PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Engineers & Technicians (https://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians-22/)
-   -   Maint. damaged Boeing aircraft investigated (https://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/133285-maint-damaged-boeing-aircraft-investigated.html)

Cejkovice 8th Jun 2004 12:26

Boeing aircraft investigated
Some food for thought!

Source: The Australian

Damage that occurred recently with two Qantas jumbo jets has encouraged an urgent worldwide examination of Boeing aircraft that has so far uncovered similar problems in more than 40 planes. Qantas grounded the Boeing 747s last year after engineers discovered a potentially devastating 70cm crack in one aircraft's fuselage during maintenance.

The crack was in a strap used to knit sections of the fuselage together during manufacturing and could have led to a serious structural failure if left unrepaired. Marks on the damaged plane indicated the crack had grown from damage caused by the use of metal tools during repainting by previous owner Malaysia Airlines. Similar metal tool marks had now been found worldwide on 32 Boeing 737s, four 747s and seven 757s.


SNNEI 8th Jun 2004 13:19

Food for Thought indeed!

I believe Ryanair had a similar scare soem time ago with some of their 737-200's. These have now been permanently withdrawn from service.

eal401 8th Jun 2004 13:37

I thought Ryanair still operate 732's?

Globaliser 8th Jun 2004 13:42

According to this week's Flight, seven withdrawn from service through damage with compensation for the early retirement, 13 more to be retired.

Bre901 8th Jun 2004 16:21

Not wishing to start any war here, but I'm just wondering how many replies would have fallen onto this thread if it was Company A instead of B ?

Anti Skid On 9th Jun 2004 01:38

This is old news guys - it was news last year here

Globaliser 9th Jun 2004 08:36

No, that's not the news. The news is the additional "32 Boeing 737s, four 747s and seven 757s" on which similar damage has been found. And a good thing too.

RogerTangoFoxtrotIndigo 9th Jun 2004 08:45

Not wishing to start any war here, but I'm just wondering how many replies would have fallen onto this thread if it was Company A instead of B ?
Well, my bet is plenty more actualy. Why try to reduce this to A v B? What we are talking about is serious structural issues that are causing aircraft to be withdrawn from service early, whats more its not a rumour. Do you not think that this is worth discussing on a professional pilots forum?

Bre901 9th Jun 2004 09:05

Do you not think that this is worth discussing on a professional pilots forum?
Yes indeed (although some might think I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that matter ;) )
And I do think that as an SLF, safety matters also to me.

The point I wanted to make is that I am surprised that no discussion started at all.

I'm still thinking that if it had been company A, a heated discussion (to say the least) would have started.

Wino 9th Jun 2004 15:29

This is a maintenance issue, not an aircraft issue. That is why there has been no disccussion of it.

The companies in question chose to use a substandard paintshop, and they have reaped what they sown.... The perils of contract maintenance. (not a slam on ALL contract maint, but the very real risks when costs become your number one prioirity)

Sooner or later someone will find an Airbus that visited that shop and it to will be a scratch...

A better title on the thread would most likely have drawn more comments and discussion as this is a maint issue, not an aircraft issue.


Cejkovice 9th Jun 2004 16:17

As far as I know the design is different between the bus and the boeing which is why this is only affecting boeing planes. Someone mentioned that the paint shops were following boeing procedures/tooling - can anyone confirm that?

You're right that this may be maintenance companies looking for a quick $$$ but this is certainly something that all of us in the industry need to be aware of as people's lives are possibly at stake which will cost us all many $$$$$ across the industry if planes start breaking up.


Anti Skid On 10th Jun 2004 08:50

And from the original thread the maintainence was questioned and the firm who did it allegedly no more

Ryanair is removing six 737's - all from the same source as the two QF -400's. Other operators who bought second hand Malaysian aircraft are also quite concerned. It appears Malaysian - who were required by the contract of sale to do the repainting - may have used an incorrect stripper and metallic tools resulting in dissimilar metal corrosion and subsequent fatigue cracking.
by Direct Anywhere

and from Lambeth1

the outfit involved has done many a/c for many airlines,there last stuff up (carried out the same method of sealent removal) was 3 x 777's for an American carrier.which have been subsequently written off.The outfit question is no longer around.
So if the 73's are additional ones, then it is new news.

Cejkovice 10th Jun 2004 10:09

....and the 757's

TRF4EVR 10th Jun 2004 10:55

Not wishing to start any war here, but I'm just wondering how many replies would have fallen onto this thread if it was Company A instead of B ?
What are you wishing to do, then, exactly? Start a "reasoned discussion" between likeminded probability theorists regarding the likely outcome of something which didn't happen?

A flame war is the only logical result of your hypothetical question. So, I guess, *flame*.

Everyone else: Feel free to interupt with pertinent facts and on-subject comments at any time. We'll be over here in the sandbox throwing things and making faces.

Onions 10th Jun 2004 11:28

So who do all these aircraft belong to?? Are they still in service or parked up somewhere while someone decides their fate??

Cytherea 10th Jun 2004 13:26

I may be wrong but I was abouring under the impression that one of the RYR 200's that suffered this probem was the Jaguar aircraft...I have flown that STN-DUB recently....Are they operating under a concession from the IAA?

Flight also quotes MO'L as saying that FLS wil pay an est $10M compensation package to RYR for the damage...Interesting as the last I heard FLS were trying to sue MO'L for damages reating to his comments implicating them in the problem - a climb down or MO'L stirring again?

hobie 10th Jun 2004 15:32

could someone give a Technical summary of how the problem occurred and its effects on the Aircraft?

thanks .....

ps. to think it could cause the Write-off of three 777's is mind boggling!

Wino 10th Jun 2004 15:52

What ever they were doing and what ever machinery they were using there was contact with the aluminum skins of the aircraft. If you scratch it you weaken it. and create a weak point that will crack.

Do it in enough places and you total the aircraft because you would be faced with reskinning the whole aircraft, which is practically impossible.

I suspect they had some sort of automated machinery that was miscalibrated or something similar.

There are many ways of stripping paint off an aircraft, some chemical (with fierce envirnmental problems if you are in a country that cares about that) some via impact. sandblasting,( which leaves a contamination problem) I've seen CO2 (dry ice) beads used as well which later evaporate eliminating the contamination problem, but causes other problems. The impact ones are the cleanest, but improper technique will have you cutting metal. You can also have contact from the spray nozzles


ukeng 10th Jun 2004 17:22

Wino, it's more simple than that. It was the use of metal scrapers (hand tools) removing sealant from lap joints that caused the damage (allegedly).
Not a cause of cost cutting IMO but more of poor training/ignorance.

Wino 10th Jun 2004 17:48


if they did that its mind boggling....

No oversight either.... You pay your money and takes your chances....


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:11.

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.