Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5680464/

Topic: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: bdak
Posted 2013-02-04 07:49:37 and read 34372 times.

The BA Source www.thebasource.com is reporting that the BA1/2 Club World London City Service is cancelled for a second day in a row, after the a318 aircraft used to operate the service was damaged at JFK. Does anyone have any idea what happened? Or any pics?

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2013-02-04 08:25:47 and read 33931 times.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was damaged during pushback. The space over by T7 around gates 1-3 isn't very plentiful

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-02-04 08:30:28 and read 33849 times.

Here is the full The BA Source report dated 3 February:

"British Airways A318 G-EUNA sustained damage to its tailfin whilst under scheduled maintenance at New York JFK resulting in the cancellation of BA2 New York JFK – London City today."

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-02-04 11:51:15 and read 31286 times.

Where is the second A318 used for ths LCY to JFK flights ?

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2013-02-04 12:01:47 and read 30882 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):

G-EUNA is probably operating club World flight 3/4

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: EagleBoy
Posted 2013-02-04 12:20:29 and read 30018 times.

Maybe down for MX over the winter. I assume they don't refit it (with those 32 F seats) just for the summer schedule?

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2013-02-04 12:29:59 and read 29708 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 2):
"British Airways A318 G-EUNA sustained damage to its tailfin whilst under scheduled maintenance at New York JFK resulting in the cancellation of BA2 New York JFK – London City today."

I can't help imagining someone being insistent that A320s fit through a certain hanger door, so an A318 must too.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: fca767
Posted 2013-02-04 12:48:02 and read 28973 times.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 7):
I can't help imagining someone being insistent that A320s fit through a certain hanger door, so an A318 must too.

A318's are smaller/same size

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: hoMsar
Posted 2013-02-04 12:50:56 and read 28784 times.

Quoting fca767 (Reply 8):
A318's are smaller/same size

A318 has a taller tail.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: audidudi
Posted 2013-02-04 12:53:01 and read 28695 times.

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 5):

Then that would be G-EUNB, as G-EUNA is the aircraft involved the mishap.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: robbb
Posted 2013-02-04 12:55:21 and read 28586 times.

A319/A320/A321 tail height is 11.76m

A318 tail height is 12.51m

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2013-02-04 12:55:55 and read 28608 times.

Quoting fca767 (Reply 8):
A318's are smaller/same size

Hopefully not said just before shortening one.  

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: rampbro
Posted 2013-02-04 12:57:28 and read 28496 times.

Quoting fca767 (Reply 8):
A318's are smaller/same size

That is exactly how this incident occurred.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: bthebest
Posted 2013-02-04 13:03:13 and read 28201 times.

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 6):
Maybe down for MX over the winter. I assume they don't refit it (with those 32 F seats) just for the summer schedule?

I thought it was a year round twice daily? (except Saturdays)

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2013-02-04 13:37:16 and read 26976 times.

Quoting audidudi (Reply 10):

Whoops, you're right. Got distracted when I was typing

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: fca767
Posted 2013-02-04 13:59:10 and read 26225 times.

Quoting hoMsar (Reply 9):
A318 has a taller tail.

Ohhh...that's funny...i would never have thought that...sorry to ssteve for doubting... 
Quoting rampbro (Reply 13):
That is exactly how this incident occurred.

They need a warning Label on the hanger or aircraft, warning tail may be taller than they appear  

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: jumpjets
Posted 2013-02-04 15:25:24 and read 23716 times.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 14):
I thought it was a year round twice daily?

Yes except normally in August when it goes down to one a day while more heavy maintenance is performed.

This year I believe it is also only operating once a day during some of April - but I don't know why.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: EagleBoy
Posted 2013-02-04 16:27:56 and read 22407 times.

Quoting hoMsar (Reply 9):
A318 has a taller tail.

apparently the taller tail is to compensate for the shorter body, not sure but I assume it's a centre of gravity issue?

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2013-02-04 16:31:47 and read 22326 times.

The taller tail is probably for better directional stability.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: Continental
Posted 2013-02-04 16:46:02 and read 22050 times.

