PDA

View Full Version : AF A330 severe hard landing ccs


VeTech
25th Apr 2011, 19:09
anybody know any details?
All I know is that AF and Airbus officials are here and aircraft is severly damaged, both main gears need replacing, 1 is collapsed, heavy fuselage damage etc..
Estimating 1 month of repairs providing they receive permit to fly out of here..

readywhenreaching
25th Apr 2011, 19:20
taken from jacdec.de

DATE: 13.04.2011 LOCAL TIME: - LOCATION: Caracas-Maiquetia Intl AP (SVMI) COUNTRY: Venezuela
AIRLINE: Air France TYPE: Airbus A330-200 REGISTRATION: F-GZCB C/N: 443 AGE: 9 y + 4 m
OPERATION: ISP FLIGHT No.: AF 471 FROM: Caracas TO: Paris-CDG VIA: -
OCCUPANTS: PAX: - CREW: -
FATALITIES: PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
INJURIES: PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT: minor /
substantial 1


Very soon after departure, the pilots received indication about a fault in the gear retraction system and elected to return to land. On landing return, the A330 made a hard touchdown resulting in structural damage to the fuselage and both maingear legs. Longer maintenance expected.

Happened in darkness. Center Fuselage wrinkled. Both mlg needed replacement confirmed.. No pics unfortunately.
No idea why the landing return turned out to be so severe. Pirep would be interesting to read.

RoyHudd
25th Apr 2011, 19:34
Could have been an overweight landing, subject to fuel jettison. Even so, 360 fpm landing should have worked out ok.

mm43
25th Apr 2011, 20:00
Could have been an overweight landing, subject to fuel jettison.I believe the AF A332 fleet are not equipped for fuel dumping. The matter was raised and dealt with in the AF447 thread some time ago.

wozzo
25th Apr 2011, 20:36
I believe the AF A332 fleet are not equipped for fuel dumping (...)
Aviation Herald:
The airplane entered a holding to troubleshoot the problem, after about 25 minutes the crew declared emergency however. The aircraft burned off fuel before landing safely on Caracas' runway 10 almost 3 hours after departure.Incident: Air France A332 at Caracas on Apr 13th 2011, unsafe gear after departure (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=43aef229&opt=1)

VeTech
25th Apr 2011, 21:12
Well, just talked to AF guys here in ccs and they say that the hard landing was actually when it arrived in CCS the same day.
Inspection was carried out but no findings, then when they departed they had the unsafe gear or couldn't retract and hence returned to ccs..

That time the RH gear collapsed causing further damage..

It will be interesting to follow this since CCS is much like africa, there is nothing here, no hangar etc to support the A330 or similar aircraft

Apparently Airbus are planning to build a portable hangar for the gear change here and then try to fly it out somehow..

captplaystation
25th Apr 2011, 21:28
Given the problems encountered by a Portugese operator recently vis-a -vis gear inspection following a heavy landing on an A320, how easy is this inspection to perform (or perhaps , how easy is it to understand the manual) in comparison to say a Boeing ?

TURIN
25th Apr 2011, 21:35
Inspection was carried out but no findings,

:eek::eek::eek:




There for the grace of............

bvcu
25th Apr 2011, 21:43
there are inspections and 'inspections'.

jettison valve
25th Apr 2011, 22:25
Hmmm... difficult job without proper infrastructure... :eek:
Jacking the airplane, then heavy LDG tooling required.
MSN 443, so good chances of secondary findings on bushes and corrosion on/in the lugs. Cadmium plating for replacement bushes available at CCS?

I keep my fingers crossed!

VeTech
25th Apr 2011, 22:31
maybe available but no EASA approved repair shops in CCS..
This will be interesting indeed.

This is funny because there is an A340 from Aerolineas Argentina on the remote AOG for 3 days because the gear didnt go up..its a flu! :)

grimmrad
25th Apr 2011, 22:40
To my uneducated ear/eye that doesn't bide well for AF, yet another accident. So, they inspected after a hard landing the gear, don't find anything, than the gear doesn't retract on the following leg and the subsequent return results in damage to gear AND fuselage...? Oh my...

Loose rivets
26th Apr 2011, 00:33
Is the distortion in the fuselage confirmed? If so, who's the lucky guy doing the ferry?

AlphaZuluRomeo
26th Apr 2011, 01:19
This is funny because there is an A340 from Aerolineas Argentina on the remote AOG for 3 days because the gear didnt go up..its a flu! :)

Yep. A virus. Surely that is related to the so many computers on board...:D


Just joking;)

parabellum
26th Apr 2011, 01:33
If the centre fusalage is buckled then can it be far from a write-off, nine years+ old etc?


That time the RH gear collapsed causing further damage..



Presumably it will be an unpressurised ferry to the nearset Airbus equipped facility?

Trying to remember the aircraft I flew when, if you did a heavy landing, some little markers popped up on the upper wing surface, maybe the BAC 1-11?

mansaloco
26th Apr 2011, 02:10
All right!! That's enough!!
I say it is time to list AF in the black book of airlines!

lomapaseo
26th Apr 2011, 02:20
.... So, they inspected after a hard landing the gear, don't find anything...

I wasn't aware that this was indeed confirmed fact as yet

BOAC
26th Apr 2011, 08:47
Trying to remember the aircraft I flew when, if you did a heavy landing, some little markers popped up on the upper wing surface, maybe the BAC 1-11? - do you mean the top of the undercarriage legs..............?:D

TURIN
26th Apr 2011, 09:53
All right!! That's enough!!
I say it is time to list AF in the black book of airlines!

And I say it's time we sent you to the funny farm. :ugh:

Mercenary Pilot
26th Apr 2011, 10:29
I seem to recall something similar happening to a A330 belonging to a British charter airline a few years back?

IIRC They had had a hard landing which cracked part of the main gear structure, I think the crew reported the hard landing and the onboard QAR recorded it also. Nothing was found during the required maintenance checks however, on the next departure, the gear failed to retract and so they returned at which point the damage was found following a further inspection.

Fargoo
26th Apr 2011, 14:07
That case was an A320

Air Accidents Investigation: 4/2008 G-BXKD (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/4_2008_g_bxkd.cfm)

twochai
26th Apr 2011, 14:19
IIRC They had had a hard landing which cracked part of the main gear structure, I think the crew reported the hard landing and the onboard QAR recorded it also. Nothing was found during the required maintenance checks however, on the next departure, the gear failed to retract and so they returned at which point the damage was found following a further inspection.

