http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k1...8112008004.jpg

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k1...8112008001.jpg

NZ1009,

Good stuff mate, I have to admit I really did think you were a journo but added the questions to make it look like I was giving benefit of doubt.:O

300hrs is probably enough to have an appreciation of the constant trade off between safety and getting the job done. There is always a trade off ,otherwise we would never start the engines for fear of an engine fire.
The question is where do we draw the line?
eg Did you have a LAME do a walk around of your C152 after engine start and do a "sniff check" to ensure no fuel/oil leaks , no obstructions in front of prop etc? Of course not. Would it be a good idea to do that on an airliner? Sure....what size though? A 19 seat turbo prop? Fifty seat turbo-prop? Jet a/c only? Wide-bodies only? Where is that line ???
If you ask the bean-counters who employ LAMES you will get a different answer than if you ask the LAMES, or the A380 captain, or the SLF.
I personally think a specific check by the LAME that the leading edge devices are out is a good idea.
Have fun up north . Cheers for the PM, Framer.

Nice pics Hempy. I also liked the one by Jet Crew on page 3. Does anyone know if the black plastic and tape on Jet Crews pics was a perm or temp repair?

Only permanent if it was high speed tape.:}

The 743 with the flap problem in SYD was 2 sectors away from being retired.:uhoh:

It will now be repaired at a cost of nearly $1 mill so it can be flown to Arizona for scrapping.

I thought that they could get the parts cheaply off EBU, the long term blue resident of Avalon.

A Cathay 744 being towed at AMS collided with a parked KLM MD11 with damage to both aeroplanes in full view of passengers and media....and you know what? People moved on!

Actually, I think it had been retired. It was called in to operate the CHC service after a 767 went u/s.

I have a question. I have heard that Qantas will never scrap an aircraft on home soil. This is for 2 reasons;

1. The environmental damage is too great or unlawful. I.e. there are a lot of fluids to mop up and also depleted Uranium in the mass-balances.

2. Qantas won't allow a scrapping in Oz because its just too detrimental to their Public Relations.

If this is true, why have they let VH-EBU rot in the open in Avalon? It will obviously never fly again. Anyone know the story?

I don't know if that's their policy or not but, you can always contain the fluids
if the area is set up right. The mass balance weights are bolt on items so these
could easily be removed and disposed of correctly.

As for public relations I could see no reason why it could not be disassembled inside a hangar out of Joe Public's view.

I believe there are some issues with the sealants that are used between lap and butt joints when the aluminum goes
to the furnace but I would think there would some work arounds by now especially with the large amount of metal
processed out of the bone yards in the US.

I find this very interesting but what is a "mass balance" item ? I have tried googling it but nothing.

simsalabin,

Boeing stopped using depleted Uranium as counterweights in the 1980's, but it was used as a trim weight (denser than lead) on outboard elevator and upper rudder assemblies.

simsalabim,

Mass balancing gives equal mass about the hinge line. Flight control surfaces MUST be "mass balanced" to avoid in flight flutter and, simply, destruction of the airframe.

Obviously, the smallest physical mass of "stuff" which will balance is best, hence dense metals. As it happens, depleted uranium is more dense than lead and can be protected, or more to the point kept out of contact with people like us, by proper surface treatment. It is not a good idea to work the depleted uranium using any sort of tools unless you know what you are up to and are properly protected.

Try this link

Civil aircraft register - Search CASA's aircraft register

Put in EBU

It is not even registered anymore.

And here's Qantas taking 'servicable' parts of it for their current fleet.

ie. fwd pressure bulkhead I hear!

How is a deregistered aircraft not fit to be a parts source, the bone yards would go broke pronto.

Perhaps we should get that rudder off OJA after all it came out of the bone yard, ex EBS.

Torqueman I think you are being told crap. The fwd bulkhead would not be a component that you swap between aircraft.
I could be wrong, but all the rivet holes would be drilled aircraft specific rather than using a drill jig. So using a second hand item would require lots of oversized fastener holes.
Not something you want in the pressure bulkhead.

Yes no mucking around with dodgy pressure bulkhead repairs.... as JAL (via a Boeing repair) found out - a very delicate bit of gear. I remember seeing on Nat Geo very recently the boeing team repairing an Air Seychelles 767 aft pressure bulkhead - they werent taking any chances.... (well so it appeared to the viewer).

This thread needs a wind.

I am told that this incident was a result of a lack of local towing procedures and nothing else.
Next time they will have to back the aircraft away from the parking mark before they start to turn, it seems that the extra length of the tow bar and tug were not taken into consideration until this incident.

Apparently the engineers involved did not lose their jobs, can't confirm or deny this point.

Also, what is the status of OJK - is it back in service?

VH-OJK returned to service on January 18.