Thomson 767 hard-landing at BRS creases fuselage
 

As just an SLF I see the AAIB is looking at a hard-landing at Bristol on Sunday which - it appears - "bent" a Boeing 767 or at least made creases appear in the crown of the aircraft.

Frankly I'd like to avoid flying anywhere in this one G-OOBK in the future and any other airliners which have been similarly stressed. Is there a register of repaired and damaged airliners anywhere which ordinary passengers can consult?

Why stop there. What about a register for aircraft that have had bird strikes, lightning strikes, put a wheel on the grass. We could tax all passengers 1 quid to cover the administration costs of the database. We would need a big office somewhere, a CEO, a team of IT engineers and a slush fund so we could head off to lots of IFALPA and ICAO safety meetings in each corner of the world. Business class travel and 5 star hotels only!

Actually thinking about it you had better take a ferry or drive as your register would have you avoiding the vast majority of legally flying aircraft today.

Then again you could just have confidence that Thomsons engineers will follow whatever the Boeing procedure is.

Public database
 

Such a database has been suggested. Those in authority responded in lukewarm fashion.

On previously undamaged aricraft, naturally.:}

Would you drive in a car that has been written off, but repaired by an authorised engineer, tested appropriately and put back on the road?

I'm driving one and have also flown many aircraft that have been damaged and properly repaired.

Text book greaser landing for a 300hr Cadet!;)

Such a list would be useless, so quite reasonably, there isn't one. Even well informed engineers would not be able to use such a device to improve their own safety when travelling, so members of the general public would not stand a chance. The reason is that an aircraft is a no more than a collection of components. The big bits (spars, major frames and sub-assemblies) more often than not stay together, but virtually everything else is replaceable. On a regular basis, each airframe, warts and all, is certified as being fit for flight by qualified engineers. Knowing that an aircraft has had a repair in the past tells you zero about the current status of the aircraft. The industry's record speaks for itself in this area and there are very few aircraft which haven't had repairs.

To guarantee a safer travel experience, think more about the hygiene in your own kitchen, the serviceability of your car, the quality of your driving, the roads you drive on, the time you travel etc. Additionally, avoid third world airlines - If the aircraft has an EU registration you should be alright. I for one would be more than happy to travel in this aircraft once it has been declared serviceable.

PM

Although the OPs question may be a little naive, I don't think it deserves the vitriol it generated, for three reasons

1) People are encouraged by governments to take more responsibility for themselves

2) There is one aviation precedent, the EU banned airlines list, which is published

3) There is a precedent for flawed repairs, in fact the greatest single loss of life with one aircraft Japan Airlines Flight 123 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having owned a 33 year old light aircraft, I am aware of the interchangeability of parts, but most SLF would not be.

Thats the best joke I´ve read in ages, thanks for a good laugh...

@korrol: as Piltdown man pointed out, there is little parts that stay on an airplane for a long time. One of it is the fuselage. When these parts are damaged, for obvious reasons it cant just be replaced, but it will be repaired in a manner that guarantees it works safely and an AND analysis is carried out to make sure other parts, that can´t be seen, aren`t damaged as well. Very often, so called large areas / lots of parts are tested by ultrasonic or other methods to make sure the is no further damage. The aircraft themselves are engineered and designed to withstand partial failures of vital parts (remember the 737 of ALOHA - the one that lost quite a lot of its fuselage?).
All in all, a hard landing is not to uncommon, airlines usually do have quick access recorders or datalink connection to maintenance, that report anything out of the envelope (and a landing that cause dents in an airframe is certainly such an event).
Very very little chance such a thing would go unnoticed and therefore the airframe would fly in an un-airworthy state.

The problem lies with the key word appear thus the general public is left to itself drawing its own (usually misleading) conclusions without knowing hard facts. Self-educated "experts" (public or press) seem to run show nowadays and we are all too familiar with the following headlines:

The pilot appeared to be drunk. The flight appeared to be unsafe b/c of turbulence.

(This reminds me of a Cathay or Thai flight where a winglet was deferred and the majority of pax refused to board the flight b/c it appeared to be unsafe.)

I have to admit that it is difficult to comfort those that have a phobia towards flying, but please trust the professionals. At the end of the day (or flight) the most dangerous part of the flight is getting to or from the airport.

"Appears to Be"
 

This aircraft "Appears to be" one that had suffered another hard landing (and structural damage) around 10 years ago, while flying for another airline.

Does that mean that we should "definitely, definitely" not fly on it ? - perhaps some of us have already, without knowing it....

Sorry, just seing the irony of this thread.

:rolleyes:


DL1812

How about a register of undamaged or unrepaired airframes? Might be a lot quicker to compile.



PS No 'cadets' at Thomson. Nobody below a few thousand hours.

To try and reassure the OP (korrol) I can say as a pax, that I read the 767 is eminently repairable and has been oft times - including from creases of this exact kind. This is due to the manner of it's construction and materials used.

The great thing about a/c is that, when it comes to be sold on, the technical log book will have full details of this problem and how it was resolved and by whom. Whereas, 11 years ago, when my lady's car suddenly twisted across the motorway and on to the hard shoulder with a broken steering system ...? Fortunately, she hit no one else and was uninjured as the car stayed right way up. The garage diagnosed that the car had been in a prang before she bought it six years earlier and the weakened part was just waiting to snap. The car had been bought from an authorised dealer of the car but the seller had not had to tell about that prang.

Lastly, before my flight on Sunday from AGP to LTN on a TOM 738, (landing on in rain and a wet runway and a crosswind) the greatest danger was the Spanish taxi driver. :}

Now I'm really confused, I thought the fuselage was one of the bigger bits.

Never mind avoiding the a/c - think I want to avoid that crew.......:eek:
Cheers
Jont

Aviation Herald has more information on this:

Accident: Thomson B763 at Bristol on Oct 3rd 2010, hard landing

Talking about repairing aircraft, what about the BAC 1-11 that force landed on a motorway in Germany having suffered double engine failure on take off. The only problem was that the German Autobahn engineers never thought to design the loading gauge of the overhead bridges to clear British designed T tailed airliners...

Some oversight..... but that's for another thread.

Anyway, when one came in contact with the other, the bridge won and the tail came off.

I understand that BAC engineers decided on reviewing the remains, that the aircraft could be rebuilt, it duly was, and returned to service.

By all accounts it turned out to be (in it's second life) one of the best flying examples (re) built!!

And to be fair, that would be a crew I would want to fly with again.

.......yeh and if this thread turns out to be 'hero crew saves crippled jet' then I'm in, but if this is poor airmanship, then, I'm sorry - I'm out.
Cheers
Jont

And don't forget the BMA Viscount which was a "cut n shut" of two Viscounts both trashed in landing accidents. Sadly it met with a sorry end itself at a later date, but G-BMAT was widely regarded as the best one to fly out of the whole fleet. Streets ahead of G-BAPF which you could never get in trim, if I recall correctly.