View from the back (of an F28)

[late developer]

I was unfortunate enough to be allocated a seat right at the back of one of these recently.

Looking out of the window I could see the engine mounting and surrounding cowl area and was able to detect that part of it at least was made from some kind of composite webbing. That's because numerous bits of the latest of a long line of paint-jobs had come off.

I also noted paint lifting/missing in several spots which reminded me of the door sills and front wings on my 1965 Austin 1100 in circa 1975 when I used to poke it through in the summer to see how bad it really was and patch it up with Isopon to make it look ok and last a further winter which it did, twice I think, before I scrapped it.

I also noticed that paint on said engine mount area on my F28 appeared to be lifting above some rivet heads and around some screw heads.

Furthermore I noticed what appeared one or two ill fitting (non-flush) engine cowling seams and a fastener that had either at some stage had a lot of paint broken off and been repainted on top, or simply looked like it might be cracked.

I believe these aircraft are nearer 20 years old than 10 and that there has been at least one AD relating to strengthening the general area that holds the engines on.

Somewhat unhappily I am booked to fly again on one very shortly.

Does anyone other than me and the aircraft painter ever inspect this part of the aircraft?

Is it likely to be safe if it looks as described?

[WHBM]

The last F28 was manufactured in 1987 so they are all older than 20 years. None has ever come apart and none are likely to do so.

If concerned about things you may like to compare the relative mechanical experience of a licenced aircraft engineer with someone who used to stick plastic bits on their 1100 :)

[late developer]

The last F28 was manufactured in 1987 so they are all older than 20 years. None has ever come apart and none are likely to do so. Actually I think the ones I am likely to be exposed to again are a bit later - the Mk.0100 variant. ADs applicable mention amongst other things, stabiliser bolts that might not originally receive the correct surface treatment that would prevent corrosion, and reinforcement of areas around the engine mount shear shelf web that might be prone to cracks and other damage to the shear shell web. I

Fall apart? Well I know they are not designed to and I appreciate there have been a lot flying over the years. As I indicated, I just wonder what proactive inspection of the bits I saw is carried out.

I am not convinced that repeated repainting does any airframe much good. The paint sign offs were always a bit of a contentious thing as I recollect...

I was really quite surprised to see what I did. It would require either someone sat in row 20 looking out of the window, or someone up a ladder deliberately positioning his head between the fuselage and the engine pod to notice it.

I can mail pictures to anyone that has an interest.

[h73kr]

I wouldn't be concerned at all, none of what you have seen relates in any way to the AD's you mention. Also, I would be highly surprised if you were on an F28. An F28 Mark 100 is a certification name for the Fokker 100, a much more recent development of the basic F28 airframe. They are the same, but different if you know what I mean. None of the Fokker 100's are mid-way through their fatigue life design cycles. I would say reliability of Fokker 100 is more of an issue than safety, but still pretty good. Are you seriously comparing the paint condition of a 1960's Austin with a reasonably modern jet aircraft? The airframe stresses and airflow stresses alone involved on an aircraft are likely to be detrimental to any paint finish, especially around fasteners, within a fairly short time. Paint technology can only go so far to alleviate these conditions. I would say leave those who are paid, trained, and licensed to look after the aircraft to worry about it, with respect, a little knowledge is a bad thing...........:ok:

[forget]

None has ever come apart and none are likely to do so.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19811006-0&lang=en

[late developer]

I wouldn't be concerned at all, none of what you have seen relates in any way to the AD's you mention....None of what I have seen, or none of what I reported here? I reckoned that any AD that mentions potential for fatigue and corrosion on the numbered airframe in question is worth a look. There ain't really any other reason than these for good paint flaking off an aircraft unless something hits it, excepting perhaps that some of the various paint wasn't applied quite right in the first place.
Also, I would be highly surprised if you were on an F28. An F28 Mark 100 is a certification name for the Fokker 100, a much more recent development of the basic F28 airframe. OK I give in - call it a Fokker 100 if it helps. In ADs and other official technical documentation it just seemed to be an F.28 Mk.0100. The airframes in question are still around17 years old and seem to have been repainted a number of times recently.Are you seriously comparing the paint condition of a 1960's Austin with a reasonably modern jet aircraft? Well yes, guilty, I am afraid, of comparing a 1960's rustbucket of an automobile with a active jet passenger aircraft, ... yes Sir. One would have expected one to be rather easier on the eye, n'est pas? I was just surprised it wasn't so. Put it this way, I now have a 1990 Citroen outside which doesn't have any paint blisters or cracks or paint missing, all the body panels line up sweetly and it has only ever been painted once in its 16 years. I think that's because by 1990 materials technology was developed sufficiently that we didn't have to worry about buying rustbuckets any more.

