BD705 MAN-ORD Going with Cargo Hold Panels missing
 

I noticed this morning that there were panels mssing....No-one seemed to be bothered...in-fact the ground crew...you know the ones that are meant to be there for the safety of the aircraft but where actually just chatting and starting at me and them being amused that I am a plane spotter...well they didnt seem bothered about the panels that were missing...
Infact I came back an hour later as it was being pushed back and they still hadnt done anything with it.

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...3/DSCF4755.jpg

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...3/DSCF4756.jpg

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...3/DSCF4757.jpg

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...3/DSCF4758.jpg

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...3/DSCF4773.jpg

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...3/DSCF4774.jpg

Offcourse if it's nothing I would love to be educated on how it fly's like this :)

Also is there anyone in chicago who could take a pic of it landing :)

Stick to spotting you prat, the a/c can be dispatched quite legally with this panel missing iaw MEL/CDG

Agree with previous. Stick to spotting. Almost certainly a perfectly legal despatch under the CDL (Configuration Deviation List) which allows all sorts of panels, fairings etc to be missing/removed providing all performance and fuel burn restrictions are complied with.

Stop trying to damage BMI's repuation (and no I dont work for them and never have)

Thats right call him a prat for asking, a simple answer such as "actually it can be dispatched quite legally like this" would of surficed.

Perfectly innocent question if you ask me.

I would have done so if not for his disparaging comments regarding the ground crew, who were likely type rated licensed engineers who are generally very professional people not in the habit of dispatching a/c with large panels missing that should not be missing

Hi modelcuirstudios,

Airliners are designed to operate safely with a surprising and sometimes almost alarming number of panels and other bits and pieces missing. The manufacturer specifies what bits can be missing and what (if any) performance penalties may be incurred. Penalties might include reduction in max allowable T/O weight, or increased drag which requires a percentage increase in fuel burn, or whatever.

I think one of the strangest sights is to see an airliner operating with just one winglet intact and the other completely missing.

Keep up the good work and keep in mind the highly professional engineering that goes into keeping airliners airbourne.

You know what Poster number 2...I was a carefull person asking in this forum...I am studying my ATPL you "prat" and for your remark I am now emailing all news companies

What a delightful set of replies from educated 'very' professional people.

With language/aggression like that, you sound no better than a common thug.

It was a perfectly reasonable question from someone with an interest in aviation and genuine concern for peoples safety - he was simply asking a question to someone who would know.

To berate in such a condescending manner is shameful - and if you were a pilot yourself, i would not want to be on your aircraft with that mentality.

It makes you wonder sometimes......

Enjoy your plane watching m-c-s, and well done for replying in a respectful and much more suitable way Flexible Response :ok:

Yes Flexible Response thankyou for your intelligent answer...It's prats like post no.2 that caused all the past crashes! a fear of reporting something out of feeling you will get torn apart!
I'm not telling the papers...i would never do that...I was just concerned...I'm not a plane spotter and there's nothing wrong with them Poster no.2...I am a coming pilot...you are a snob who looks down on others I presume.

Oh and BTW I worked in the BA terminal and have the utmost respect for BMI...

Thanks Anti-Ice :)...The only reason I wanted someone in ORD to take a pic was out of curiosity and to get your view after seeing the other pics...it's not BMI I was trying to do anything with...it was the contracted out ground crew...
I have worked for many companies in the airport and for the same airline I have seen different companies be slack in a lot of things...not bmi but in general...

OK so we gather this is not a safety issue. But just imagine one or more passengers had seen the aforesaid part missing??? Mis-informed Joe-public sometimes will not fly with a Bin-Laden lookalike on board. So what would they think about a big hole in the skin? Lucky it is on the blindside for boarding eh?
It always amazes me that the airlines spend so much on the paint-job (corporate image massaging?) when, at most large airports anyway, the aircraft can hardly be seen. One can only assume that in the minds of the airline management, nice paint-job equates to well-maintained aircraft = safe aircraft. So getting back to the point of this thread, a missing panel hardly maintains this "ultra-safe" image to which everyone tries to aspire.

Judging by the scathing replies to the posters question about whether the airplane is ok for dispatch or not just proves how Unprofessional some people are on this web site.

I am DAMN sure I would have asked if I had seen that ! Whatever you might think, it doesn't LOOK safe, and I'm not disputing that fact that it actually is.

The more time I spend looking at threads on this forum the more I realise there are some quite class a :mad: posting responses, something along the lines of post in haste and repent at leisure, although I doubt the latter would ever figure in their thinking.

Perhaps Modelcuirstudios original posting could have left out reference to ground engineers.... safety of aircraft etc, but did it require the sort of response poster No2 thought was appropriate? :=

I think it was a valid question and should have received a professional response.

Well just my 2p worth.

Folks, please note that the two hostile answers did come from aviation "professionals" but not from pilots. Post 2 and 3 came from mechanics/engineers.

MCS it is good that you noticed and raised this issue. To the untrained eye it could have been a major problem.

However, rest assured as the a/c was at BMI's base - MAN. Engineers would have more than likely been present for the turnaround, the pilots would have done their walk around, and the many ground crew working around the a/c would have noticed it.
Then finally the ground crew would report on pushback any possible defects before being allowed off stand.

are there any ideas as to what caused the skin to be missing. I presume it must be some issue as you dont decide 'hmm, ill take some panels off that plane today'

regards

Thanks for those last few replies aswell :)...I used to think pilots did walkarounds...but since I remember that flightplans in most companies are done by dispatchers I thought maybe pilots dont always do the walkarounds...I didnt mean to say engineers...I meant just that there was only security guys and that all I thought I saw there and just a tug.... :)

Indeed, one does not remove panels from an A/C without good reason,the "skin" is actually a Q/D panel that covers the lower cargo door lockshaft mechanism and is frequently damaged during cargo loading /unloading operations, no doubt the panel has been damaged and removed IAW the provisions of the config deviation guide which allows the a/c quite legally to be released and to operate for a perod of time until a spare has been proccured ,needless to say if no release was posible under the MEL/CDG then the a/c would not be released for service, hope this clears the mystery up and puts everyones mind at rest;)