Skyservice damage
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skyservice damage
Usually I am an observer and not a poster but I have seen some interesting pictures of a skyservice B767 in the carribean, it seems to have suffered extreme skin damage to the forward fuselage as a result of a hard landing, I cannot identify the aircraft but I understand it to be and old First choice machine. anyone any idea what actually happened?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear....that didn't last very long!
Saw it take off from Filton freshly painted a while back...looked smart!
Photo of damage in here somewhere:
Daniel
Saw it take off from Filton freshly painted a while back...looked smart!
Photo of damage in here somewhere:
Daniel
Last edited by DanielP; 26th May 2005 at 23:05.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/C landed at PUJ, Punta Cana. WX ok, wind calm, no rain.
Landed main gear first, bumped back in the air, then landed nose gear first. 11 G on impact, at least thats what they told me.
Landed main gear first, bumped back in the air, then landed nose gear first. 11 G on impact, at least thats what they told me.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This incident is also being discussed in the Canada forum where there is a picture posted:
Hard Landing
Hard Landing
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas did a similar stunt in the early sixties at Paya Lebar in Singapore in a 707. FO flying, with Check Capt. in l/h seat; landed heavy on it's nosewheel on RW 02, bounced and went around. They were very lucky to get away with it as the impact tilted the VG platform racks, giving them false pitch attitude indications, it was a night flight. Damage was substantial with torn skin in section 41. An engineering team from Sydney eventually cobbled it together and it was ferried back to base unpressurized.
Combine Operations
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11g on impact?
Can this be right? Let me start by confessing my wide-ranging ignorance of the aircraft, but could it survive an 11g touch-down and remain in one piece?
I believe the maximum take-off weight for the 767 is something over 200 tonnes. If it landed at half that weight - don't know whether that is reasonabe - 11g equates to 1,100 tonnes.
What is the nose gear stressed to? And the passenger seats? A triple seat, with three passengers at 80kg each, gives 240kg, plus the weight of the seat. At 11g that gives something like 2.75 tonnes.
Or have I picked the wrong tree up which to bark?
I believe the maximum take-off weight for the 767 is something over 200 tonnes. If it landed at half that weight - don't know whether that is reasonabe - 11g equates to 1,100 tonnes.
What is the nose gear stressed to? And the passenger seats? A triple seat, with three passengers at 80kg each, gives 240kg, plus the weight of the seat. At 11g that gives something like 2.75 tonnes.
Or have I picked the wrong tree up which to bark?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
184,612 Kg MTOM actually.
Don't bother with sums, You'll only get a headache plus you don't know if the force was straight down or at an angle. !?
Sadly I flew this aircraft a week or so before it left the UK...
Don't bother with sums, You'll only get a headache plus you don't know if the force was straight down or at an angle. !?
Sadly I flew this aircraft a week or so before it left the UK...
Combine Operations
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Ianessar.
I have a certain fascination for numbers, but I appreciate your advice. I understand your sadness, and I sympathise. However, things could have been worse for you - the incident could have occurred a week or so earlier.
I rounded down the figure quoted by the manufacturer, actually. Maybe you are both right, it isn't important. But 11g is 11g, no matter in which direction it is applied.
Like I said, my lack of knowledge of the aircraft is profound, but I would have thought that if you applied that force to the nose gear it would make a pretty large dent in the fuselage roof, or side.
If anyone can enlighten me I would be grateful.
I have a certain fascination for numbers, but I appreciate your advice. I understand your sadness, and I sympathise. However, things could have been worse for you - the incident could have occurred a week or so earlier.
I rounded down the figure quoted by the manufacturer, actually. Maybe you are both right, it isn't important. But 11g is 11g, no matter in which direction it is applied.
Like I said, my lack of knowledge of the aircraft is profound, but I would have thought that if you applied that force to the nose gear it would make a pretty large dent in the fuselage roof, or side.
If anyone can enlighten me I would be grateful.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/660213/L/
Take a look at this one.
As far as I understood the situation this plane suffered is comparable to the one of Skyservice.
Therefore there ist still some hope to see the Skyservice one in the air again
Take a look at this one.
As far as I understood the situation this plane suffered is comparable to the one of Skyservice.
Therefore there ist still some hope to see the Skyservice one in the air again
Join Date: May 2005
Location: At a desk
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if i'm talking nonsense, but i was under the impression that military pilots had to spend months training to withstand forces of approx 7-8g albeit for sustained periods. Surely a 767 full of average joes sustained to 11g would "land" with some rather pained and possibly uncoinscious passengers??
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Surely a 767 full of average joes sustained to 11g would "land" with some rather pained and possibly uncoinscious passengers"
Yes, but it wasn't sustained. In your fast jet example the problem is transference of blood from the head into the limbs, which can cause loss of consciousness within a few seconds, but not in the few milliseconds of an impact.
In that instance the problem is traumatic injury, however 11G isn't all that severe. A car crash at 30mph into an immovable object can subject the driver to around 50G for a very short time (which is definitely a problem). I'd say it is more likely that the pax and crew in this case would have been subjected to extreme discomfort rather than serious injury.
In any case I believe it was stated that the 11G shock was sustained by the nose gear. The tyres, dampers and deformation of the airframe would all have reduced the force experienced by the pax and crew.
Rob
Yes, but it wasn't sustained. In your fast jet example the problem is transference of blood from the head into the limbs, which can cause loss of consciousness within a few seconds, but not in the few milliseconds of an impact.
In that instance the problem is traumatic injury, however 11G isn't all that severe. A car crash at 30mph into an immovable object can subject the driver to around 50G for a very short time (which is definitely a problem). I'd say it is more likely that the pax and crew in this case would have been subjected to extreme discomfort rather than serious injury.
In any case I believe it was stated that the 11G shock was sustained by the nose gear. The tyres, dampers and deformation of the airframe would all have reduced the force experienced by the pax and crew.
Rob