2 have been grounded with more inspections still to come

QANTAS - pickle fork cracks at 27,000 cycles
 

"Boeing had previous thought the cracks were only occurring on aircraft with over 35,000 landings, the issue has now been identified on two Qantas aircraft with as few as 27,000 landings and Qantas are yet to inspect the majority of its 737 fleet." (emphasis added)
Steve Purvinas, Federal Secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association

Oh, it gets better. MUCH better.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...nd-737-461920/

Quntas's response (quote): The Oneworld carrier says it "rejects the alarmist claims" for grounding made by the engineers' association which, it argues, are "irresponsible and completely inconsistent with advice from regulators and the manufacturer".

So Qantas trusts the "regulators" and "manufacturer" who both have JUST been caught cooking the books and making Powerpoint presentations to rectify the death of 346 people, but dismisses their own country's engineers who actually know what they are saying, as "irresponsible".

The tone of this statement itself is simply outrageous. Even if Mr. Whoever doesn't like unions, he should've chosen his words A LOT more carefully. I'm an adventurous person and I like risky bets. But not for any money in the world would I post a response like that just a few months after two deadly disasters that were caused by managers not listening to engineers. If something happens to any of Qantas's 737s (and I sure hope it doesn't), this is not just a PR disaster, this is a guaranteed social death. The events of the past few months got me thinking that maybe Qantas is not led by as smart people as they thought they were.

Read my previous post. It's not an estimate of affected airframes, just a count of the number of the world's NGs that fall under the FAA's jurisdiction.

So a 3rd qantas plane has been a grounded for cracking, but all the inspections have been carried out according to qantas statement. So for them 3 of 33 airframes have been grounded

That's 9%...

This is most assuredly not definite but based on aircraft movements it looks like it's VH-VXA (their oldest B737-800), -VXF and -VXM.

9% pickle fork cracking in the fleet of an airline with a reputation for good maintenance and well-trained pilots, and a fleet that by and large flies in very benign weather conditions. This should be one of the 'best' fleets from the wear and tear point of view, but 9% have cracks in their pickle forks. :eek:

This is really quite alarming

Virgin australia has also inspected their planes, dunno how many, but they found no issues

That is quite a few planes, what percent have they missed? Since the check is allegedly quite easy to do, perhaps it should be added to regular maintenance.

What do you mean what % have they missed. They have checked all the planes they were required to. They have a fleet of 75 737's of which they were required to check 33 of them. They actually checked them all way before the a due date. The others have not hit the a inspection cycles.

The AD requires a repetitive inspection at 3500 cycle intervals.

Al Joyce must be apprehensive as this may result in a chunk out of his share pocket if Qantas has to bring forward his postponed fleet upgrade /renewal...

PROBABLY NOT WINGLET RELATED
 

I've been trying to get a line on the LSNs of the grounded aircraft and noticed something with regards to the Korean Air aircraft that have stopped flying recently - none of them were fitted with winglets. On the flip-side it looks like all Korean Air B737s that are fitted with winglets are still flying.

I know that it's never say never when it comes to this sort of thing but I'm thinking that the pickle-fork issue is probably not related to the winglets.

I'd be wary about reaching any conclusion based on such a small sample size. It's still possible that the incidence of cracking is higher on winglet-equipped aircraft.

As the pickle fork does not carry any primary wing bending loads thast is an unlikely alternative. Spanwise change slightly towards the wing tips would put the rear fork into more compression which is not compatible with the seen cracks.

I don't disagree but what the Korean Air sample shows is that the problem is pervasive, it's impacting a range of B737s regardless of whether they had a traditional wing or whether winglets were fitted.

SAS found 2 737-700’s with cracks, one with winglets and one without. They have been flying 737’s for 20 years in some of the worst conditions in the world and probably have some of the oldest frames in the industry flying. A good mix of -700 and -800 aircraft with and without winglets. None with scimitars.
Yet, only two of 50 - 60 (?) had cracked pickle forks.

I struggle to see any pattern with this issue. I think they need to look at where the aircraft were made, time period, pickle fork batches and production methodes.

Not finding a pattern makes for a very big problem - design!! and strict compliance with!!.

A thing I would not have considered a year ago - but now my first thought.

No problem, Denis owns it.

Any news on availability of all the required pickle forks?

A few have been found cracked at Europe's favourite low cost airline.

One has gone to the states for a repair, granted a 1 time ferry flight, another is under preservation status in STN and can been seen with all the engines/tyres etc all wrapped up outside the hanger until they work out what to do with it. I have been told it will take up to 6 weeks to repair, and they do not have the spare hangar bays available to repair it as yet.

Anyone know if TUI has found any cracks?

No. and adding words for a 10 character reply.

I doubt it as their oldest is only 12 years old. Even doing 4 sectors a day every single day for 12 years still leaves them well under the inspection threshold.

The extra characters may have been better devoted to elaborating on whether no one knows, or someone knows, and no cracks were found...

How does one repair these cracks?

Anyone heard where the cracks are being found? At the fastener fittings seems likely?

The repair seems to be a replacement of the fork and the strap behind it.

As for the location, the Boeing instructions, reference by the FAA AC includes photos of the cracks.
Go back to the earlier posts for links to both documents.

The cracks are through fasteners to the forward edge of the part.

Go up the thread, there are plenty of technical documents, pictures, etc.
The cracked pickle forks have to be replaced.

Would you happen to know what the regos are for those two SAS aircraft?

Got to wonder whether Boeing's engineering of the 737 is all it's cracked up to be.

Australopithecus

And also, would reworking of the so far, uncracked pickleforks in situ, be feasible, effective in preventing future cracking and still be economical?

Otherwise, one would assume that the pickleforks on all B737 NG aircraft will eventually crack when reaching say, 35,000 to 45,000 cycles, unless some other close-out action is taken.

So why are we dealing with 50 year old airframe design?
 

[h2=left]Boeing 737 - Wikipedia[/h2]

Better airframes can and have been designed, but they are not type-compatible with older 737s.

737 airframe is ancient airframe
 

737 airframe is ancient airframe .and should be scrapped because computers these days can design airframe, available engine, compatability.

The number currently flying says otherwise.

Boeing may NOW consider that they should have put their considerable money into the development of a fresh frame perhaps 5 years ago but the 737 family is so popular that the incentive was not there