I would guess the hull value to be nearer USD35m new depreciating at between USD2 and USD3 million per annum.

If I've done my sums right a vertical drop of 100ft would produce a vertical impact velocity of about 24m/s or about 4700 feet per min.

It's too long ago to be the same aircraft I imagine but I did see a very hard A320 landing by Thomas Cook a while back at Manchester. I did post it on PPRUNE at the time and asked the question if the plane is designed to take such a hard landing. It literally dropped the last (guesssing now) 20 feet or so and I cringed when I saw it. What astonished me was how high it bounced, almost back to the same level. It then seemed to float for a few seconds before full power kicked in and up he went. Compared to the other approaches I saw during that 2 hour period it seemed very lively on what was a relatively calm day. Unfortunately I'm not an airline pilot (red/green colour defect) so I'm not totally qualified to comment although I studied mech eng at uni many moons ago and have a reasonable degree of understanding about
structures.

All l can tell you matblack, is that the incident happened in November, it might have happened in BRS or MAN, l dont know, we wait the report.:ok:

a little dose of perspective
 

To put things into perspective:

Hard landing is a landing over 10 fps, because civil transport aircraft are certified for limits loads produced by 10 fps landings. It takes about an 18-inch drop to get 10 fps, assuming zero lift (that's how high a landing gear drop test is).

Boeing and Airbus also define g's for identifying hard landings from FDR data. These levels are usually in the range of 1.75 to 2.2 g depending on aircraft type and weight, and are conservative to account for lower than ideal sampling rates of acceleration parameters.

I'm not saying that civil aircraft never drop 20 feet or 100 feet hard onto runways... but they usually leave a smoking hole when they do, because they're not designed for it... it all depends on how long it took to drop those 20 feet. 12g landings also have a tendancy to leave smoking holes and bits of aircraft lying around.

Hope this helps clarify.

[quote=Slopwith;3078498] I understand it is basically a right off but Airbus have got their crash team re-building it so it doesn't become another Airbus hull loss statistic.[unquote]

[quote=jumpseater;3079550]''It always amazes me that what is quite obviously a right off and uneconomic to repair, does gets repaired to keep the statistics sweet.'' Care to show us where it says airbus repair to 'keep the statistics sweet'?

->Good point mr.jumpseater, well spotted.

just to clarify something about stats and economics, 'uneconomic' is a relative term based on a series of variables used to determine viability; viability with airframe useable life is a complex business best left to the professionals.

as for the statistical collation - losses are determined by the insurance companies, not the airplane manufacture(s) and the bottom line is cold hard cash; airlines will repair their a/c to keep the hull loss stats in the black (allegedly)

they spend all of that time and money monkey proofing the planes and still the bananas skins are stacking up. in addition, I wasn't aware that either A or B had a 'crash team' for this purpose...there you go, you learn something new everyday

[QUOTE
they spend all of that time and money monkey proofing the planes and still the bananas skins are stacking up. in addition, I wasn't aware that either A or B had a 'crash team' for this purpose...there you go, you learn something new everyday[/QUOTE]

Not so much as a crash team but "heavy rectification team." The Boeing team is known as RAMS, not sure about Airbus though.

Spot on, but the point of the allegtion- [quote=Slopwith] I understand it is basically a right off but Airbus have got their crash team re-building it so it doesn't become another Airbus hull loss statistic.[unquote] - is that manufacturers have a vested interest in recitifying damage to avoid unfavourable loss statistics, which is not the case - altruism doesn't get factored into the bottom line.

It could be argued that it is the case ( i.e. a vested interest in recitification) for airlines or insurers; however, supply and demand would dictate that the opposite is in fact the case for a manufacturer: if one a/c is written of, another is required, ipso "hello mr. A or B can I have another one"

if a manufacturer is working on a a/c it is because they've been asked to by whoever has the authority to request it and it doesn't come for free

especially when you add in the cost of subcharters, delays and the like. it isn't as simple as the insurance bods telling the operator to go down to Airbusland and pick a new one off the forecourt.

In the real world of IT flying there might be a full year of flying awaiting that aircraft before a replacement could be sourced. Subchartering ain't cheap and certainly not when it's wet leasing at short notice.

That is a trick QANTAS allegedly use .. they have never lost a Jet Hull :ok:

Puff m,call. You got it in one! I assumed it was only the little ones but having flown both its the same all the way up! i' say the 350 will be a right laugh....at least the leasing co,s know from their very public response (2nd redesign) again.

Going back over some fairly old posts, but I seem to recall some crack team (no pun intended) was called in to repair the AF 744 which went for a paddle (not a full swim) at Pape'ete in 1993 was (after being hauled out of the drink) repaired on-site, flown out and returned to service.

Not sure who would've been behind it, but one might suspect that it would've been the insurers who got to decide what they were going to pay for (new airframe or repair).

45989 you don't seem to know anything of this incident or have much to contribute other than a general dislike of airbuses. Perhaps you could start your own thread to that end end to avoid clogging up this one

Shotone,quite the contrary. Its an interesting situation if the damage is as serious as described. I have seen and subsequently flown an airliner (not an airbus.Begins with B!) repaired after what appeared to be an economic write off. It is still in service today many years later. My point is that i wonder if given the relatively short service life of most Airbus aircraft up to now whether it is worth doing or not

Much like Boeing, then!