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.



:sad:

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I believe Ryanair had a similar scare soem time ago with some of their 737-200's. These have now been permanently withdrawn from service.

I thought Ryanair still operate 732's?

According to this week's Flight, seven withdrawn from service through damage with compensation for the early retirement, 13 more to be retired.

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 ?

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

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.

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Why try to reduce this to A v B? What we are talking about is serious structural issues that are causing aircraft to be withdrawn from service early, whats more its not a rumour.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?

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.

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.

Cheers
Wino

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.

Cejk

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

by Direct Anywhere

and from Lambeth1
So if the 73's are additional ones, then it is new news.

....and the 757's

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.

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

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?

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!

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



Cheers
Wino

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.

WOW,

if they did that its mind boggling....

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


Cheers
Wino