It is not particularly unusual that a 'failure to retract' defect is traced to a warped/bent/broken or otherwise deteriorated component in the shock strut, causing the strut to not fully extend after T/O. The gear position/proximity sensors detect the imperfect geometry and refuse to allow the gear to retract thereby preventing potential secondary issues, like fouling of the gear on structure during retraction.

BOAC
26th Apr 2011, 14:26
I think MP is thinking of the Monarch ferried back from SFB to Manchester mid 2007 and a BMI 330 at Manchester with suspected fatigue cracked u/c due to water ingress?

Mercenary Pilot
26th Apr 2011, 14:46
It is not particularly unusual that a 'failure to retract' defect is traced to a warped/bent/broken or otherwise deteriorated component in the shock strut

Perhaps, but I think it is a little unusual if it turns out that it was caused by a previous heavy landing and then not picked up even though the damage is so severe that the gear actually collapses on the next touchdown, possibly it points to a deficiency in the maintenance procedure(s) for the hard land checks?

That case was an A320

Air Accidents Investigation: 4/2008 G-BXKD

Thanks, that was actually the incident I had in mind although I think I may have also got it slightly confused with the BMI A330 that BOAC mentioned. Did that one also have very similar problems and go undetected?

I'll have a look for the Monarch report, I don't think I remember that one.

bvcu
26th Apr 2011, 19:21
330/340 gear is unusual in that it has a 'shortening link' for the strut that enables the gear to fit in the bay. There have been one or two issues with this over the years and some inspections. There are sensors there so if they were defective they would prevent gear up selection.

jettison valve
26th Apr 2011, 19:33
> There have been one or two issues with this over the years and some inspections.


ONE OR TWO....???? :mad::confused::{:uhoh::ouch::ugh:

To me, it seems like hundreds!

All those pins like SM7, SM8, SM9, the pintle pin, the chrome detachments, the corrosion, the threads chewn off.

HUNDREDS! ;)

TURIN
26th Apr 2011, 23:48
To me, it seems like hundreds!

All those pins like SM7, SM8, SM9, the pintle pin, the chrome detachments, the corrosion, the threads chewn off.

HUNDREDS!

I think I've led a sheltered life...:uhoh:

A-3TWENTY
27th Apr 2011, 00:26
Air France is becoming like KAL years ago.

Norman Stanley Fletcher
27th Apr 2011, 00:40
As professional aviators, none of us wish to see a major European airline experiencing significant safety lapses. Nonetheless, by any criteria Air France has an unenviable safety record - indeed many third world countries would boast significantly better figures. None of us would entertain the thought of a third world company with a terrible safety record being 'just unlucky', and it would be unwise to think that here. Maybe others with a more specific grasp of statistics could give us chapter and verse, but certainly among western airlines Air France must be near the bottom of the pile. That is not good for anyone - I would hope that someone, somewhere within Air France is looking at these incidents and drawing the appropriate conclusions. No airline is immune from accidents, but safety is really no accident and we should aspire to better than this.

Rengineer
27th Apr 2011, 08:07
This incident seems particularly hard to get info on. Both avherald and aviation-safety.net report a safe landing, but jacdec reports substantial structural damage. One poster (Vetech in #6) writes that AF confirmed a collapsed landing gear, which would be quite substantial indeed. Others have mentioned buckled fuselage. Depending on which of the information is accurate, the incident could be many things. So who will enlighten us with officially confirmed info?

kbrockman
27th Apr 2011, 09:50
I think we're overreaching again, no gear collapse, but a MLG change is indeed needed (cracks found on MLG), after a hard landing due to windsheer in a TS.
Further repairs can be done after ferryflight back home.

About AF's safety record, it indeed is something that needs to be adressed ASAP, maybe they should take some classes from their partners in blue, they seem to be fairing much better in that regard.

captplaystation
27th Apr 2011, 11:21
Can you truly imagine the French mentality accepting lessons from a nation so "blunt" as the other partner := not really a marriage made in heaven if you are familiar with the social/cultural personality traits of the two, I would humbly suggest.
Anyhow, KLM are not exactly blemish free non plus, if we think back to when. . . . . Oh, wasn't it just last year when one of their finest launched from a taxi-way at home base. ?

VeTech
30th Apr 2011, 00:12
hello again,

Collapsed RH main gear is confirmed, seen on arrival.
Also alot of findings(marked) so far on the fuselage, not sure what they found in the fuel tanks but they are still open on the RH side.

AF brought a 747-400ERF yesterday with 70 tons of equipment and parts!!
I have photos, will post tonight.
They have alot of manpower here also..

Busbert
30th Apr 2011, 02:07
Air France have a culture problem - plain and simple. Unfortunately they are too arrogant to accept this. They should take a page out of Korean Air's book and address their cultural issues head on. French culture is pretty unique in Europe - Gert Hofstede showed that clearly. AFR have 3 safety related threads on the front page - if this was an African or Asian airline there would be cries for the company to be blacklisted.

bearfoil
30th Apr 2011, 03:50
Who on Earth will mentor Air France....

australiancalou
30th Apr 2011, 06:57
France is an elitist country.
To access a management position you've got to be gratuated from the best schools like Polytechnique or HEC.
AF has the same recruitment logic for pilots only based on psycho.
At the end they've got a lot of pilots gratuated from the best schools but that have been choosing this job for salary only.
People at AF are brainwashed as to be the best of alls and they have a high picture of their Airline.
They think nothing can happen as they are flying in an AF stamped aircraft.
Proudiness is a consequence of the Airline culture but is not a general french attitude don't misunderstand with sense of honor.
Most of the french pilots including a lot of AF one's are sorry of what happens in the airline and of the image of France that is given by AF.

Johnm
30th Apr 2011, 06:59
Who on Earth will mentor Air France....

How about BA:E

cyflyer
30th Apr 2011, 07:30
If there is an undercarraige problem indicated, and you have to burn fuel for THREE hours, and then risk a heavy landing, isn't it more logical to proceed to your destination to make the landing ?

Ngineer
30th Apr 2011, 07:39
Was the structural damage (ie fuselage/structure or wing) caused by the initial hard landing, that went un-noticed during the hard landing inspection that should have been carried out? (if it was carried out).

GerardC
30th Apr 2011, 08:06
isn't it more logical to proceed to your destination to make the landing ?It's not, for one very basic reason : with the fuel on board and the landing gear extended the plane would have been out of fuel by the middle of the Atlantic ocean.

suninmyeyes
30th Apr 2011, 08:16
If there is an undercarraige problem indicated, and you have to burn fuel for THREE hours, and then risk a heavy landing, isn't it more logical to proceed to your destination to make the landing ?


