft, the pilots only felt a light shudder. And only investigated when the cabin crew reported something hitting the fuselage. They found the fuselage was penetrated and the plane dumped fuel and returned.
In that case the plane had only just left maintenance and was inspected a number of times, but the investigation concluded that only 1 of 13 latches had been closed properly. The probability of missing a countersunk bolthead is lower I guess than missing a latch.

So not stretching the discussion but interested in more facts.

Band a Lot

27th Sep 2017, 12:57

The bracket failure will be that of the bracket that supported the screws box in the store room - thus leaving no screws to fit.

Or any other regular failure will be covered by a AD or SB by now or a grounding of type.

Or that is what happens in the real World.

underfire

27th Sep 2017, 13:30

okay Erwin, I couldnt find any images that showed the back fairing, but there is one of the front, so it is probably similar?

https://i.imgur.com/iSRu3Fv.jpg

As many others have noted, the bracket seems like if it cracked or broke, at least some of the fasteners from either the bracket, or the attachment to the other panels, and even part of some bracket attached...it does seem very odd that there are no fasteners, no bracket, and really no evidence of any pulled through the fairing.

Since this failure did land in an urban area and cause damage, we are all going to find out anyways...

Jet II

28th Sep 2017, 01:46

Cant believe we have 3 pages about a lost panel..:uhoh:

The reason why this panel separates is that the support bracket design isn't rigid enough to stop the panel from vibrating and that leads to the screws migrating out. Its not unusual to see screws on a turnaround that have started to migrate out and this can be exacerbated by having worn anchor nuts or incorrect length screws - that being said I have seen this panel lost on a newish aircraft from Boeing that hadn't been through base maintenance and had never had that panel removed during airline service.

paradoxbox

28th Sep 2017, 06:39

I don't know if this adds to the discussion at all; the incidents could be unrelated and I haven't found any news so far about investigation details but..

Earlier this month an ANA 767 based out of RJAA (If I remember right) lost a panel TWICE. I thought it was bad Chinese maintenance when I read about the 767 as it had been flying out of a Chinese airport, but now who knows. Of course it could just be a coincidence. Lost the panel on one flight, landed safely at destination, had panel replaced and then it came off again in flight. Both times landed without incident but I don't have details on what the butcher's bill was re: airframe damage.

Three panels, same airport (different companies) in the space of a month - could be unlucky coincidence but it is worth checking out the maintenance procedures as well as preflight procedures. Everyone be vigilant on your walkarounds. Hard to spot missing screws on the ground but do your best.. Maybe walkarounds with the 20something year old flight attendants with their eagle eyes would be a nice diversion from the normal :D

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2017, 06:44

Cant believe we have 3 pages about a lost panel.

Could be to do with the fact that we've been presented with several conflicting theories, yours included.

KelvinD

28th Sep 2017, 08:03

And just now (08:00 GMT), BBC are reporting a 767 lost a panel weighing 3Kgs while flying over Japan. Is it panel shedding season in Asia?

TURIN

28th Sep 2017, 08:18

I've been working the 777 in line maintenance for almost 20 years. I've never seen or heard of an issue with that panel or that area. The hydraulic ADP access panel that came off a BA 777 some years ago is the only significant one that springs to mind.

.Scott

28th Sep 2017, 11:11

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2017, 12:17

Well that certainly matches what we see in the photo.

Lots of alternative explanations match what we see in the photo, some more feasible than others.

My favourite one involves a fairy with a screwdriver.

Jet II

28th Sep 2017, 12:40

Jet II

28th Sep 2017, 12:49

Well that certainly matches what we see in the photo.
However, I wouldn't expect the conversation to end with everyone accepting the notion that a panel falling off a plane is to be expected.

Its not expected, just not unknown. I dont know what the rate of failure is but like everything else on an aeroplane below a certain percentage then the failure rate is acceptable. To re-engineer the brackets and make them more secure would involve putting the panel fasteners though the skin and then you get into yet another load of stress calculations and possible redesigns of the skin panels. Is all that cost worthwhile for an incident that maybe reoccurs once every 2 - 3 years?

