LH 744 TK nose gear down
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Germany
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JamesA
Don't mention the war.
War? What war?
Heard, that the same thing happened to a Northwest Airline years ago. The nose wheel pin doesn´t seem to be designed too mechanic friendly....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>Heard, that the same thing happened to a Northwest Airline years ago. The nose wheel pin doesn´t seem to be designed too mechanic friendly....
Northwest had a 747-200 nosegear collapse at Changi (SIN) a few years ago. Maintenance had substituted an Airbus gear pin (like everything thing else, they are thinner and lighter than the Boeing part). The gear pin had a locally improvised handle attached and the handle caught the gear door when the door cycled for a ground test. Luckily, no one was injured...
Northwest had a 747-200 nosegear collapse at Changi (SIN) a few years ago. Maintenance had substituted an Airbus gear pin (like everything thing else, they are thinner and lighter than the Boeing part). The gear pin had a locally improvised handle attached and the handle caught the gear door when the door cycled for a ground test. Luckily, no one was injured...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From IFALPA Daily News Service
Dislodged lock-pin led to Lufthansa 747 nose-gear collapse
David Kaminski-Morrow, London (01Jun06, 15:16 GMT, 222 words)
German investigators have discovered that the nose-gear door of a Lufthansa Boeing 747-400 dislodged a locking pin during a hydraulic test, causing the gear to retract while the aircraft was parked at a Frankfurt Main gate.
The nose-gear retracted while the aircraft was preparing for pushback at Frankfurt, ahead of operating a service to Delhi, on 15 May. The 747’s nose settled onto the pushback tractor and the jet’s forward fuselage underside suffered heavy damage.
Preliminary examination of the aircraft by German investigation agency BFU has revealed that the aircraft was undergoing a test of its hydraulic system following indications of a leak.
As part of the test a locking pin was inserted into the nose-gear strut to prevent retraction while the landing-gear retraction mechanism was activated from the cockpit.
But a spokesman for BFU says that the movement of the nose-gear doors led to the pin’s becoming “disconnected” from its position. While the pin remained intact, he says, it was no longer able to prevent the nose wheels from retracting.
BFU is studying the design of the pin which, says the spokesman, had not been supplied by Boeing but which had been specially-made.
Boeing is to assess the damage to the aircraft, a five-year old example registered D-ABTK. There are no indications as to when the 747 might return to service.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
David Kaminski-Morrow, London (01Jun06, 15:16 GMT, 222 words)
German investigators have discovered that the nose-gear door of a Lufthansa Boeing 747-400 dislodged a locking pin during a hydraulic test, causing the gear to retract while the aircraft was parked at a Frankfurt Main gate.
The nose-gear retracted while the aircraft was preparing for pushback at Frankfurt, ahead of operating a service to Delhi, on 15 May. The 747’s nose settled onto the pushback tractor and the jet’s forward fuselage underside suffered heavy damage.
Preliminary examination of the aircraft by German investigation agency BFU has revealed that the aircraft was undergoing a test of its hydraulic system following indications of a leak.
As part of the test a locking pin was inserted into the nose-gear strut to prevent retraction while the landing-gear retraction mechanism was activated from the cockpit.
But a spokesman for BFU says that the movement of the nose-gear doors led to the pin’s becoming “disconnected” from its position. While the pin remained intact, he says, it was no longer able to prevent the nose wheels from retracting.
BFU is studying the design of the pin which, says the spokesman, had not been supplied by Boeing but which had been specially-made.
Boeing is to assess the damage to the aircraft, a five-year old example registered D-ABTK. There are no indications as to when the 747 might return to service.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong gear pin
Thx for the info DBate. Once again use of wrong equipment, pressure to do a quick job and the whole thing goes to the dogs. I was involved in the follow up to a similar situation three or four years ago. The lads were working a landing gear problem in TLV, and it was hurry, hurry. No correct nose gear pin to hand, but there was a DC-10 alternate centre gear pin in a vehicle. It held for a couple of selections and then shook itself out. You know the result.
Perhaps one day we will learn and act on the old adage 'Less haste - more speed.'
Perhaps one day we will learn and act on the old adage 'Less haste - more speed.'