CY Flyer, if the gear had fully retracted I would agree with you.

However if there was a warning it would indicate the gear was not fully retracted in which case you would be limited to gear operational speeds in cruise, (the Boeing equivalent is 270 knots IAS.) Also there would be unknown extra drag implications depending on how much drag there was from the gear doors or undercarriage leg and wheels. Faced with such an uncertain situation no one would want to launch off across the atlantic with nothing en route until the Azores.

Rwy in Sight
30th Apr 2011, 09:01
Or, you could use the fuel to fly to an easier airport with longer runway.

As far as french mentality is concerned the situation is hopeless unless the blood factor is involved particularly with non Airbus aircraft.:ugh:

FlyingCroc
30th Apr 2011, 09:20
same thing happened at Swissair. They landed a A321 very hard, next crew took off and landing gear did not retract. Airplane was a hull loss.

sudden twang
30th Apr 2011, 09:22
CY flyer
Before continuing a flight you must consider plausible single failures. I doubt the performance of a heavy 330 gear down one eng inop is particulary impressive. Additionally if a heavy landing has caused an undetected gear problem then it begs the question of what other undetected structural damage is there? The decision of the AF crew in this scenario is understandable.

atakacs
30th Apr 2011, 16:40
same thing happened at Swissair.

Do you have specifics ?

pgroell
30th Apr 2011, 17:21
In short, the Load 15 Report is immediately available with a few keystrokes using any of the three MCDUs. Station personnel should be sufficiently competent to read such ACMS Reports.
A few facts :
1° Hard landing at CCS reported by crew
2° No report 15 generated ( neither automatically nor available in the system).
3° Two ground engineers perform an independant inspection according to information 1 and 2.
4° The F/O performs a throrough preflight according to info 1°
5° Incident with flight CCS-CDG
6° Next day, at power up of the aircraft a report 15 for the leg CDG-CCS is emitted and available.

I'll let you speculate.
This will be my only post on the subject.

I.A.T.U. Butler
1st May 2011, 05:04
Could it be like the A346, another case of the Managed Speed curse of this design?

Air France looks like an airline with endemic CRM or poor pilot handling issues. It cannot be long before the carrier is forced to undertake a KAL style safety audit.

korean airlines internal audit safety report (http://www.flight.org/blog/2009/10/01/korean-airlines-internal-audit-report-an-airline-waiting-to-happen/)

Since KAL reviewed their procedures after a series of notable crashes and accidents, they have not had any further hull losses. The French have banned many airlines from its airspace for allegedly having poor safety and aircraft maintenance concerns, but do not appear to accept that something is seriously wrong with their own national carrier.

ATC Watcher
1st May 2011, 06:31
The French have banned many airlines from its airspace for allegedly having poor safety and aircraft maintenance concerns, but do not appear to accept that something is seriously wrong with their own national carrier.

Perhaps because it is far easier to board an African aircraft and check the dates on oxygen and fire extinguisher bottles than to question some training practices in one's National carrier ?

VeTech
1st May 2011, 07:28
A few facts :
1° Hard landing at CCS reported by crew
2° No report 15 generated ( neither automatically nor available in the system).
3° Two ground engineers perform an independant inspection according to information 1 and 2.
4° The F/O performs a throrough preflight according to info 1°
5° Incident with flight CCS-CDG
6° Next day, at power up of the aircraft a report 15 for the leg CDG-CCS is emitted and available.
I can confirm this is the info I received also in CCS..

GerardC
1st May 2011, 14:41
A few facts :
1° Hard landing at CCS reported by crew
2° No report 15 generated ( neither automatically nor available in the system).
3° Two ground engineers perform an independant inspection according to information 1 and 2.
4° The F/O performs a throrough preflight according to info 1°
5° Incident with flight CCS-CDG
6° Next day, at power up of the aircraft a report 15 for the leg CDG-CCS is emitted and available.
A few more facts on point # 5 :
- after take off : landing gear did NOT retract ;
- aircraft remained in "ground mode" : no pressurisation ; outflow valves fully open etc...

In this specific case I fail to see anything wrong with "CRM" or "pilot handling".

The ground engineers did not perform any better (or worse) than those of other airlines facing the same situation (Monarch / SR? etc...).

pax2908
1st May 2011, 15:06
I assume there is a document specifying the inspection to be performed? How many pages/drawings?

Broomstick Flier
1st May 2011, 20:26
same thing happened at Swissair.

Any details available? As far as I know swissair operated 12 A321 and all remain active to date, some with Swiss some with other airlines...

Jetjock330
1st May 2011, 20:59
These landings are determined by the accelerometers, however, a "hard landing 15 report" is also issued from a hard sideways landing, meaning the gear has taken an extreme side loading from a crabbed crosswind landing on the downwind gear for example.

This is I believe the most penalizing, as it would seem not hard but the angle for the load was extreme.

V1... Ooops
2nd May 2011, 06:54
All right!! That's enough!! I say it is time to list AF in the black book of airlines!

Mansaloco makes a valid point.

I might take my chances flying on an air carrier based in, say, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Equatorial Guinea, or OhMyGawdStan or some other blacklisted country like those, because the high accident rates in those countries are more or less evenly attributed across all the carriers from those countries.

But in the case of Air France, it's time to acknowledge the elephant in the room - there is only one French air carrier who keeps showing up in the news on a regular basis with accidents, runway excursions, damaged aircraft, etc., etc., and that's Air France.

Enough already, I'm not going to fly on Air France again. Maybe if other passengers made the same decision and Air France start to see their load factors decline they might get the message and clean up their act.

Shorrick Mk2
2nd May 2011, 11:51
there is only one French air carrier who keeps showing up in the news


Out of how many?

AlphaZuluRomeo
2nd May 2011, 12:45
Good point, Shorrick Mk2 :D

CelticRambler
2nd May 2011, 14:31
there is only one French air carrier who keeps showing up in the news
Out of how many?

118 AOCs, as at 1 July 2010

Maybe if other passengers made the same decision and Air France start to see their load factors decline they might get the message and clean up their act.

... except the vast majority of the French who want to travel by air firmly believe that AF is the absolute best carrier in the world and are happy to pay over the odds for what they know is a superior service because it's French. :rolleyes:

If there was any decrease in LF, management would blame it on foreigners being fickle and appeal to their loyal followers to make up the difference.