I do agree that if my 'Car of the Year 1990' had been thrown at the tarmac three times a day in a fully loaded state and then unloaded and reloaded, and subjected to -40 degrees C and back to ground temperature just as frequently, with hundreds of drivers and several different garages for maintenance over the years instead of the Full Dealer monty, then it might not be so pretty if not cosmetically attended to, and consequently I might not own it anymore, nor might I even have bought it in the first place.

But frankly I expected to be flying in something less flakey in 2006, if you know what I mean:ok:

[h73kr]

I do agree that if my 'Car of the Year 1990' had been thrown at the tarmac three times a day in a fully loaded state and then unloaded and reloaded, and subjected to -40 degrees C and back to ground temperature just as frequently, with hundreds of drivers and several different garages for maintenance over the years instead of the Full Dealer monty, then it might not be so pretty if not cosmetically attended to, and consequently I might not own it anymore, nor might I even have bought it in the first place.

But frankly I expected to be flying in something less flakey in 2006, if you know what I mean:ok:

I liked that bit ^^^ :) .

Look, I know where you're coming from, but it's a bit 'Joe Public naive' if you don't mind me saying so, (and no offence intended). These are hard working commercial aircraft, nothing more, nothing less, not one person's posession, and for all the reasons you have stated above, they don't look as good in some minor areas as you might expect, it's just perhaps a bit unfortunate that where you were sat is a great place to take a close up look at the paint at the engine intake, and not much else. I can see how this might lead you to think 'Christ, if they don't deal with THAT, what else are they missing', but the point is, the important stuff IS dealt with by dedicated professionals, a bit of flaking paint around fasteners is no big deal. All I'm really trying to say is relax, it's fine!

[stevef]

Without wishing to cause any upset, Late Developer, I'd venture that you don't really know enough about aircraft inspection procedures to air your complaints. You seem to be griping about cosmetic issues and I suspect that you've been on the CAA website looking for ADs to quote. I can assure you that (assuming this isn't a Lithuanian or DRC-registered aircraft) all relevant safety and precautionary issues have been addressed. Commercial aircraft work under well-regimented maintenance schedules and it's not left to the painter & finisher to carry out an exterior airframe inspection, as you flippantly suggest.
If you want to know why you see flaking paint around screw heads, it's because the panels that they secure are removed for inspection purposes and no matter how well the paint has been applied, there will always be cosmetic damage caused by screwdrivers. You won't see this on your Citroen because cars don't have access panels. And, as you quite correctly mentioned, the extreme temperature changes exacerbate matters, not to mention airframe flexing. Also believe it or not, a bit of filiform corrosion around rivet heads isn't going to make your aircraft fall out of the sky. I think you'll find that these minor irritations are rectified on the larger maintenance checks. I wonder how you'd feel if your next trip was delayed due to a bit of missing paint at Wing Station 197.
Perhaps you'd enjoy your flight more if you had a vodka & tonic and pulled your window blind down. :)

[h73kr]

'stevef' has put it so much bettter than me!

Reminds me slightly of a few years ago when a particular airline had the mis-fortune to suffer a rejected take-off on a holiday flight. Qualified engineers fixed it. Regrettably, for a totally unrelated reason it then went 'tech.' again. Qualified engineers fixed it.

Result, 'Joe Public' decided the aircraft wasn't safe to fly and all refused to board a perfectly serviceable aircraft and fly home, because the aircraft had gone a bit poorly sick all over again.

It was the one and only time I have seen an airline MD have the balls to go on TV and say 'The public should let qualified and trained engineers decide when an aircraft is safe to fly!' :D

[late developer]

Woah!, boys and girls, I see we've been emboldened by numbers a bit since the first responses and your enthusiastic past-the-post editting is getting quite colourful :ouch: ... flippant? Me? :} Is the painter a licensed engineer thesedays, then? Or does the painter ring the engineer and say well we've removed the old paint/prepped the surfaces/protected the vitals/followed the airworthiness authority's recommended*/your stipulated*/airframe manufacturer's*/paint company's*/customer's* specification and you'd better come inspect now because the new paint goes on tomorrow and we aren't sure if the weather will be ideal to park it outside before the weekend and they want it back online with 'Up Yours Monsieur!' in big letters on everything by midnight Sunday....or shall we start now and you can pop along and see how we are doing as soon as you can get here? Now then ... THAT's flippant!


You guys are wearing your qualifications on your sleeves but are you noting and inwardly digesting anything here? Pics are still available via mail for anyone that's interested, and then I'd be glad of informed reassurance. I guess I'd better not post any here 'cos the latest paint is a dead giveaway.