Quoting robbb (Reply 11):

A319/A320/A321 tail height is 11.76m

A318 tail height is 12.51m

What kind of hangar are they using? We're talking a difference of 0.75 m (2.46 ft). Is the hangar entrance really that tight?

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: ezalpha
Posted 2013-02-04 17:16:24 and read 21470 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 19):
The taller tail is probably for better directional stability.

I believe that's true. Of all 747s, the 747SP has the tallest tail.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: kjfk527
Posted 2013-02-04 17:45:10 and read 20954 times.

The aircraft is currently parked in American Airlines Hangar 10, Bay # 4. It was in Bay # 6 yesterday and was repositioned today. Their is plenty of space for the A318 in both Bay #4 and Bay # 6 with more than enough clearance for the tail.

The aircraft normally RONs over the weekend on AA hardstand number 3.

I will try and snap a picture of the bird in the hangar tomorrow if it is still there.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: N243NW
Posted 2013-02-04 17:45:44 and read 20950 times.

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 18):
apparently the taller tail is to compensate for the shorter body, not sure but I assume it's a centre of gravity issue

Sort of. It's not for adjusting the location of the center of gravity, if that's what you're suggesting. The shorter fuselage means the stabilizer and rudder are farther from the aircraft's CG and therefore has less of a moment arm to counter any yawing tendency. Without a larger rudder area to compensate, the 318 would be less directionally stable than its larger variants.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-02-04 18:19:10 and read 20375 times.

Quoting fca767 (Reply 16):
Ohhh...that's funny...i would never have thought that...sorry to ssteve for doubting...

Shortest 737NGs have taller tails. 747SP has taller tail. It's to combat yaw do to wingspan v length being greater.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: BryanG
Posted 2013-02-04 18:25:06 and read 21084 times.

N243NW is exactly correct, from a physics standpoint. It's a moment arm issue. It's not uncommon for shortened airframes to have taller tails in a line of aircraft, and vice versa.

For example the A340-600 has a shorter tail than the A340-500, because of the longer fuselage, therefore a different moment arm.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: rojo
Posted 2013-02-04 18:32:59 and read 21268 times.

Didn't F9 also learned the difference in tail height between A319 and A318 the hard way?
I remember some news about their A318 not being able to clear DEN's bridge ...

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: Spacepope
Posted 2013-02-04 18:43:15 and read 21444 times.

Quoting N243NW (Reply 23):
The shorter fuselage means the stabilizer and rudder are farther from the aircraft's CG and therefore has less of a moment arm to counter any yawing tendency.

Actually the rudder is CLOSER to the CG, and has less moment arm.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: Speedbird741
Posted 2013-02-04 19:43:40 and read 20996 times.

Quoting ezalpha (Reply 21):
I believe that's true. Of all 747s, the 747SP has the tallest tail.

It is correct, yes. The A330-200 also has a taller vertical stabilizer than the A330-300 and A340-300 due to it's shorter fuselage, and also has a shorter vertical stabilizer than the A340-200, which has 4 engines and therefore is more stable and has better directional control  

Speedbird741

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: Viajero
Posted 2013-02-04 20:27:51 and read 20187 times.

Quoting rojo (Reply 26):
Didn't F9 also learned the difference in tail height between A319 and A318 the hard way?
I remember some news about their A318 not being able to clear DEN's bridge ...

They did indeed. Now the remaining A318s In Frontier's fleet have a placard in the cockpit concerning the DEN bridges. I believe the bridge itself has signs on it as well.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: BN747dfwhnl
Posted 2013-02-04 22:04:18 and read 18551 times.

Quoting Viajero (Reply 29):
I believe the bridge itself has signs on it as well.

Yes; it does.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: platinumfoota
Posted 2013-02-04 23:20:30 and read 17338 times.

Hmmm... Does the 777-200 have a taller tail than a 777-300??

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-02-05 02:50:56 and read 15896 times.

Quoting platinumfoota (Reply 31):
Hmmm... Does the 777-200 have a taller tail than a 777-300??