It's only by living with them that I've come to understand just how many mental blocks your average Frenchman carries with him from cradle to grave.

Ancaster
2nd May 2011, 14:49
As SLF, now avoid flying AF (Aerofrog). Had two experiences which seem to typify their attitude to safety:

1) Takeoff from Frankfurt in an A320. When the FA was stiill giving the safety demonstration, the aircraft accerated and she ran down the fuselage trying to avoid falling over.

2) Landing Douala in a 747-200. The screen in front of my seat had a sign " The screen must be open for take-off and landing". It was closed.

Have never flown with them since

Lemurian
2nd May 2011, 20:14
V1 OOPs ! :
Enough already, I'm not going to fly on Air France again.
I might take my chances flying on an air carrier based in, say, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Equatorial Guinea, or OhMyGawdStan or some other blacklisted country like those, because the high accident rates in those countries are more or less evenly attributed across all the carriers from those countries.
... You get the point.
In this case, I suggest you take a look at American Airlines which has seen 2087 deaths (This includes the 1530 people who died on 11 September 2001) in the pâst twelve years against AF 327 ( Concorde and AF447).
I also suggest you take a look at Southwest- which seem to make a nasty habit of spectacular runway excursions and metal fatigue. But I give you that they are lucky. Two examples that come to mind. Am I alone ?
And ponder the fact that had the engines stuck on idle on that BA 777 done it just 30 seconds earlier, thre toll would have been quite different and the statistics not so glorious.
Thank God for his blessings !
I don't mind critics. Imbecillic chauvinistic points of view are something else.

Hotel Mode
2nd May 2011, 20:38
And ponder the fact that had the engines stuck on idle on that BA 777 done it just 30 seconds earlier, thre toll would have been quite different and the statistics not so glorious.

Through no fault of the airline.

The point with AF is the number of incidents, all (AF 447 pending) self inflicted. Fatalities is not the only measure. YYZ, JFK and now CCS all non fatal but serious incidents resulting in major airframe damage/write offs, it doesnt look good.

How many write offs has BA or Lufty had in the last 12 years (or indeed 20)? AF however, 2011 ERJ - JFK (caused by AF) 2009 A330 - Atlantic, 2007 F100 - Pau, 2005 A340 - Toronto, 2003 CRJ - Brest, 2000 Concorde - Gonesse, 1999 747F - Chennai, 1999 737 - Biarritz. And if we go back to 1991 theres yet more.

Lemurian
2nd May 2011, 22:10
OK.
Do you mind giving the same details to AA and WN as I said in my earlier post ?
And don,'t you dare giving the 11/09/2001 crashes to an act of God as they were serious breaches of security.
Self inflicted, Concorde ?
To my knowledge, Continental isn't yet part of Air France.
Or am I mistaken?
And following your argument of putting the JFK CRJ as an AF Hull loss, I could also attribute thre Concorde death toll and hull loss to Continental.
What good for the goose is better for the gander, no ?
Why can't you just claim your anti-french attitude and own it, instead of this hypocritical " I have the objectiveness of stats" bull****.
2007 F-100 Pau ? wasn't it Regional ?
2003 CRJ Brest ? wasn't it Britair ?
If you want to play that game, I could take all the third level feeders of any US major, and you won't like the results, believe me.
I should go.
Imbeciles are boring. that's why I rarely post here any more.

V1... Ooops
2nd May 2011, 23:55
And don,'t you dare giving the 11/09/2001 crashes to an act of God as they were serious breaches of security...

How can you possibly compare the Sept 2001 hijackings to all of the AF accidents and incidents that have taken place since then?

Was AF security any better than US airline security at the same time?

Lemurian
3rd May 2011, 00:53
Why not ?
had their security procedures up to the standards they are now pushing, the hijackings wouldn't have taken place.
They were found lax and wanting.
(of course, nobody is going to say that, all was Al Q's fault).
The airlines are responsible for their airplanes, are they not ?
So, before you start bashing AirFrance, take a good look at what's on your side.
And maybe someone would agree that the security measures there at the time were worthy of a third world country.
Proof is that they now have a national outfit doing the job as the concerned people couldn't do it.
as AF security any better than US airline security at the same time?
I dare say yes, as we've had quite a bit more - and longer - experience of dealing with air security.

sudden twang
3rd May 2011, 01:08
lemurian

tell us about the AF 777 RTO in LOS or the AF 747 into a lagoon in a well known Pacifc island You cannot compare accidents with acts of terrorism.

pax2908
3rd May 2011, 06:43
What does it say in this a/c AMM? Does it say that, if no "load15" report was generated, then no inspection necessary? (Then of course, the engineer may still decide to go over some of the items, to be safe).

blind pew
3rd May 2011, 07:32
lemurian
your posts are typical of many of the arrogant egotistic french pilots that I have met.
Before you fall off your Camembert as you did last year at one of my posts concerning french pilots - I am french but fortunately educated overseas.

I am also fortunate in that I have French/British/US/Swiss licenses.

Saying that I attended a SIV course given by a French paragliding school at Annecy at the weekend which was incredibly professional.

What the French are not good at is self criticism - they even believe that they have the best cuisine in the world and liberated Paris!

Air France suffers from a similar mentality that I have encountered in aviation in other countries.

We are the best.

It must be the best method because that is what I was taught.

Experience is everything.

Keep your mouth shut or we won't give you a command.

And the worst is that management is filled with likes from either the same squadron, school or old boys club (masons). Many of which I would not trust to park my car let alone to fly me.

blind pew
3rd May 2011, 07:59
What you guys should read is that AF have already recognized their problems and have commissioned a study by predominately anglo saxons.

Their findings were reported in January.

See the thread

http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/441029-results-air-france-safety-inquiry.html

Common sense enfin!

It would be good if this model was adapted globally.

Lemurian
3rd May 2011, 08:18
Blind,
I was responding to the hundreds of posts rubbishing us.
And I have also quite a few pieces of garbage to throw inside your garden.
Arrogant, me ? what about them ?
What about the supercilious racialistic gems that are the gist of THIS THREAD in particuliar, so many that it's very difficult to know what it is about ?
-An initial hard landing, reported but not really taken into account ?
-A return for a stuck landing gear ?
-or the maintenance procedures ?
-... or something else ?

