757 freighter cancellation. Why?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Age: 63
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757 freighter cancellation. Why?
Bluebird (Icelandic cargo operator, owned now by Icelandair) has scrapped itīs B-757 cargo operations, due to massive technical problems in conversion from pax to cargo config. They have been waiting for months now for their 757 to roll out from conversion in the US, but the plane has been pestered with certification problems (mainly around the entrance door thatīs been moved forward).
Arenīt there any operating 757īs in the cargo business, i.e. planes that have been converted?
Arenīt there any operating 757īs in the cargo business, i.e. planes that have been converted?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DHL have 34 757-200 sf's
However we keep the original L1 and R1 doors.
It sounds like Iclandair are trying to replicate the production freighter which moves the L1 door forward about 5 feet.
However we keep the original L1 and R1 doors.
It sounds like Iclandair are trying to replicate the production freighter which moves the L1 door forward about 5 feet.
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were these mods carried out by Premier or a similarly named organisation?
DHL/EAT 757s were converted under a Boeing STC by ST Aerospace and IAI Bedek; Premier probably had their own.
DHL/EAT 757s were converted under a Boeing STC by ST Aerospace and IAI Bedek; Premier probably had their own.
ZbV
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dusk2dawn
For a conversion or major modifications in US, FAA is the certifying agency unless the program is administered in conjuction with other aviation authorities. Makes it muchs easier to first certify a STC in one country than try to work with several.
In the Bluebird 757 the problem seems to be TECHNICAL and invloving door position.
JJ
For a conversion or major modifications in US, FAA is the certifying agency unless the program is administered in conjuction with other aviation authorities. Makes it muchs easier to first certify a STC in one country than try to work with several.
In the Bluebird 757 the problem seems to be TECHNICAL and invloving door position.
JJ
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall seeing this conversion touted a few years ago .It was based on the B727 and B737 conversions under STCs ST00781LA and ST00015AT, with adaptation to fit the 757. Fwd doorframe and structure was removed to enable a ridged bulkhead to be installed. I also recall that the entrance was through a new lower hatch (similar to the KC135)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saskatoon
Your, at least, half-way right. The 757 Production Freighter will carry 15 125x88 inch ULDs. The 757 Special Freighter (Boeing developed conversion) will carry 14 125x88 + 1 LD11 type ULD. Commonly referred to as a "half-pallet".
In other words, by attempting to move the L/R1 door forward they would have gained an additional half position.
To my knowledge, Boeing crunched the numbers when they did the SF conversion for DHL, and it was found not to be economically and technically sound to move the door forward. An added benefit of retaining the original doors is that you gain a nice little foyer, rather than on the PF where you step right into the cockpit. The PF cockpit is incredibly cramped; on the SF you can at least step out the back for a stretch.
In other words, by attempting to move the L/R1 door forward they would have gained an additional half position.
To my knowledge, Boeing crunched the numbers when they did the SF conversion for DHL, and it was found not to be economically and technically sound to move the door forward. An added benefit of retaining the original doors is that you gain a nice little foyer, rather than on the PF where you step right into the cockpit. The PF cockpit is incredibly cramped; on the SF you can at least step out the back for a stretch.
Transparency International
In-flight pictures of the first conversion and the engineering process are available and it thus stand to reason that the "technical" problems of the conversion have been solved.
However, I've been unable to find said STC on the FAA site - searching among Precision Conversions, Wagner and Erickson. Nor do the respective web pages of those companies actually claim any such STC to exist.
Consequently I assumed that the expression "certification problem" was the operative words in the original posting.
Iceland is a JAA and EEC member. I would be most surprised if they can skip the EASA procedure.
Rubber stamping other authorities approvals terminated when
The airframe may enjoy "grandfather rights" - the later STC not.
Or do I suffer a king-size misunderstanding
However, I've been unable to find said STC on the FAA site - searching among Precision Conversions, Wagner and Erickson. Nor do the respective web pages of those companies actually claim any such STC to exist.
Consequently I assumed that the expression "certification problem" was the operative words in the original posting.
Iceland is a JAA and EEC member. I would be most surprised if they can skip the EASA procedure.
Rubber stamping other authorities approvals terminated when
On 28 September 2003, the Agency [EASA] took over responsibility for the airworthiness and environmental certification of all aeronautical products, parts, and appliances designed, manufactured, maintained or used by persons under the regulatory oversight of EU Member States. Link to EASA certification.
Or do I suffer a king-size misunderstanding
Still Trampin' the Ramp
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Right in the middle of UK
Age: 76
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D2D,
You're mostly right although there are joint acknowledgements of other authority STC's. The FAA, as the original certifier, would want to first approve any STC and, once they have approved, any other authority like the CAA or EASA would then send in an inspection team to check all the paperwork over before issuing a CofA in their state of registry.
All the above ties in with info I've had that Premier, or something similar, were going for their own STC to allow 15 full pallet carriage. To achieve that, they would have to move the 1L door forward (the PF only has 1 door).
Be interesting to see what the weight penalty of moving the door & fitting a fixed bulkhead would be. The Boeing STC doesn't give as much payload as expected so any added weight would come straight off the payload.
RT
You're mostly right although there are joint acknowledgements of other authority STC's. The FAA, as the original certifier, would want to first approve any STC and, once they have approved, any other authority like the CAA or EASA would then send in an inspection team to check all the paperwork over before issuing a CofA in their state of registry.
All the above ties in with info I've had that Premier, or something similar, were going for their own STC to allow 15 full pallet carriage. To achieve that, they would have to move the 1L door forward (the PF only has 1 door).
Be interesting to see what the weight penalty of moving the door & fitting a fixed bulkhead would be. The Boeing STC doesn't give as much payload as expected so any added weight would come straight off the payload.
RT