.Scott

28th Sep 2017, 12:58

My favourite one involves a fairy with a screwdriver.
http://www.sbowden.org/misc/twilight-with-screwdriver.jpg

.Scott

28th Sep 2017, 13:00

Is all that cost worthwhile for an incident that maybe reoccurs once every 2 - 3 years?It depends on what it hits and where it ends up.
At least there aren't any more SSTs to take out. In that case, it was a wear strip that had fallen from a Continental flight.

Jet II

28th Sep 2017, 13:11

It depends on what it hits and where it ends up.
At least there aren't any more SSTs to take out. In that case, it was a wear strip that had fallen from a Continental flight.

Well that was more down to Air France than anything falling off an aeroplane.

Everything in aviation is based on cost-benefit, would it be cheaper to re-engineer the aircraft or live with this pretty rare issue and try to mitigate it?.

underfire

28th Sep 2017, 13:48

no wonder it looks like fresh paint.

SeenItAll

28th Sep 2017, 15:07

If vibration is causing the screws to loosen, I still think it is surprising that it happened to all two dozen of them at once. But isn't Loctite (http://www.loctiteproducts.com/threadlockers.shtml) a simple solution?

Cazalet33

28th Sep 2017, 15:10

I hope that Japan invoices Boeing for tax on that thing at a rate of 220%.

lomapaseo

28th Sep 2017, 17:00

If vibration is causing the screws to loosen, I still think it is surprising that it happened to all two dozen of them at once.

It's not clear from some fuzzy pictures that all screws backed out. Some could have simply had their heads popped off from vibration. It happens to rivets like that.

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2017, 17:23

Whatever the failure mode, it's clearly known by now as the aircraft in question went back into service yesterday.

It's only a matter of time before the details find their way into the public domain.

CONSO

28th Sep 2017, 17:35

It appears to me that the panel is NOT part of the fuselage- pressurized section and is strictly/simply a fairing panel. And IMHO as such - a bit of locktite or application of almost any tacky damping material on the inside would suffice to dampen the ' vibration' problems. I find it hard to believe that all fasteners simply vibrated out a the same time.

Octane

28th Sep 2017, 21:31

Using Loctite would make removing the panel somewhat difficult....

underfire

28th Sep 2017, 22:07

verything in aviation is based on cost-benefit, would it be cheaper to re-engineer the aircraft or live with this pretty rare issue and try to mitigate it?.

From many of the posts, including mx people, this issue appears to be far from rare.

In this case, it landed in an urban environment, and smashed an occupied vehicle window. Could have easily hit a person. It took this long to elevate the issue, but luckily, so far, no loss of life, but certainly the potential is there.
The lazy B's nonchalant attitude to pieces falling off of aircraft for years is a bit concerning.

lomapaseo

29th Sep 2017, 00:07

You really can't achieve reasonable freedom from risk (Safety) by assuming equal "what-ifs" without data to back them up. Breaking a windshield is minor and of course it missed hitting somebody on the head based on the area exposure vs occurrence loss rate

Parts that float to the ground under high windage loads have historically low risk of severe harm. Of course they are not acceptable occurrences and some level of control of the occurrence need be made. However I didn't think that this thread was about the adequacy of the repair incorporation

Jet II

29th Sep 2017, 01:16

From many of the posts, including mx people, this issue appears to be far from rare.

Not sure it isn't that rare - yes its a known problem with the 777 but given the amount in service and the flying hours that they are racking up, if this type of incident happens once a year then its not that big a deal.

You have to remember that most of the time this problem is caught before it progresses to panel loss - so if the Engineer spots loose screws on a turnround and retorques them it becomes a non-issue. The first panel loss I was involved in we highlighted the issue to Base Maintenance who then started to carry out a specific check on the screws on this panel at minor checks and also made sure that the Line guys were aware of the problem. That was over 10 years ago and the operator hasn't suffered another panel loss.

underfire

29th Sep 2017, 01:24

loma,

The part smashed a window on a vehicle. What would be the result of a human interface? Landing in a highly populated urban area? Couple that with a history of failures with apparently no sucess.

The reality is the number of instances where the panels have come off. It appears that sometime multiples in a single day, at ONE airport. According to mx personnel, this has been a problem for some time.

Liability, coupled with history of failure. Had the panel injured the occupants of the vehicle, either physically or mentally, the investigation would find that this was a known, recuring issue, that Boeing was very well aware of, and decided, for whatever reason, not to remedy, but simply to fix on occurance.
That equals $$$$$$$

Uplinker

29th Sep 2017, 01:32

And just now (08:00 GMT), BBC are reporting a 767 lost a panel weighing 3Kgs while flying over Japan. Is it panel shedding season in Asia?