From especially the country that really shouldn't try giving lessons on maintenance (seem to remember a -10 losing en engine, or maybe I'm dreaming ) or some really outlandish repairs on an another -10 reverser, causing the loss of another aircraft, or some extraordinary airliner flying technique with the rudder, really great !
And I haven't seen your do-gooder self defending the guys at Annecy or wherever.
So please, spare me your sanctimonious sermon and get a look at what you are, in reality : A bunch of biggots who should know better, if they really are the professionals they claim to be.
And we certainly do not want them.
And the worst is that management is filled with likes from either the same squadron, school or old boys club (masons). Many of which I would not trust to park my car let alone to fly me.
And now the absolute worst : French freemasons conspiracy ! inside the airline cause important safety issues!!!:ugh:
Why don't you get a real life ?
You cannot compare accidents with acts of terrorism.
Why not ? It's about, if I understand this thread correctly, how many people were killed flying a given airline, how often they lose aircraft... and , very sorry to say it, but some countries are in a very different league.

tell us about the AF 777 RTO in LOS or the AF 747 into a lagoon
Let's the 747. Came from a totally unknown 744 idiosyncracy ( the root is idiot, you might notice ) whereas with one flight director on, you had an auto go-around at MDA. I have a feeling that the honours are shared between the crew and good old Boeing in this case. and yes, that crew was slightly dysfonctioning... but still...
As a matter of fact, a few posters tried to put things into the correct perspective :
Quote:
A few facts :
1° Hard landing at CCS reported by crew
2° No report 15 generated ( neither automatically nor available in the system).
3° Two ground engineers perform an independant inspection according to information 1 and 2.
4° The F/O performs a throrough preflight according to info 1°
5° Incident with flight CCS-CDG
6° Next day, at power up of the aircraft a report 15 for the leg CDG-CCS is emitted and available.
A few more facts on point # 5 :
- after take off : landing gear did NOT retract ;
- aircraft remained in "ground mode" : no pressurisation ; outflow valves fully open etc...

In this specific case I fail to see anything wrong with "CRM" or "pilot handling".
Neither do I, actually.
I think that these posters were slightly , very slightly ignored.:rolleyes:
Why not ? French bashing is the favourite sport in this forum.

Hey, Joe, you forgot to give us some comments on the absolute world record holder for runway excursions.
Till you do, bye bye !:E

blind pew
3rd May 2011, 09:57
Lemurian
Typical french response.

You didn't read my post properly as per last year.

I never mentioned French freemasons.

If you would care to do some research then read the biography of the author of handling the big jets. Followed by the guest list at the papa india inquiry followed by the GAPAN membership list.

I only worked for three flag carriers all of which were run by a special group of individuals.

As to the DC 10 engine problem it was a common worldwide problem - my european employer found SIX damaged pylons/ bolts but you won't read about it anywhere.

Enlever vos śillčres!

zomerkoning
3rd May 2011, 10:36
Remember this one??

http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/429673-first-choice-767-bristol.html

First choice 767 made a very hard landing at BRS... Saw it parked there a couple of times when I flew into BRS myself...

ATC Watcher
3rd May 2011, 13:00
The love-hate relation again. When I see this kind of debate I like to remind everyone that despite 700 years or so of wars against one another, the favorite first destianation for the French is London, and France is the beloved destination of many Brits.

There are things you should never mention , as John Cleese once said in a different context : " never mention the war..."

Now Lemurian is right on many points unfortunately, but like with John Cleese he should not mention certain things like 9/11 and other bits.

What Lemurian and many (if not most) of my Countrymen fail to realise , is that AF has a real and deep safety culture problem , that this problem is now on the media highlight, and that as a result every smalest incident will come up in the spotlight. Attacking the media is not the answer. Attacking the culture issue would be .
AF and the staff that work for it should not be constantly on the defensive, but rather on the safety offensive. "Waiting for the bad period to go away " as one of them said recently is appalling and would indicate they have not yet realised the seriousness of their situation..

That is the issue. Nothing to do with who won the race in Dunkerque .

Chris Scott
3rd May 2011, 13:17
The circumstances that led to this incident (that is, the A330 L/G problem at Caracas) seem to be reasonably well understood.

I doubt that many major airlines could claim never to have had a case where a possibly-damaged aeroplane has been cleared by outstation maintenance staff for flight back to base without proper inspection.

It is not unreasonable, however, to comment that Air France seems to have had a higher than average number of serious incidents and accidents in the last 20 years or so.

It was also not unreasonable to comment that pieces of A4 paper left outside in South-East England for 24 hours in April of last year failed to accumulate any visible ash dust from the Icelandic volcano, whether the paper was white or black.

Evidently, however, it is quite acceptable on this thread to post remarks deeply insulting of the French culture in general, and its pilots in particular.

Lemurian, unless and until the R&N Moderators rethink their criteria for intervention on these threads, you and I – and the majority of normally fair-minded readers and contributors – are probably wasting our time here. And take note of what ATC Watcher has said.

Chris

PS: This was originally post #82.

AlphaZuluRomeo
3rd May 2011, 13:42
@ ATC Watcher:
The link (http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/441029-results-air-france-safety-inquiry.html) provided by blind pew in post #70 validates your point of view. There is a problem. :D

Then, it's not about "waiting for the bad period to go away", it seems to me.

What if "AF and the staff that work for it" was "constantly on the defensive" because of still being accused of "having not yet realised the seriousness of their situation", when in fact they are aware & working to correct it?

I'm not sure maintaining that sort of pressure (*) is the right thing to do. :=

(*) i.e. "every smallest incident will come up in the spotlight" (and quickly transforms in some kind of bashing)

AZR

PS : I'm not AF.

Lemurian
3rd May 2011, 14:29
Chris,
As you've probably noticed, I don't really post any more on this forum for the appalling lack of courtesy, parochialism or pure hatred one doesn't see anywhere else on any aviation-related sites (and I am a member of a few...)
The whole site is a huge jet blast and when I see you, or PJ2 or PBL savaged by imbeciles who don't know their asses for their noses, let alone talk about aviation, I can't accept it.

That AirFrance has a safety culture problem, I'd be the last to deny it. As a matter of fact there is a culture problem at AF, of which safety is the most important aspect. The origin of that problem dates back to the moment Air Inter was absorbed, some eighteen years ago. Can't say it better, and we could have a conversation / discussion / even an argument about it.

What is wrong is that when at the end of January, it was revealed that we'd ask a foreign panel to investigate areas of safety improvement(s), that was probably not newsworthy as the thread went totally unnoticed, although, to my knowledge, nobody else in Europe has done anything similar.
What is not acceptable is malice, and hatred ( sorry, can't see another word, when even a Canadian writes a totally unproven experience on "Aerofrog"). That's about the max I can take, and I can dish a few items of cuisine too.

