Top of the airstairs, about to enter the aircraft. This is well documented in various sources.

Dave Reid

"In this case, it clearly wasn't." (a pressurised structure)

How can you tell that?

Just to clarify, the page is numbered 5 in the original NTSB report, 11 in the .pdf file after title page, contents, executive summary etc.

The paragraph:

The passenger was identified in contemporary news reports as Gayle Yamamoto.

No one would try and patch a hole in the pressurised area with speed tape. It would be AOG. A nice jolly for a couple of sheet metal workers.
You may get a concession to fly back to base unpressurised but that would depend on a load of other factors first.

Ramp rash happens.
In this mobile phone age passengers will take pictures and shoot movies whenever they see stuff like that. So any crew and airline must deal with it apart from denying a problem. There is no way around that. Communicate, let the captain say he has had a mechanic check it and got the green light to go and similar. Having the FA declaring "just trust us" to the pax is plain stupid.

Turin

That's is exactly how I've always seen it done, speed tape was reserved for other "issues".

I am not sure if it is relevant but I was told that Airbus allows to temporary repair a hole and permits the aircraft to fly for a month.

Are you referring to a specific incident, or suggesting that this is a blanket policy?

It's hard to imagine a regulator being happy about the latter.

Ya put it on the pressurised side so the pressure keeps it on.

It would be best to not listen to that person in matters of aircraft maintenance. Such a "allow" would be incredibly specific, certainly not applicable to the nature of the hole in a pressurized skin, and have very strict limitations associated, much more detailed and burdensome than "a month".

In terms of the hole pictured in the pressurized skin of an airliner, it would require a specific repair prior to the next pressurized or revenue flight. It is presumable that Airbus might publish a repair scheme as "approved data", which certainly would be required for this. In the absence of manufacturer's approved data being available, the operator would have to have a repair scheme approved.

Such a repair has implications of immediate strength and suitability, and thereafter, long term fatigue considerations.

BTW we are talking about some ATR.

Step Turn and DaveReidUK, my input was from an A320 skipper back in 2004 and referring to a catering track making a hole on this aircraft. The repair made by the company and oked by Airbus was good for a month his word not mine.

However as Less Hair says it is probably irrelevant for the aircraft in question.

Search for "speed tape aircraft" on youtube and you'll see typical use of speed tape. Not pressurised areas naturally.

http://www.askthepilot.com/wp-conten...pe-460x307.jpg

Not a good look I admit.

Pax
 

While I am certainly not a fan of panicking passengers who know nothing but think they can go big mouth and tell the 'bus drivers' in the front seats how to do their work, concerns raised by pax should be taken seriously and be investigated. Not all pax are stupid SLF, and often you'll even find pilots among them.

Repairs
 

I've seen a fork truck make a six inch dent (with a two inch hole) in the (pressurised) hold skin of a 747. Pax were just starting to load. It was repaired with about a kilo of epoxy applied on the inside and, after a short delay, set off on a 5000 mile leg to LHR. Returned with the 'patch' still in place and departed to the Carriers main Base for proper repair. Don't think it would happen today, but no Frames were involved.

And being a pilot doesn't mean they know everything. Had a proceeding pilot from another airline start a riot at line up over cold soaked fuel frost on the upper surface of the wing, something that is approved and completely normal on the 737-800. In the end it produced quite some delay and substantial costs to the company, for nothing really.

That said, yes, taking passenger advisements seriously is something every pilot should do. The attitude expressed by Piltdown Man in post 28 is the one i think is the right one.

Small a/c, but, I was in the second row. We had a quick refuel after discovering that half the fuel had been 'borrowed' while parked at Marrakech. As the pilot was cranking up, I pointed out that the fuel caps were on the wings next to the open covers. It caught his attention......

As pilots (ppl thu to ATPL) have conscious duty for ones own life and those onboard the same aircraft.
Surely the flight deck should be pretty happy to have all those extra eyeballs giving a critical once over before departure.
How many times pitot covers have been left on. Static ports covered over, doors, holes, cracks.
Once saved a captain the embarresment when we pointed out his brake disc was completely cracked on a 7x.
To surmise all pax are ignorant is proof of ones own ignorance!

In the early ‘80s I was flying an F27 from a regional airport. Did the walk-round and all was normal. About 20 later minutes after boarding, a passenger reported that a main-wheel tyre had deflated – in fact it was completely flat. He was dead right. I made a PA and invited the passenger to the flight-deck to thank him. The pair of wheels were changed and we departed an hour late. Wrote it up in the tech log, submitted the ‘80s equivalent of an ASR. No complaint letters, no come-back, all was sweetness and light.

Fast forward to 2017 and I would be subjected to trial by YouTube and Facebook, with a recording of my PA and video of the wheel available to the whole planet before we departed, accompanied later by multiple claims for compensation.