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like another case of you pay 4 what you get.
Pilots and cabin Crew have books/information avail on aircraft.
Engineers are expected to work from memory often, this problem of gear retractions during maint is long running and many more to follow I'm sure, think the maint manual states aircraft locking pins shoud be used during these checks.
The most common reason for the 747 nose gear retracting on these checks is the use of a non approved locking pin, it's easy to fit and remove, but the nose doors can easy remove the pin when the gear is operated in this fashion.
Interesting to know how many 747s have dropped on the floor during these operations.
A tip for anyone doing these opetations, 747s have 2 locking pin locations for the nose gear, use both is not a bad idea.!!!
Pilots and cabin Crew have books/information avail on aircraft.
Engineers are expected to work from memory often, this problem of gear retractions during maint is long running and many more to follow I'm sure, think the maint manual states aircraft locking pins shoud be used during these checks.
The most common reason for the 747 nose gear retracting on these checks is the use of a non approved locking pin, it's easy to fit and remove, but the nose doors can easy remove the pin when the gear is operated in this fashion.
Interesting to know how many 747s have dropped on the floor during these operations.
A tip for anyone doing these opetations, 747s have 2 locking pin locations for the nose gear, use both is not a bad idea.!!!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joetom, to go along with your post, and engineers being expected to remember procedures. Manuals were always held in the line office or the hangar. An advance in enabling information to be at the worksite, especially regarding line operations, was the reader printer. But if the engineer or mechanic didn't take all the cross references it meant back to the source or use his/her memory. Now I have seen a few, and it is a small few, companies have laptops installed on board, fewer have printers. This is a great leap forward and it will be a great money saver when these items are installed on all aircraft. Think about it all Maintenance Directors and Managers - this month's money saver - get the above installed on the whole fleet now - it is cheaper than a gear collapse.
But above all, the witholding of information whether intentionally or not is probably the underlying cause of repeat malpractices throughout the industry. Basically a method of communicating mistakes or failed shortcuts is needed. I know there are various forums, but not everybody is aware of these. I fell upon one the other day 'AMTOnline.com' for techies. I will post the repeat of this Lufthansa mishap there and hope it will be of help to others. Between us we need to publicise sites and occurrences as much as possible and hope it helps someone, somewhere.
But above all, the witholding of information whether intentionally or not is probably the underlying cause of repeat malpractices throughout the industry. Basically a method of communicating mistakes or failed shortcuts is needed. I know there are various forums, but not everybody is aware of these. I fell upon one the other day 'AMTOnline.com' for techies. I will post the repeat of this Lufthansa mishap there and hope it will be of help to others. Between us we need to publicise sites and occurrences as much as possible and hope it helps someone, somewhere.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>Preliminary examination of the aircraft by German investigation agency BFU has revealed that the aircraft was undergoing a test of its hydraulic system following indications of a leak.
As part of the test a locking pin was inserted into the nose-gear strut to prevent retraction while the landing-gear retraction mechanism was activated from the cockpit.
But a spokesman for BFU says that the movement of the nose-gear doors led to the pin’s becoming “disconnected” from its position. While the pin remained intact, he says, it was no longer able to prevent the nose wheels from retracting.
BFU is studying the design of the pin which, says the spokesman, had not been supplied by Boeing but which had been specially-made...
_______________________________
Wow, sounds like a repeat performance of the SIN NWA incident I described above, down to the "specially-made" part:
http://aviation-safety.net/photos/di...0&vnr=2&kind=I
As part of the test a locking pin was inserted into the nose-gear strut to prevent retraction while the landing-gear retraction mechanism was activated from the cockpit.
But a spokesman for BFU says that the movement of the nose-gear doors led to the pin’s becoming “disconnected” from its position. While the pin remained intact, he says, it was no longer able to prevent the nose wheels from retracting.
BFU is studying the design of the pin which, says the spokesman, had not been supplied by Boeing but which had been specially-made...
_______________________________
Wow, sounds like a repeat performance of the SIN NWA incident I described above, down to the "specially-made" part:
http://aviation-safety.net/photos/di...0&vnr=2&kind=I