Look at the AF447 search :
"Won't find the f...ing black boxes because that will kill AF and Airbus;"
"They'll never find them because they don't want to find them"
after 4 phases:
"we'll never know what happened to that airplane and AF is saved "
"they started the 5th phase but it's just a show for the families"
"they found the DFDR chassis, of course they've already removed the SSMU"
"they found the recorder, but you'll see, the data are unreadable"...

Have you seen posters acknowledge the fact that Air France, not the insurers, not the government, not anybody but the BEA, is financing the search and recovery of the recorders, the passengers and some pieces of the airplane ? And that, at a time when, according to the French law, there is a manslaughter procedure ested against them ?
On a film you could see the BEA official and a gendarme acting as "officer of the Law", putting some seals on the container and a label one can read as "AF447 Unvoluntary manslaughter..."
We, at AirFrance know better than anyone that we're going to get kicked in the teeth in that coming report : there are training / qualifications / PilotUnions attitudes / Management mistakes on social peace..... etc...issues,
but it was deemed necessary and important to get a final conclusion on that accident.
After all, who is responsible ?
Airbus ? The aircraft had been certified, down to the last pitot tube, CTM have been published...
AirFrance ? The crew have been released in accordance with DGCA texts and regulations and agreements with the AOC.
Letting the memory of the accident fade away wasn't really a bad proposition, or was it ?
But NO . Another 28 M euros later, at last the boxes are back at the surface.
Did it strike anyone how odd the whole recovery procedure is ? As if neither AF or the BEA wanted the weest smidgereen of a wisp of a hint of foul play.
I'm telling you. We live in a F...ing distorted world when one actions have to be to appease idiots, biggots and haters ( not even talking about the conspiracy crackpots ).
As for the most anti-French of all, the one who calls himself "French but fortunately trained abroad", just take a look at the French Forum. Easy and quick. You'll discover that there are two kinds of French airline pilots : those with AF and those who failed the AF entry, those who'll try and make you believe that we're born AF pilots and are privileged by birth. Sheesh !
There's somebody I hate more than a hypocrite and that's a turncoat.
I owed you that explanation, Chris, for respect's sake. I had to make sure that you knew I was INCENSED
Regards

PS And take note of what ATC Watcher has said.

No. As I've been reading his posts on the French forum for quite a while, he'll never be a reference . from one of the most vocal and active AF bashers on the forum, I take no lesson.

IFixPlanes
3rd May 2011, 15:05
...The big mistake is the assumption that no load 15 report means no hard landing which means category of landing is known. This is FALSE. No load 15 report means that the category of landing remains unknown.

No load 15 report following a crew report of a hard landing requires an FDR readout or a severe landing inspection. It is a very important difference

@ Safety Concerns
It is also a big mistake to think that a Task for the A320Fam (05-51-11-200-004A) is the same as for the A330. :E

The correct task for the AF A330 is 05-51-11-200-802-A. There is NO choice to read out the FDR or do the severe landing inspection.

In contrary to the A320 you have to find out the landing impact parameters:
...If you do not (or if you cannot) read the landing impact parameters from the load report 15, or the DFDRS, do these steps before the subsequent flight:
- Supply DFDR or QAR data (if available) to Airbus with the pilot report and the load trim sheet,
- Do the inspection in paragraph 4 and make a report of damage or what you find,
- Airbus will do an analysis of the incident to find if the aircraft can return to service. (The aircraft cannot return to service without Airbus decision).
...
(Highlighted by me)

Safety Concerns
3rd May 2011, 15:05
Have you seen posters acknowledge the fact that Air France, not the insurers, not the government, not anybody but the BEA, is financing the search and recovery of the recorders,

could it be that the few millions cost of this search is a good investment if the boxes tell us the probes were at fault and not AF?

JW411
3rd May 2011, 15:14
So it is all Air Inter's fault?

That is a huge relief.

OFSO
3rd May 2011, 15:22
Speaking as one who rates pretty low on any empathy test and who is likely to say "oh, the xxx are all unmitigated swine" where xxx may be any race or nationality in the world*, I'm nevertheless horrified at just how quickly members of PPRuNe on Flight Deck Forums descend into savagery and rip and tear at French airlines or French airframe manufacturers, the Spanish ATC, the Russians, the Poles, or the American military.

C'mon guys, lighten up - or go express your views on JB. Not here, where I visit to read calm and reasoned postings to find out what really happened......

* This applies especially to my own country of birth.

Safety Concerns
3rd May 2011, 15:35
ifixplanes technically you are correct BUT........

the safety recommendation was quite clear that Airbus should address the load 15 issue for ALL A320's and 330's and 340's.

Also the same logic applies across the fleet because the human factor error is often the same:

I have no load 15 report so I haven't performed a hard landing and the inspection/verification process comes to a halt. WRONG!!!!!!

The basic point is still correct irrespective of any unnecessary nitpicking.

Lemurian
3rd May 2011, 15:39
could it be that the few millions cost of this search is a good investment if the boxes tell us the probes were at fault and not AF?
No. Whatever the initial cause of the accident, AirFrance will not escape a few pointed questions about their operations... flight management...
So it is all Air Inter's fault?
That is a huge relief.
Did I ever write that or are you just trying to be stupid ( because you're succeding) ?

IFixPlanes
3rd May 2011, 16:56
@ JW411
I only give the AMM reference.
I do not know if or how there was a crosstalk between Air Inter and the MCC of AF.
Without this knowledge ist is impossible to point out the guilty person or organisation.

@ Safety Concerns
That is no nitpicking. This is the actual AF A330 AMM.
I warmly recommend to read the A330 AMM (especially the part in conjunction with Zone 3) ;)

Safety Concerns
3rd May 2011, 17:01
its exactly why you engineers remain as you are. Completely unable to relate to the bigger picture.

The fact is that accident investigators have discovered that on numerous occasions engineers do not progress past the load 15 report dilemma. As stated, the common misconception is no load 15, no hard landing, no need to look in the maintenance manual.

Zone 3,4,5,6, or 500, completely misses the AAIB and others point.

IFixPlanes
3rd May 2011, 17:20
I did NOT say that without a Report 15 there is no hard landing.
A hard landing inspection starts when the crew makes a report of a hard/hard overweight landing, or when you get a Report 15 with values that require a inspection.

