Was The MH 772 In Zurich An Almost W/O? — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Was The MH 772 In Zurich An Almost W/O?

N754pr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2001 times:

Just seen a pic of the aircraft in the hangar and rather shocked to see the tail SECTION on the FLOOR!!. The tail is removed and so is the whole rear section..... I dont mean the apu section below the tail I mean you can see into the cabin from the rear, it looks like they have CUT the tail section off !!!

11 replies: All unread, jump to last

StudentFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 688 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1952 times:

My assumption would be they won't simply patch up the damaged area, because if they do, a couple of years down the track, there will be metal fatigue - like the one that caused the China Airlines 742 to disintegrate in flight - so although it may look shocking, the a/c is nowhere near a write off... It is by far safer to remove them and replace them Smile

Regards,
AK

Airbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

No it was not. I know what pictures you are talking about and it was merely the aft bulkhead that had to be replaced. It was an all new part shipped from Japan and to change that it requires the decommission described.

N754pr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Ok, so to replace it they need to cut the tail section off or is there a way to open the original joints in the metal?

How many Million dollars would this have cost?

Joule From Malaysia, joined Dec 2003, 159 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1688 times:

They didn't cut the tail section. The rear section was detached at the point where the pressure bulkhead is located, the same points where the tail was installed during production. A new pressure bulkhead (built and shipped from Japan, as Airbus Lover had mentioned) was installed. This is the best way to ensure no latent failures will occur in the future. After the JAL 747 crash in 1985 and the CAL 747 crash a few years back (both had suffered tailstrikes and were 'repaired') Boeing aren't taking any more chances to repair the pressure bulkhead. Good move.

This is the first in-service 777 to have its tail removed. And NO the aircraft was nowhere near a write-off.

As for the cost, yes it cost millions USD (I know and I won't disclose).

RedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

This sounds intriguing to say the least... does anyone have any pictures they can link to?

Rich

Unique From Switzerland, joined Mar 2003, 1703 posts, RR: 40
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1513 times:

does anyone have any pictures they can link to?

The repairs have been carried out inside a hangar. It was absolutely and strictly forbidden to take pictures. If some pictures were taken, then with the risk of being fired. I doubt that somebody will publish pictures and risk a lot of troubles.

RedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1316 times:

"If some pictures were taken" - well I was assuming that pictures were taken, given that at least two posters above have seen them... anyone come across them on t'Internet?

Joule From Malaysia, joined Dec 2003, 159 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1253 times:

Pics taken were for official and internal use only - for Boeing, SR Technics & MAS. Those involved in the repair process would have seen the pics Smokin cool

. Looks like some were leaked out. This is unfortunate. But I doubt you'll see them on the internet.

PROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5439 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1232 times:

Not that I want to start yet another A vs. B war or anything, but is it likely that a 340 with similar damage would be a W/O, given Airbus' (supposed) greater reluctance to support major repairs?

"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"

RedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

Joule:

Oh, ok... damn corporate confidentiality! I'm curious!

Rich Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Miamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1172 times:

Just for the record, the JAL 747 bulkhead repair failed beacuse there was only one row of fasteners on the repair itself. Repairs should have a minimum of two rows of fasteners, and 2.5 to 3 is preferred. The fatigue failure was calculated to the cycle based on the repair assessment, post accident.

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: