PDA

View Full Version : Network F100 bent??


CaptCloudbuster
23rd Oct 2012, 08:49
Saw some pics of what was purported to be a Network F100 bent yesterday on landing in the WA mines.

Any info out there??

BPA
23rd Oct 2012, 10:01
The ATSB are investigating it, so in 12 months we should have the story.

mach.865
23rd Oct 2012, 10:51
So which mine? Hopefully not the one with the hump in the middle.

Icarus2001
23rd Oct 2012, 11:35
Investigation: AO-2012-137 - Hard Landing - VH-NQE, Fokker F-28 Mk 100, Nifty Aerodrome, Western Australia - 19 October 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-137.aspx)

Could it be this one?

Why wait twelve months? The flight sim brigade will have their final report finished within a week, just after the execution of the pilot.:O

600ft-lb
23rd Oct 2012, 11:36
Investigation: AO-2012-137 - Hard Landing - VH-NQE, Fokker F-28 Mk 100, Nifty Aerodrome, Western Australia - 19 October 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-137.aspx)

fokkers are quite cheap, i wonder if it will be a write off ?

Monopole
23rd Oct 2012, 11:44
just after the execution of the pilot I hope not. The skipper is an experianced pilot and a real gentleman.

The big Q will rebuild it at any cost won't they? Can't have a hull loss...

IAW
23rd Oct 2012, 22:04
Reality is, Network have more F100s on order than they need. So even if this one is reduced to spares, they will just introduce another ex Avianca machine quicker than originally planned.

Fokkers are a tough bird though. If it's just suffering from a little wrinkled skin it'll be fine.

The Green Goblin
23rd Oct 2012, 23:05
Not a problem.

A little bit of polish and some 'international' money and she'll be as good as new :D

Servo
24th Oct 2012, 00:41
Was it the new bloke in the left seat???

Not LG or BS I hope.

armchair quarterback
24th Oct 2012, 00:45
Bent? [email protected]@ted more like it.

litechop
24th Oct 2012, 01:04
Bent rippled torn all of the above apparently windshear caused the heavy landing looks like the first hull loss for Qantas :{

flightfocus
24th Oct 2012, 01:44
Can we see the pix as well?

IAW
24th Oct 2012, 02:00
I've seen a couple of pics, totally repairable. Not worse than the 717 a few years back. A bit of reskinning and NDT testing probably.

Engineer_aus
24th Oct 2012, 03:54
Qantas subsidiary Network suffers possible hull loss in WA | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/10/24/qantas-subsidiary-network-suffers-possible-hull-loss-in-wa/)

denabol
24th Oct 2012, 11:33
Stepson just drew my attention to this paragraph on Ben's blog.

It seems very fair minded.

Remote and basic airstrips are more at risk from undetected windshear conditions than major airports and the actions of the pilots may well have been critical to avoiding an even more serious outcome in this accident.

YPJT
24th Oct 2012, 12:03
What impact is this having on ops into Nifty? Do they have sufficient parking for the U/S aircraft as well as their own requirements for FIFO?

righthandseat
25th Oct 2012, 07:45
There is no way Qantas will stand for a hull loss... They will spend millions if they have to... Just like the 747 they fixed! :ugh:

Dogimed
25th Oct 2012, 21:33
http://cdn.overclock.net/c/c4/c4bc96bd_index.jpeg

arrow28
26th Oct 2012, 02:52
Is Steve K still training F100 pilots or has he moved on to greener pastures?

Capt Claret
26th Oct 2012, 05:49
Fancy me thinking that if it's economical to repair it, it'll be repaired. And if it's not, it won't. :\

Skystar320
26th Oct 2012, 08:31
Bent beyond economical repair - sadly this machine is stacking up to be the first offical 'writeoff'

The cost associated to repairing it far outweights anything. Anyway, it would be Network that has the hull loss not Qantas?

Capt Fathom
26th Oct 2012, 11:03
A bit late on the flare Hoskins....!

The Turkey Slapper
26th Oct 2012, 11:13
Anyone care to post some pictures

Keg
26th Oct 2012, 13:33
There is no way Qantas will stand for a hull loss... They will spend millions if they have to... Just like the 747 they fixed!


Geez I get sick of killing this BS story time and again. Repair was less than $100 million. Replacement aeroplane was circa $150 million. Aircraft was insured and paid for by insurers.

rudderless1
26th Oct 2012, 19:24
Hi Keg,
I always understood QF was self insured.
On the figures you provide what outcome would the scenario
Of breaking it up for parts have had achieved.
Storage and transport Issues obviously a consideration, but at
The time 747-400 was still popular.
It did take a long time to fix and no sure if it ever flew well since?

C441
26th Oct 2012, 22:23
.........and no sure if it ever flew well since?

It flew no differently to the other 744's.

Skystar320
26th Oct 2012, 23:45
flew slightly to the left didnt it?

Keg
27th Oct 2012, 00:05
It flew no differently to the other 744's.


I agree. If you didn't look at the rego and therefore know where it had been, it was no different to any other 744 in the fleet.

rudderless, I hear the bizzo about self insurance from time to time. I'm not sure that's correct. I don't think QF would be allowed to operate were that the case. Certainly those who finance (and often own) the aeroplanes I suspect would require some sort of surety.

Breaking it up for parts? Bugger all. We're parking jumbos in perfect working order in the desert and getting virtually nothing in return. Sure we may have gotten a bit more back in '99 when 744s were more desired but only two engines were good, undercarriage no good, lots of work required, etc.

I don't recall the fix time. I have a friend that was one of the lead engineers on the project (and still has the nose gear door with JH on it in his garage) and he has mentioned it to me but I'd have to go back and check. He's doing the grey nomad thing around Australia at the moment so hard to get hold of.

Anyway, enough of OJH, back to this Network thing.

CaptCloudbuster
27th Oct 2012, 02:20
Rumour has it there was a CASA Flight Ops Inspector on the Flight Deck.

Anyone care to confirm / deny?

GAFA
27th Oct 2012, 02:39
Th F100 will be worth more as parts. Two of the biggest issues facing F100 operators is finding engines and avionics. So if it's a right off the engines will be snapped up very quickly.

Fred Gassit
27th Oct 2012, 03:47
Assuming the engines are useable..

noclue
27th Oct 2012, 04:41
Why wouldn't they be?

Mstr Caution
27th Oct 2012, 06:15
Keg,

The Qantas Group has an insurance policy with a mob in London.

The insurance details are in the Cert & Docs folder.

It was one if ALAEA's unanswered questions as to who pays for the policy as all group aircraft are listed.

pull-up-terrain
27th Oct 2012, 07:15
Geez I get sick of killing this BS story time and again. Repair was less than $100 million. Replacement aeroplane was circa $150 million. Aircraft was insured and paid for by insurers.

Keg is spot on.

From memory i think it cost about $96 million.

I was the LAME that did the final sign off and did the push back on that 747 on its first flight back into service. It was a pretty big repair job, but it wasnt as bad as what it looked to be honest.

I have flown on OJH a dozen times since and been on the flightdeck in flight several times and the pilots dont even notice anything different in the way it handles.

Yobbo
27th Oct 2012, 08:18
I was under the impression that Qantas sold it soon after it was repaired. Or was that the B-707 that ended up inverted?

IAW
27th Oct 2012, 08:33
There is an article in the west Australian that seems to be the source for "apparent landing gear damage", but I believe they have misinterpreted the photo showing the LH underbelly with RH MLG in the background.

I maintain from the 2 pics I've seen, it is repairable.

Keg
27th Oct 2012, 09:02
I was under the impression that Qantas sold it soon after it was repaired. Or was that the B-707 that ended up inverted?


Another urban myth. It left the fleet literally within the last few months- it may have even been within the last month or so? Many other 744s were retired before OJH.

Wunwing
27th Oct 2012, 09:15
I assume that the reference to a B707 being upended refers to the "Bahrein bomber"incident which from memory was VH-EAB. That aircraft continued on in the fleet to its normal disposal time so any refence to that as a premature write off is also false.I flew in that one enough to know it flew normally as well.
Wunwing

Fris B. Fairing
27th Oct 2012, 09:32
Sorry to continue the thread drift but according to Gordon Reid's Traffic column in the latest Aviation Australia, OJH departed for Marana on 3 Oct.

The "Bahrain Bomber" was indeed VH-EAB. I believe the date of the incident was 21 Feb 69. EAB operated her last QF flight on 18 Dec 77. She was considered good enough for Gough Whitlam in the interim.

I understand that Qantas did once carry their own insurance but that was when they owned aeroplanes and the "pride of ownership" concept prevailed. Engineers still understand this.

Rgds

bubble.head
27th Oct 2012, 10:23
Does anyone know how many Gs it was that damaged the F100?

Capt Claret
27th Oct 2012, 12:24
From memory i think it cost about $96 million.

I was the LAME that did the final sign off and did the push back on that 747 on its first flight back into service. It was a pretty big repair job, but it wasnt as bad as what it looked to be honest.

I have flown on OJH a dozen times since and been on the flightdeck in flight several times and the pilots dont even notice anything different in the way it handles.

C'mon pull up terrain, you're not trying to debunk an urban myth are you? :oh: ;)

aviator's_anonymous
14th Nov 2012, 13:34
Just wondering if anyone has any info about the F100 hard landing.... i'm surprised it hasn't been reported on yet or picked up by the media...

propblast
14th Nov 2012, 14:17
Another one? Or are you talking about the one 3 weeks ago?

aviator's_anonymous
14th Nov 2012, 14:21
yeah, the one at Nifty....