No, I think you will find it is the way journalists work.

A thing happens, and the journos look at the 'wires' (24 hour news feeds from companies such as Reuters).

Because the 'thing' is fresh in their minds, they suddenly notice other occurrences of the same thing*, and report those too.

After writing a few stories, they get bored with that subject and move on.

Which is why things often seem to happen in threes, or as an 'outbreak' of similar events.

*which are actually happening all the time.

.Scott

29th Sep 2017, 12:33

It's not clear from some fuzzy pictures that all screws backed out. Some could have simply had their heads popped off from vibration. It happens to rivets like that.From the somewhat-fuzzy photo I showed earlier in this thread, it looks as though the head of the top left screw simply pulled through the panel - causing the hole to become enlarged. The next hole over is also enlarged, but not as much - so maybe that was one where the head of the screw was worn off. The other holes are smaller - consistent with screws vibrating loose.

So it would not appear that they all vibrated loose at the same time. What we see is consistent with the problem working its way to the top left of the panel. Then with only two screws left holding the panel, vibration was no longer an issue - one wore/sheered away from motion and the other just tore free.

I'm not saying that this is what happen, but it is a plausible scenario.

DaveReidUK

29th Sep 2017, 14:03

From the somewhat-fuzzy photo I showed earlier in this thread, it looks as though the head of the top left screw simply pulled through the panel - causing the hole to become enlarged.

There's a link to a clearer version of the photo in my post #14.

I can't see any holes that look like a screw head has pulled through them.

CONSO

29th Sep 2017, 18:50

FWIW a close look at two- three holes lower right above curb in photos- blue background- shows ' smoke' like traces typical of metal to metal rubbing- fretting, possibly indicating loose fasteners thru whatever bracket below- especially if bracket is aluminum alloy.

Most of the other fastener holes seem=- repeat seem to have paint in the countersink area ( reflections make it difficult to be sure ). had there been a vibration problem the paint would hav bee rubbed or flaked off exposing the bare material( aluminum or composite under the countersink. The panel may have been recently painted while held in place by only a few fasteners in the corners thus the edges of the panels -- appear-- repeat -- appear -- to have been freeshly painted also.

Just my .00002 cents worth having dealt with fastening issues- sealing issues- on both composites and metals and fatigue tests way too many moons ago

.Scott

3rd Oct 2017, 13:18

There's a link to a clearer version of the photo in my post #14.

I can't see any holes that look like a screw head has pulled through them.The photo I showed is from the one you linked to. I just rotated it to its upright position and cropped it to view that top edge.

To compare hole sizes, notice how much foliage and brick shows through that top left hole. It looks wide enough to pass the head of a screw - at least given one that had been partially loosened with vibration and allow to bend slightly.

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2017, 14:30

It looks wide enough to pass the head of a screw - at least given one that had been partially loosened with vibration and allow to bend slightly.

I'd be interested to know how a relatively small light alloy panel could exert enough force on a screw to bend it.

TURIN

3rd Oct 2017, 14:46

Isn't that panel made of composite (eg fibreglass honeycomb) material?

underfire

4th Oct 2017, 15:18

TOKYO
A panel weighing three kilograms fell from a plane onto a factory near Tokyo, Japanese officials said Thursday, the country's second case in a week after a similar part landed on a car.

No injuries were reported after the panel was discovered inside the factory near Narita Airport in Chiba Prefecture, a spokesman for All Nippon Airways told AFP.

"After consulting with a panel manufacturer, we identified that the panel was one that fell from our plane," a Boeing 767 flying from the southeastern Chinese city of Amoi, said the spokesman, Hiroyuki Miyagawa.

The panel was used as a cover for the emergency slide and ANA said a faulty bottle containing nitrogen gas was to blame.

The nitrogen is used to blow the panel off the plane, allowing the slide to deploy in an emergency but the bottle leaked, the spokesman said, adding it had since been replaced, and apologising.

https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/s8-393NFKww/sddefault.jpg

HPG blows a panel for the slide off the side of the ac, and no one is aware of it? After calling Boeing, Oh hey, look, that was from one of our planes? Walking around the ac, no one notices a piece that big missing with a big yellow cargo slide showing?

paradoxbox

5th Oct 2017, 06:16

DaveReidUK

5th Oct 2017, 06:22

It seems to me that this has got to be more than a coincidence.

