Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Virgin A340 smacks fence at JFK during pushback

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Virgin A340 smacks fence at JFK during pushback

Old 22nd Sep 2015, 08:03
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
The aircraft flew back yesterday to Lhr minus a winglet, they are removable. Like the B744 aircraft, cleared to operate with one winglet missing.
Presume damaged tip will be repaired and refitted.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 09:45
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Bearcat
Area where they park is very tight re fencing and room to manoeuvre.....doesn't surprise me this happened.
Which, of course, means that someone, or many, have probably predicted a scrape but nothing was done.
I'm having an attack of dj vu.
Basil is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 09:50
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by cessnapete
The aircraft flew back yesterday to Lhr minus a winglet
I flew a type which was authorised to do that.
ONE missing was an Acceptable Defect but TWO was not - never understood that. Probably hadn't been considered, researched, demonstrated and certificated on the basis that to lose one winglet may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness
Basil is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 19:03
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The solution is to stop paying ground personnel peanuts, hire staff with brain cells and ensure that they are adequately trained!
It really doesn't matter how many peanuts you feed your monkeys if you hire fools.

Here's what two very well paid monkeys did to an innocent 747 (not to mention the well charted brick outhouse they clobbered).

Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 09:30
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Basil

I flew the B747- 400 which had the same MEL restrictions. Ok to fly with one missing but not both. Any engineering types here to explain why??
cessnapete is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 09:39
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Location: Location!
Posts: 2,299
Received 35 Likes on 27 Posts
ONE missing was an Acceptable Defect but TWO was not - never understood that. Probably hadn't been considered, researched, demonstrated and certificated on the basis that to lose one winglet may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness - Basil

A historical precedent, admittedly in respect of a different form of travel, may be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RghKdGn8h5A

Jack
Union Jack is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 09:58
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: swindon
Age: 44
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I flew the B747- 400 which had the same MEL restrictions. Ok to fly with one missing but not both. Any engineering types here to explain why??
I was told by someone who should know that it was due to cost reasons in certification. There is no engineering reason why it would be unsafe to fly with 2 missing winglets.
smala01 is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 21:31
  #28 (permalink)  
BBK
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 469
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Reason for no dispatch with 2 winglets missing

I was told that the reason you cannot dispatch with both winglets missing, on the 744 at least, was that it was due to the decrease in static wick dischargers. I can't verify that but it was from a colleague who is good on this sort of thing.

Anyone confirm or deny?
BBK is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 11:03
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Risn Dubh
Posts: 1,389
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
There are B744s flying with no winglets fitted, domestically in Japan/Korea and some cargo ones in the US bringing parts to Everett for assembly I think. Fitting winglets to them only saves fuel if the sector is longer than a few hours, roughly 5 IIRC
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2015, 02:15
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Was NW England now Quebec
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To certify the CDL for missing winglets, the OEM has to flight test the configuration.

To save cash for an option no one want to pay for, typically only 1 winglet removed is tested. If an airline wants 2 removed they can pay for the flight testing to the OEM. Basically it involves revising the performance numbers i,e, measure the increased fuel burn.

PS. I would be surprised static wicks would be an issue in this. The aircraft should have sufficient elsewhere to compensate. I think around up to 1 in 7 may be missing per typical design.
typhoid is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2015, 03:28
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,547
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Static Wicks:

According to one 744 CDL, and I paraphrase: 60 installed, despatch allowable with 23 fitted (45 needed if operation requires use of HF and/or ADF). Various comments about distribution of wicks

To certify the CDL for missing winglets, the OEM has to flight test the configuration.

To save cash for an option no one want to pay for, typically only 1 winglet removed is tested.
That's what I've heard.
wiggy is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.