Springbok Winglet missing in Mumbai

[windtalker]

on operating today morning, at mumbai airport i was amazed to see the right winglet of the A-340 missing.

any one has any clue ?

:confused:

[eal401]

Could have been removed following damage, collision with ground equipment etc.

No major problem, the a/c can still fly. Have seen photos of a 744 in similar condition. The a/c will remain in service until it reaches a suitable location to undergo repair.

[RUDAS]

winglets are not normally on the MEL (at least on the 747-400s),so i dont think that would be a big problem for the 340 either. I actually saw that very acft taking off yesterday morning from joburg for mumbai,didnt notice a winglet missing though...

[Flightmech]

RUDAS,

Surely winglets are included on its CDL though, due to the performance/ fuel penalty with it being missing? I,m sure some types require removal of the other winglet too??

[gas path]

Funnily enough but we have a 744 inbound from BOM minus it's left hand winglet following a 'taxi ' incident. I wonder if they had a coming together?:ooh: :eek: :ooh:

[twenty eight]

Did i hear somewhere that the 744 can fly with one missing but cant fly with both gone,because Boeing didn't test fly the aircraft in that configuration.


twenty eight

[DoMePlease]

I thought the absence of the item in the MEL meant a no-go?

[mutt]

twenty eight,

The B747-400 domestic version doesnt have any winglets!

DoMePlease,

The MEL will define the number of equipment items installed on an aircraft and the number required for dispatch, the winglet isnt classed as Equipment, so its not in the MEL. It is however included in the CDL.


Mutt.

[TheOddOne]

We had one BA's 744's arrive one morning (when they were still on the sttrength at LGW!) minus 1 winglet and the crew explained that the fuel burn penalty was less than 1%. No discernable asymetric effects and they confirmed they departed knowing it was absent.

I guess that they make a difference to fuel burn over the lifetime of the a/c but not enough to affect an individual flight.

Certianly a test for our powers of observation at the end of a night shift, though!!

The Odd One

[747FOCAL]

The 744 can fly with one or both missing. 20,000 lbs reduction in MTOW per winglet and a decent hit to fuel burn. Air Canada was flying one around some time back for several months minus one winglet. :)

[tired]

Like the 744, the 340 can fly with one winglet missing, but not both. (No - I don't know why!!) There are perfromance penalties, both in MTOW and in fuel burn, but I'm not clever enough to remember them. (That's what the MEL is for :) )

[sevenforeseven]

FOR SALE
ONE WINGLET A340

[planecrazi]

The A340-313 is then restricted to around 240 tons from 271 ton, (plus or minus) and then only one wing tip may be missing. I don't have the MEL on me now, can check tomorrow and can report back. There is also a fuel penalty increase.

Hey Tired,
Long time no hear, I hope all is well like at 3D.

:ok:

[Analyser]

It was a taxying incident where a BA744 after vacating the runway and taxying to the bay clipped the wing of the A340 aircraft which was parked at the bay.
Rumour has it the ATC ground controller has been de-rostered pending an investigation.
Not too sure if anyone is to blame here but the BA744 had minor damage and a five to six foot crack is there on the wing of the A340.

[gas path]

.........................but the BA744 had minor damage
Minor damage? you obviously haven't seen the winglet:p :uhoh: :p or put it this way, the easiest way to remove it from the freighthold was just sweep the remains out of the door:} :}

[planecrazi]

For the A340-313, from the MEL, one winglet maybe missing, MTOW=245 ton, increase fuel burn 1%, among other things

[panda-k-bear]

Understand that the 744 was being towed at the time. That could ruin your whole day, couldn't it?