A coincidence, by definition, is hard to believe. Do you have any evidence?

Old Fella

5th Oct 2017, 06:41

That makes 4 panel incidents within the space of a month for aircraft flying out of or to Japan.

It seems to me that this has got to be more than a coincidence. Someone needs to audit the maintenance being conducted in Japan. 4 panels in a month is a public safety threat - Tokyo is EXTREMELY densely populated, it is a miracle that this did not kill somebody.

Like most things in Japan, in my experience, aircraft maintenance is usually of a high standard. As you posted, the aircraft were flying out of or into Japan.

paradoxbox

5th Oct 2017, 07:49

A coincidence, by definition, is hard to believe. Do you have any evidence?

I do not have any evidence, but I am a strong believer that a preventative is better than a cure. IF, by any chance, there is a maintenance problem occurring, we should try to find it.

Like I said, it could be a coincidence, but 4 panels falling to the ground in the space of a month is rather excessive, do you not agree?

My first thoughts were that poor Chinese maintenance was responsible for the dual 767 panel departure issue, but now after the KLM panel issue, I have started to wonder.

I think it is better to be safe than sorry.

I do think that Japanese people take more pride in their work than any other nation on earth, and maintenance in Japan is probably above average quality. However, due to cultural issues there are a lot of potential problems which can occur even if the maintenance people believe they are doing the right thing.

Again, it could just be coincidence, but 4 structural panel failures in the space of a month warrants investigation IMO.

I'm not trying to lay blame here. I just think that we all deserve to fly on safe aircraft and if there is something wrong with maintenance procedures we should find it ASAP. Japanese people have an incredibly strong work ethic but it can work against safety if the procedure is wrong or improperly instructed.

I believe fatigue is a very overlooked factor in Japan, especially in maintenance where regulations are basically non existent, so I believe this is worth investigating, even if only slightly. Again, not trying to lay blame here, please just understand that Tokyo is an extremely densely populated area and we cannot afford to have panels falling from the sky like this. We have enough problems with iced up aircraft shedding ice over the city since the new routing has been under consideration (An absolutely horrible idea imo). If the problem lies here in Japan, it should be investigated and a solution found pronto.

Piltdown Man

5th Oct 2017, 08:03

Maybe this panel loss is ‘normal’ but Japanese housing density enables more thorough reporting?

nomorecatering

5th Oct 2017, 08:11

It's going to be an interesting insurance claim form.

Make of other vehicle involved..........Boeing 777.

Your speed at the time of the incident.......60 kph.

Other vehicles speed at time of incident.......900 kph.

Location.....above 10,000 feet.

Did other driver stop to exchange details: No

Does that qualify as leaving the scene of the accident without exchanging details.

KelvinD

5th Oct 2017, 08:42

DaveReid: What about the possibility of the wrong screws being fitted? That is what happened with the BA BAC 1-11 many moons ago.
As for the ANA 767 nitrogen bottle; when does an explosion become a leak?

DaveReidUK

5th Oct 2017, 11:30

I believe I may have mentioned that possibility, and drawn the parallel:

I'd be looking at when the panel was last removed (presumably on a maintenance check) and examining the possibility that the wrong size of fastener was used to reattach it.

At least it wasn't a windscreen ...

:O

Jetjock330

5th Oct 2017, 12:30

The same panel was lost into MAN in Aug on B777-300ER. Not able to mention the airline. Unmentionable. �� A few hours delay to manufacture a new panel and go again!

.Scott

5th Oct 2017, 13:08

That makes 4 panel incidents within the space of a month for aircraft flying out of or to Japan.

It seems to me that this has got to be more than a coincidence.A coincidence, by definition, is hard to believe. Do you have any evidence?It depends on how small a sample Japan is compared to all of aviation. Statistically, you determine the "confidence interval" by asking how well the data matches given the "null hypothesis". In this case, the "null hypothesis" would be that there was nothing special about Japan or that specific month - and that any deviation from the norm was created the result of pure chance.
Since we don't have stats from the rest of the world, we have a choice:
1) The confidence level that there is something about Japan and/or this past month that adversely affects panels is very high (>99%).
2) Or, there are many, many panels falling from planes around the world.