Not exactly, only the -200LF and -200F, but I believe that the tail itself is the same size and that the variation is due to other factors. Design shrinks often have the taller tail, hence the A318, B747-SP and early A332s. However there are also exceptions, like the A310, which is shorter.


Dan  

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: flyinTLow
Posted 2013-02-05 03:13:04 and read 15236 times.

It is not about the "normal" directional stability, but about being able to compensate the yaw momentum in case of an engine failure. With the same or at least similar engines attatched, you need the same yaw momentum compensation by the tail fin.
Now as momentum is force x arm, when shortening the arm, you have to increase the force somehow. You can do that by increasing the aerodynamic area.

Looking at the A320 family, A319/20/21 all have the same tail fin, but the rudder of the A321 does not deflect as far as the A319 one. On the A318, the deflection was not sufficient, hence the "taller" tailfin with increased "deflectable rudder area".

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: EagleBoy
Posted 2013-02-05 03:19:46 and read 15081 times.

Quoting N243NW (Reply 23):
It's not for adjusting the location of the center of gravity, if that's what you're suggesting. The shorter fuselage means the stabilizer and rudder are farther from the aircraft's CG and therefore has less of a moment arm to counter any yawing tendency. Without a larger rudder area to compensate, the 318 would be less directionally stable than its larger variants.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 24):
It's to combat yaw do to wingspan v length being greater.
Quoting BryanG (Reply 25):
N243NW is exactly correct, from a physics standpoint. It's a moment arm issue. It's not uncommon for shortened airframes to have taller tails in a line of aircraft, and vice versa.

Thanks for the clarification.....I knew the shorter body needed the taller tail but didn't know the physics of it.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: gkirk
Posted 2013-02-05 03:22:47 and read 15089 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 32):
Not exactly, only the -200LF and -200F

Same thing is it not? Or do you mean the 200LR?  

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-02-05 03:24:14 and read 15012 times.

Quoting platinumfoota (Reply 31):
Does the 777-200 have a taller tail than a 777-300??

The B777-300 is a stretch whereas the taller tail comes into play with a shrink of the baseline model, like the B747SP, the A330-200 and the A318. It's not just early A332s that have the taller fin, they've all got it.
The B737NG has a bigger tail and wing across all models.

[Edited 2013-02-05 03:25:44]

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: clydenairways
Posted 2013-02-05 03:25:27 and read 15047 times.

How is BA coping with one of these aircraft out of service? It's a problem when you have a very small sub-fleet, you have nothing that can replace it directly.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-02-05 03:27:45 and read 14978 times.

Quoting BryanG (Reply 25):
For example the A340-600 has a shorter tail than the A340-500, because of the longer fuselage, therefore a different moment arm.

Is this right? I thought they were identical. Is the eight inch (seriously?) difference in height not accounted for by the nose down attitude of the shorter body?

[Edited 2013-02-05 03:29:19]

[Edited 2013-02-05 03:29:43]

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: gkirk
Posted 2013-02-05 03:30:17 and read 14863 times.

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 37):
How is BA coping with one of these aircraft out of service? It's a problem when you have a very small sub-fleet, you have nothing that can replace it directly.

Presumably sending folk in and out of LHR?

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-02-05 04:43:02 and read 13386 times.

Quoting bthebest (Reply 14):
I thought it was a year round twice daily? (except Saturdays)

The frequency of the LCY-SNN-JFK-LCY rotation is reduced from twice daily to daily during the holiday period in August each year.

In 2012 BA003/04 - the rotation 'NA was operating before it was damaged - did not operate from 29 July to 31 August inclusive. 'NA was at LGW undergoing routine maintenance from 29 July to 8 August. and 'NB followed on 17 August returning to LCY on 3 September.

In 2011 the last BA003/04 rotation was on 31 July and the next 0n 31 August. That year 'NA was undergoing maintenance at LGW from 29 July until 8 August while 'NB was at LGW from 6 to 31 August.