Correct me again if I am wrong, but this is the SLF forum, like where the income streams originate? We have quite adequate brains here methinks and not ones that need dulling by vodka any day of the week, thanks. Some of us have the sort that in a couple of clicks enable us to make a stab at the serial number of the aircraft that we flew in even if we didn't note the reg on the day and then to use Google again to search for F-28 corrosion and the serial number we found and score hits. The fact we might recognise an AD when we see one is just an interesting development.

We are not all just some lapsed kid who once used to patch holes in his car with plastic so's you could hardly notice; not just a lapsed PPL; not just someone who let his 14 ATPL theory passes lapse, and not just someone whose father taught him enough about engineering to know what's sloppy and what isn't; maybe we are not just someone who studied broadly at school and college and a good few places since, and not just someone who might have had a role before and after actual aviation accidents (or paintjobs?); perhap not just someone who has worked inside the business and got his hands dirty, and not just someone who regularly needs to sit in the back with their family, nor one who just picks their nose when they do so. :oh:

Aircraft dont just go 'tech'. Everything has a cause. Often more than one cause. I too was quite p**d off last time I was asked to belt up for the third take off roll within 90 mins in the same airframe and no landings in between. I bit my lip that time but don't expect passengers generally to respect anyone who lets that happen too often.

It is perfectly reasonable to argue that a machine which unexpectedly malfunctions is likely to be more prone to further malfunctions than one that has not malfunctioned, especially if it is 'fixed' in a hurry and put straight back into service. If you get involved as part of the team fixing that then you better be 110% sure that aircraft is fit to fly when you sign it back. I don't question that to err is human, especially in war, but I personally think I see too much unquestionning 'warlike' expedience in most industries thesedays. There may be competitive pressures, and there may be other commercial survival issues, but this is peacetime, so we don't ever need airline MDs barking the score to customers thanks after it's gone for a ball of chalk:=

And anyway, irrespective of whether its military or civil aviation, perceived wisdom is it's not necessarily the first problem but the third that gets you, that is if you don't quite manage to note and inwardly digest the first two before the third hits :ok:

Now then, about this flakey aircraft...how many paint jobs since the last major check? When was it last weighed? What else is wrong with it (apart from that ugly 'cosmetic' Tom&Jerry silver sticking plaster thing on the flap guide fairing)?

[stevef]

I don't think I'll bother getting drawn into an argument. It's quite apparent that you don't know that much about aircraft maintenance and regulations. For your benefit, aircraft over 5700 kgs are weighed every five years and always after major modifications AND resprays. If you've got absolute confidence in what you're talking about, why not repost this on the engineers forum, where you'll have a very lively debate. I'd wear a parachute if I were you, though.
Over and out. :)

[flybhx]

Stevef,

Slight tangent here, how do you weigh a dirty great airliner?

KC

[stevef]

Transducers on the jacking pads, flybhx. Smaller aircraft are weighed by pushing them onto the equivalent of bathroom scales. A computer plugged into the equipment performs all the calculations after the aircraft is levelled.

[late developer]

It's quite apparent that you don't know that much about aircraft maintenance and regulations. Oh thanks:rolleyes:

So we are to assume you do, but like some diva you don't wish to discuss it:8
If you've got absolute confidence in what you're talking about, why not repost this on the engineers forum,...Well I thought about it but frankly, a quick flick through the posts there reminded me a bit of the classified/wanted section of my local rag. I thought I might get a broader input here.

Maybe if I were to say a few weeks ago it was a Germania aircraft in Air Berlin colours and it might well now be an Air Berlin aircraft in Air Berlin colours, it might concentrate minds a little?

[h73kr]

Maybe if I were to say a few weeks ago it was a Germania aircraft in Air Berlin colours and it might well now be an Air Berlin aircraft in Air Berlin colours, it might concentrate minds a little?

Makes absolutely no difference.

[stevef]

How does nearly thirty years as an aircraft engineer (over twenty of them licensed) sound, Late Developer? I'm no diva or drama queen; I only speak of what I know.

[forget]

Late Developer, What the techies at the sharp end are trying to tell you is this. Public transport aircraft aren’t maintained with an attitude of ‘Shall we fix it, or shan’t we’. Aircraft are maintained against specific legal requirements. With all defects which affect airworthiness there is no choice - If it ain’t fixed it doesn’t go. Licensed engineers will not release an aircraft for service until all the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed. The exceptions to this are defects covered by another legal document; the Minimum Equipment List. This is a type specific list of all operational equipment agreed by the aircraft manufacturer and the certifying authority. If the list says you can fly with XYZ system unserviceable then you can legally do so, if you wish. Tatty cosmetics do not make an aircraft unserviceable. However much you think you may know about aircraft maintenance, until you’ve spent years in hangars ‘fixing’ things, you cannot begin to imagine just what goes into getting a public transport flight airborne. Trust me – considering the paperwork involved - every one’s a bl**dy miracle!