I take a guess:
You get your name from your safety department? :E

captplaystation
3rd May 2011, 17:47
Lemurian,

You said you have not posted much on these forums in a while, perhaps that was a good decision on your part.
I offer this observation based on the fact that you seem to have taken exception to every other post that appears, whilst simultaneously berating/belittling anyone whose view you don't share.
We all have differences of opinion with certain individuals in life, but when we appear to have differences with "everyone" there are only two solutions . . . either everyone else is wrong. . . . OR? :hmm:

Lemurian
3rd May 2011, 18:00
Dear Captain,
Did you read the whole thread or shall I put together what I consider offending arguments?
Because it's quite easy to do it. And maybe ,just maybe you'd start understanding my position.
BTW, I had no quarrel with Chris, did I ?

regards.

captplaystation
3rd May 2011, 21:30
Lemurian,

I responded, but it was deleted, nothing too controversial/insulting I assure you.
C'est la vie !

Anyway, "least said soonest mended"

Bonne nuit :zzz:

australiancalou
4th May 2011, 06:38
Lemurian
AF is one of the best airline to work for but not one of the best with safety records, why?
I used to be proud of AF but time has come to say I am not anymore.
Technocrats took control of our job and make the rules (Cible avion, Captain autority......)
This concerns all the pilots.
FTL and licencing (MCL) are the main reasons of downgraded safety in the Worlwide aviation along with maintenance and fuel price.
Cost killing starts with payroll.
AF kept good working conditions with no or less fatigue issues.
Too much self confidence is the deal.
Training should start with knowledge of competitors or smaller airlines way of working.
Qantas is a great example to start with....
Be able to say we are not the best but happy (and not proud) to work here.
Bon vols

ATC Watcher
4th May 2011, 07:07
Dear Lemurian,
You seem to be blinded by the bashing some expressed on this forum against your employer, and the critical comments or “lessons” as you call them, from colleagues and peers. Do not mix the 2.

I never intended to ” bash AF” as you said here . This was the first airline I flew in when I was 10 years old ( in a Super G ) and I still have all the Dinky toys metal model airplanes of that era on my cupboard. I love that airline for its past and its history ,therefore basically I am a strong critic of what I see now, what its senior management , its internal Unions fighting, and some of its crews have done with it.

I am not here to give “ lessons” to anyone. My past job was ( and still is part time today) dealing with safety , although applied to ATM not Airline Flight operations. Part of my his job consist of finding ,eliminating or mitigating the few remaining holes in various latent layers in order to have ZERO accident. You can only do that if you have an open incident reporting culture and a management behind you that will implement what you propose, and take care the consequences .Since a few years budget/costs has become a major constraint we cannot ignore, but human mitigation is still possible.

The “ Colin report” ordered by AF was a very important step in identifying the layers, the holes and was a good base in determining a corrective action/process. We all applauded this report at the time if I remember correctly. But what happened next ? Why is AF still in the news with incidents ( and all the others that do not make the media ) that are showing the same old pattern ?

I am aware that AF management is” trying to do something “ but what I see and read ( from the outside) is rather a defensive approach aimed at keeping the load factors and not upsetting the Unions, rather than a radical deep will to turn things around. You have the inside knowledge, tell me I am wrong please.

Also please stop mentioning ever and ever how other airlines have similar incidents and are treated better. Yes everyone has incidents, how you deal with them is the issue in this thread (CCS) . Comparing BA 777/Heathrow and Toronto will not get you any sympathy here. Maybe in a pub in France , but not here.

Bons vols et bien Cordialement.

Lemurian
4th May 2011, 09:38
Also please stop mentioning ever and ever how other airlines have similar incidents and are treated better. Yes everyone has incidents, how you deal with them is the issue in this thread (CCS)
Yes, please tell me the issue at stake in this thread, because I haven't found it, apart from a very interesting discussion between IFP and AC - whom I congratulate for keeping their subject and their wits when everything else went into shambles around them! Talk about cool heads and concentration on the subject at hand ! Congratulations !:ok:
As for mentioning others'events, I'll do it everytime I think that objectivity and fairness are not being served.
And why shouldn't I ?
Because, as you said, itwill not get (me) any sympathy here ?
As things go, that has never existed from the vast majority of this population, so I'm not in a beauty contest. Might as well know it now.

Australian Calou :
I used to be proud of AF but time has come to say I am not anymore.
I understand and sympathise as at times I get the same feelings.
But I'm still optimistic.

Kind regards.

Ptimat31
4th May 2011, 17:10
Wow !! Hopefully we didn't have some sleeping controllers in CDG recently otherwise we could have a merged AF/ATC French bashing thread :E

Shamrock 75
4th May 2011, 22:28
I saw this AF A332 in Caracas today, it is parked at the end of the passenger terminal on the right hand side as you park in.....it is sitting in a set of jacks looking a sorry sight !! Its engines are covered up and some masking tape was visable on this aircraft. This aircraft will not be going anywhere very soon !

V1... Ooops
5th May 2011, 06:16
I think it has to be clear that Air France now faces the same safety challenges that Korean faced 5 years ago...

That is a fair and 'polite' (non-confrontational) assessment. More to the point, I think it could also be said that AF now faces the same problems with low public confidence that Korean faced some years ago (bit longer than 5 years, I think).

I certainly don't have any animosity towards AF, and I most sincerely hope that they do make progress in the future and regain the confidence of their passengers and the public at large.

DJ77
6th May 2011, 14:03
Objective comment:

"I saw this AF A332 in Caracas today. She is parked at the end of the passenger terminal since no hanger is available. She is sitting in a set of jacks as mechanics are working on its undercarriage. Its engines and sensitive parts have been thoroughly protected from the corrosive maritime environment (CCS is on the shoreline). This aircraft will fly again as soon as the repairs on its RH MLG are complete."

VeTech
7th May 2011, 18:15
wow, this thread has some interesting and not interesting posts hehe

UPDATE:
RH landing gear has been replaced already, LH is being replaced as we speak.
Heavy rain has delayed the job considerably.

I will be surprised that they will get permit to fly out of here with all that fuselage damage..maybe unpressurized..

I have photos, do I need to have them online somewhere or can I post them here from my desktop?

WhatsaLizad?
7th May 2011, 18:48
Just had a seance where the spirit of 411A was present. Standard levitating table, the tossing of loose objects, some thunder and lightning with a voice rumbling "I told you so".

Silence and calm returned as it was explained that it was AF and not AA.

RIP

Me Myself
8th May 2011, 18:13
Lemurian and Australiancalou are bickering like old women for a hard landing ? What is it going to be when 447 DFDR and CVR contends are published. I sure as egg will be taking cover.