KelvinD

5th Oct 2017, 13:11

Sorry for that Dave. Me culpa! (Which could mean I really ought to look first!)

underfire

5th Oct 2017, 14:00

As for the ANA 767 nitrogen bottle; when does an explosion become a leak?

a very big, fast leak, but still a leak no less. Cant be saying that bottles are exploding and blowing off panels now can we?

2) Or, there are many, many panels falling from planes around the world.

ding, ding, ding ding! :D

jolihokistix

5th Oct 2017, 14:31

Many planes into a small area, and Japan is quite efficient at picking up and reporting on events like this, especially when they are already jittery re US military flights overhead.

underfire

5th Oct 2017, 22:02

More panels missing....

Earlier this month, plastic panels for storing a plane's emergency slide fell to the ground from an ANA passenger plane on two occasions -- along flight paths to Narita Airport -- on Sept. 7 and 8, respectively. The panel that fell on Sept. 7 was confirmed to have been the one found at the steel factory but the one that dropped on Sept. 8 still remains missing.

Unclear if this was from the same aircraft. :sad: It also appears that the missing panels were not noticed, as previous articles stated the panel was traced back to the aircraft.?

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20170928/p2a/00m/0na/012000c

Looks like the most profitible business arm of Boeing is replacement panels...

EDIT:

TOKYO
Part of a fuselage panel on an All Nippon Airways (ANA) aircraft fell off the same plane on two consecutive days, the airline said Friday.

At around 7 p.m. on Thursday, Flight 936, a Boeing 767 operated by ANA, landed at Narita International Airport from Xiamen City, China. During the post-flight maintenance inspection, it was discovered that a reinforced plastic panel attached to the fuselage near the left wing had fallen off during the flight, Fuji TV reported. The panel measured 135 by 60 cms and weighed about three kilograms. The panel was replaced.

On Friday at around 5:20 p.m., the same plane arrived at Narita airport from Xiamen City, China, after which it was discovered that the new panel had also fallen off.

The detached panels in the two consecutive incidents have not been located and ANA said it does not know at what point in the flights they fell off.

now, about the liability......

Volume

9th Nov 2017, 13:24

Finally a bit like BA 5390, wrong length of attach bolts used, additional stress on the attach bracket, braked failed, panel departed.

Japanese preliminary report (www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/iken-teikyo/PHBQC20170923.pdf)

MarkerInbound

10th Nov 2017, 01:15

Narita has a procedure for reporting Parts Departing Aircraft (PDA) reports.

"In order to secure the safety of aircraft operations and to rectify the issues of objects falling from aircraft operating in the vicinity of Narita Intl Airport, airline operators are required to notify the NAA Ramp Control Office of any "PARTS DEPARTING AIRCRAFT" from flights to/from Narita Intl Airport, without delay. This information will be shared by relevant parties in order to prevent recurrence of such."

jolihokistix

10th Nov 2017, 05:12

And so they come raining down...
https://japantoday.com/category/national/korean-air-plane-part-may-have-fallen-off-during-flight-to-narita

paradoxbox

21st Nov 2017, 03:21

DaveReidUK

21st Nov 2017, 06:31

Unless you have evidence that the panels in question had been disturbed on a turnround or maintenance in Japan (the KLM 777 almost certainly wasn't) then that's not a conclusion that can be justified based on what we know so far.

lomapaseo

21st Nov 2017, 16:26

Something weird is going on in Japan, Korea and China.

I do not believe it is a coincidence any longer. That makes about 5 or 6 mysterious panel failures from aircraft entering or departing Japan in the space of 2-3 months.

Maintenance staff in one of these countries is causing these problems. It could be incompetence, lack of training or malice, but something is happening to cause these panels to fall so frequently. Investigation ought to be mandatory. The Japanese government is dragging its feet as usual. Sloth. Sooner or later a panel is going to find its way into the wing or a stabilizer and kill the entire aircraft.

Whatever is causing this needs to be found pronto.

Too much of a stretch to draw such a conclusion.

Just as likely that it is related to overall occurrence rate and the likelihood of finding such parts in open fields.

I've seen cases where parts were accidently found by hunters deep in the woods many years later. Of course no airline would claim them. On the other side of the coin there were internal reports in airlines citing missing parts over the years.