The gap between 8 and 17 August in 2012 when neither aircraft was under maintenance but BNA003/04 did not operate strongly suggests that operating the second flight in August would not be justified by demand. However data published by the CAA for 2011 - full year 2012 numbers have not yet been published - shows that in August 2011 passengers carried on this route (1,234) were significantly more than half the number carried on average in the other elven months of that year (1,853). So unless the August figures are boosted by a weakening in average per passenger yield that month looks to be operationally more profitable.

BA did say when announcing this service that routine maintenance would be carried out in "bite sized chunks" at LGW. These "chunks" are not all in August. It is not unusual for either aircraft to visit LGW for maintenance at other times. For example in 2012 'NA was ferried into and then out of LGW on the following day on six occasions, most usually arriving there on a Saturday and retuning to LCY on the Sunday. However in addition to the August visit there was another longer visit from 5 to 10 April. But this also looks as if it was for planned maintenance as it was from the Thursday before to the Tuesday after the Easter holiday weekend.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: BryanG
Posted 2013-02-05 07:47:29 and read 9607 times.

Quoting gkirk (Reply 39):
Is this right?

No, I was incorrect, and I stand humbly corrected. Vertical stabilizers on the 340-500/600 have the same dimensions.

After further research, this post addressed that issue in detail: A340-500/-600 Vertical Stabilizer? (by GearDownPlease Oct 28 2008 in Tech Ops)

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-02-05 07:53:54 and read 9494 times.

Quoting BryanG (Reply 41):
No, I was incorrect, and I stand humbly corrected. Vertical stabilizers on the 340-500/600 have the same dimensions.

Airbus took the vertical stabilizer off the 330-200 and put it on the 340-500/600 - they could have put a different size on the -600 because it's longer, but since they already had a stabilizer that was designed and tested and certified, the cost/benefit analysis just didn't make sense.

-Mir

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-02-05 12:13:53 and read 8740 times.

Quoting gkirk (Reply 35):
Same thing is it not? Or do you mean the 200LR?

It's a special low fat variant of the LR  

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: sralfalo
Posted 2013-02-07 06:20:07 and read 7792 times.

G-EUNA is back in service, currently operating BA001 to JFK

image of fixed tail fin: http://t.co/uRSMnuFw

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: TC957
Posted 2013-02-07 09:41:01 and read 7144 times.

See - nothing a bit of tape can't fix...

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-02-07 09:45:18 and read 7109 times.

Quoting sralfalo (Reply 44):
G-EUNA is back in service, currently operating BA001 to JFK

It was returned to service on 6 February operating JFK-LCY (B A002).

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2013-02-07 11:35:11 and read 6870 times.

I started the jokes about it being assumed to be no taller than an A320... do we know what actually hit the tail?

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: axelesgg
Posted 2013-02-10 15:44:20 and read 5984 times.

A Privatair 737-700 seems like a good replacement, if only LCY were certified for that model  

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-02-10 16:36:38 and read 5766 times.

Quoting axelesgg (Reply 47):
A Privatair 737-700 seems like a good replacement, if only LCY were certified for that model

Given BA operate seven daily flights from LHR they're not likely to need that.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2013-02-10 19:17:18 and read 5485 times.

Quoting axelesgg (Reply 47):
737-700 seems like a good replacement, if only LCY were certified for that model

What about an all-premium configured CSeries or Emb-NG? By now, the historical load factors on this service could indicate the optimal seat number and aircraft model.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-02-10 20:10:15 and read 5341 times.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 49):
What about an all-premium configured CSeries or Emb-NG? By now, the historical load factors on this service could indicate the optimal seat number and aircraft model.

The former is planned and apparently capable non stop both ways, the latter will depend on how the specs firm up as Embraer refine the NG.


Dan  

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: Lofty
Posted 2013-02-11 02:10:53 and read 5003 times.

I understand that the aircraft was in the hanger with a safety wire which the engineers attach themselves to when working at hight. The wire was not removed before the aircraft pushed back and cut into the tail.

Topic: RE: BA A318 Damaged At JFK
Username: yeelep
Posted 2013-02-11 12:48:27 and read 4400 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 23):
Shortest 737NGs have taller tails.

All NG's have the same size vertical stab.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/