[h73kr]

.... the way this is going, might be better to just answer the original question in concise terms ....

Q1. Does anyone other than me and the aircraft painter ever inspect this part of the aircraft?

A1. YES.

Q1. Is it likely to be safe if it looks as described?

A1. YES.

[late developer]

I only speak of what I know. Me too! I am the customer, I know what I saw, and I plainly don't like it. I've only found one aviation filiform picture on Google - I guess most of the best ones are in confidential legal files - but anyway I don't think filiform quite hacks it in my pictures.

Forget, I know what programmed maintenance is. I also have the pictures which no-one seems interested in. The two things don't seem to marry up very well in my mind, do they? I understand the pressures of the job but I pay to fly with good solid engineering in practice, not collected bits of paper that stay on the ground or indeed flakes of anything that may or may not survive the journey with me.

Thanks for your positive response h73kr. Hopefully someone will have taken a long hard look at it, and what's behind it, before I next get near it with my camera.

[forget]

Let's see the pictures then.

[WHBM]

Paint !

Just to stir things further I will also point out the largest purchaser of all of the F100 was American Airlines (75 frames, about one third of the total production) and for their livery they do not paint the aircraft AT ALL, as is well known (apart from a little red/white/blue detail line down the windowline of the aircraft). Everything else is plain unpainted alloy.

Which, if you know your aviation history from the 1940s/1950s, is how they all were .....

[Final 3 Greens]

Forget

I looked at your link.

This F28 was flown into a TORNADO!

[forget]

Tornado or not, the point was being made .........

None has ever come apart and none are likely to do so.

I was simple pointing out that................:bored:

[late developer]

Trying to work out how best to try and post the pics - I don't think I have attachment rights and I am not sure whether I'd need to shrink the pics anyway. There's a dozen totalling around 15MB at the mo...anyone got any ideas?

Know what you mean WHBM and some of this paint looks like it might have been stirred with a screwdriver after it dried!

Here's one you mentioned in a 'more polished' era: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0936064/M/

FWIW I think the ones I'm looking at pre-dated the American Airlines fleet, and anyway, I guess that the composite bits might never have looked very 'finished' without paint at the best of times:hmm:

[h73kr]

Could be interesting to see the piccies, but ultimately it's not going to be anything of importance. As far as I recall I doubt you would be able to see the composite cowlings from your seat, more likely to be the metal engine inlet.

[late developer]

OK try this: http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r161/late_developer/Pic1.jpg

For the others just change Pic1.jpg to Pic2.jpg...etc

[stevef]

Oddly enough, I was on the Fokker F100 centre section assembly line at Dordrecht back in 1987. There'll be a few thousand of my rivets and Hi-Loks somewhere in the air as I type this.

Oh, cross posting - I've just seen Late Developer's picture. Look, that is nothing to be concerned about; it's an access panel/fairing, not a structural element. That sort of defect would be rectified on base check. And even if it wasn't, it doesn't affect the airworthiness of the aircraft as it's portrayed. But I'm sure you're still going to make an issue of it, no matter anyone says.

[h73kr]

...and oddly enough, I've had years of hands on hangar, line and developmental work on F100's. Anyway, we digress, as expected, yep, the paint may have lifted in a few small areas (I was wrong by the way, my memory failed me, clearly some of that is composite and visible from your seat), but the bottom line is as expected it's by no means a structural integrity or safety issue, it's fine.

[late developer]

Crikey that was quick! I thought I'd at least have the chance to nip back to photobucket and rename all the Pics from their camera default namesbefore you lot started slowing my edits down over there:\ There's 11 by the way not 12....and oddly enough, I've had years of hands on hangar, line and developmental work on F100's. Anyway, we digress, as expected, yep, the paint may have lifted in a few small areas (I was wrong by the way, my memory failed me, clearly some of that is composite and visible from your seat), but the bottom line is as expected it's by no means a structural integrity or safety issue, it's fine.Thank you gentlepersons! (That goes for all 11 pics guys, right? - I only just finished renaming them). Anyway, thanks for taking that final long hard look:ok:

[h73kr]

Enjoy your flight! :)

[stevef]

Aye, from me too. I'm disembarking at this sector.
h73kr - here's a virtual San Miguel from Spain. :)

[h73kr]

Heel bedankt meneer! Prost! :)