Astraliancalou, it strikes me in this that the responsability of a hard landing has to be shoved on AF management laps. Who do you think you are kidding ????
Ever heard of a stabilized approach, ya know things like stable vertical speed and approach speed and not a nightmarish 1800 ft a min at 200 ft ? The hard floor is 500 ft, which means that with this horror scenario they should have been nose in the sun buggering off to Mars.
I happen to be working for this fine airline and this I can tell you : every time I f....d up and I wished it hadn't been that many times ( praise the lord I didn't make headline news ).....it was I and not my boss who was sitting in the left hand seat. Read me son ?
Every single time I felt like horse manure and raked my brain at how not to
EVER do it again. That's why I never thought of myself like an invincible hotshot. If anything, this job has humbled me more than I would have wished.
There are truck loads of men and women who feel the way I feel and that I'm happy to be able to call colleagues.
As to Qantas which you so eloquently mention without knowing too much about it,
I doubt they would put up with the kind of nonsense that has been going on
for too long now.


We are in an industry and in a particular airline that so far, treats us fairly and
pays us well. The least we could do would be to admit and correct when we
screw the pooch.
Sure thing, there are systemic issues which I can't discuss here, but the buck starts with us and stops with us. That's a ****ty deal, I know but it's no different from what BA, LH or QF get thrown on their laps. Trust me, I have been in this joint long enough to be able to tell you it wasn't always like this.
Sure, our now retired elders had sometimes foul moods and were not always easy to handle, but one thing is sure, they were responsible and accountable and would have rather performed Sepuku than give this sorry display of self pitty " not me not not me "
Grow up son ! No one is going to clean up after you.
We all have to do our homework on this one and if not for ourselves ( if you don't hive a s..t anymore ) at least for the people who trust us with their lives.
Otherwise, we'll soon be out of a job and I'm not sure people like gou will like the taste of what the real world out there is all about. I've been there and I don't want to go back.
And yes, the Colin report was the best ever stuff written in years, and that's why it was shelved in the attic by the unions.

As to our usual all too happy whatever south of the Channel country bashers and who rolled themselves in dust screaming at 411's death news. Do show some decency in your comments, will ya ? I can take a punch on the chin, however, I resent mud sligging.

australiancalou
9th May 2011, 06:29
Daddy Me
Can't understand what your position really is.
You simply disagree with everyone but Yourself mate.
I am proud of my records untill now but not of most of my colleague's behaviour unable to fight against management interference in our Decision Process.
That's it.
Didn't comment on hard landing in any mean.
And what do you know about the CVR of the AF447.....
I'm an old fashionned pilot trained by old timers not easy to work with but gutsy and respectable.
Too much confidence that's the real deal and your nickname is the perfect evidence of this.
Dday mate......in your sunny jail :mad: the retirement funds.......

PJ2
9th May 2011, 19:10
VeTech;
I have photos, do I need to have them online somewhere or can I post them here from my desktop?

You have to upload them to a photo hosting site, then insert the link that these sites provide into your PPRuNe post. Two links to such sites are provided below. I use both but prefer smugmug for ease of use.

You may have to experiment with the link, using the "Preview Post" feature in the "Reply to Thread" window of PPRuNe to make sure that the link works. Otherwise it just shows up as a small "X" in a box. I have found using the "Direct Link" link of the several options available on these hosting sites works.

Clicking on the "mountain scenery" icon at the top of the reply window provides a place to paste the copied link. Here are the two sites.

Cheers!


Image hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket (http://photobucket.com/)

Photo Sharing. Your Photos Look Better Here. (http://www.smugmug.com/)

Lemurian
11th May 2011, 14:03
Lemurian and Australiancalou are bickering like old women for a hard landing
If that is the only thing you saw in my posts, I suggest that you'd think of bying another pair of reading glasses, because I talked about a lot of things and certainly not about any landing technique.
And from an old woman to another, you don't seem to grow old(er) gracefully.
Please attend to that before trying to put words in my mouth I have not said.

upspeed
13th May 2011, 02:39
Gentleman,

Just passed through Maiquetia a few days ago. Here are some pics.

Fly Safe!

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m639/upspeed1/AF-CCS1.jpg

http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m639/upspeed1/AF-CCS2.jpg

DJ77
13th May 2011, 19:56
So where is the fuselage damage ? Or should I see an optician ?

twochai
14th May 2011, 21:17
So where is the fuselage damage?

Probably covered over with salt spray residue, I would venture!

VeTech
27th May 2011, 19:24
Latest update..

Main Landing Gears replaced, aircraft is of jacks and both engines are being prepared for removal due inspection...yikes...

pjd_012
4th Jun 2011, 20:26
I just departed CCS - it appears that the AF 330 plane has left. It was at the airport on Saturday (28 May) last week - with one engine off. It is no longer at the stand and not visible in any hanger.

stillalbatross
4th Jun 2011, 23:34
can any engineers on here explain at what stage or at what level the engines need to be removed, is it for pylon replacement of some sort?

Yankee Whisky
5th Jun 2011, 14:47
I would think that engines are subject to bearing inspections and
structural attachments etc.

Brinneling due to high 'g' loading of bearings could cause early failure
if left in place.

There may be more to it, as I am not familiar with the degree of damage.

rubik101
6th Jun 2011, 15:51
Many years ago, at a well known training school in Oxfordshire, I had the misfortune to be positioning back to said school in the back of a Seneca. We touched down on the tarmac runway with the merest squeak of rubber and continued descending, much to everyone's surprise. The right gear had collapsed bringing us to a rather ungainly and somewhat misaligned stop close to the runway edge. The stbd prop looked very sad.
I legged it to the Ops room and withstood a whole host of questions, most of which I couldn't answer, mainly because I was very much PNF in the back. It later became apparent that the aircraft had been flown the previous day by two students from another nation who had been seen to wallop it into the ground and quietly walked away, saying nothing at the time.

Plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose.

TopBunk
6th Jun 2011, 19:07
... It later became apparent that the aircraft had been flown the previous day by two students from another nation who had been seen to wallop it into the ground and quietly walked away, saying nothing at the time.

Surely those who also saw it bear some responsibility for reporting it, as well:=:confused:

lomapaseo
8th Jun 2011, 15:06
Surely those who also saw it bear some responsibility for reporting it, as well:=http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

if one were tp report incidents like this based on watching a landing, there would be lots of aircraft holed up awaiting inspections