Eilennaei From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2870 times:
Note: This airline is a) non-Turkish b) was not banned from flying into Belgium or Germany. And C) another potential DC-10 disaster was avoided, perhaps not by much.
1. Submitter Information Service Difficulty Report
S D R
For Air Carrier and General Aviation
Operational and Structural Difficulty Reporting
(a) Unique Control # 2004FA0000909
(b) Difficulty Date 11/19/2004
(c) Registration Number
(d) Submitter Type REPAIR STATION PART 145 (B)
2. Codes 3. Major Equipment Identity
(a) JASC Code 7230 (a) Operator Designator Operator Type General Aviation (G)
(b) When Discovered INSP/MAINT (IN) (c) How Visual (V) (b) Aircraft Manufacturer Model Serial Number Total Time Total Cycles
(d) Nature of Condition INADEQUATE Q C (W)
DOUG DC1030F 46917 103399
(e) Precautionary Procedure NONE (K) (c) Engine GE CF650C2 517-228
(f) FAA Region SW (g) Dist.Off. 99 (d) Propeller
4. Problem Description
DURING A ROUTINE "A-CHECK", FINNAIR FAA REPAIR STATION WAS REQUESTED TO PERFORM FAN BLADE LUBRICATION OF POSITION NR 3 ENGINE ON DA-10, N303WL. INSPECTION OF THE FAN BLADES REVEALED THAT ALL FAN BLADE SPACERS WERE IMPROPERLY INSTALLED. THE SPACER RETAINER LIPS WERE HANGING LOOSE, TOWARD THE WEB AREA OF THE FAN DISK, INSTEAD OF UNDER THE SPACERS BENEATH EACH FAN BLADE. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE STARTERS QUAD-RING WAS NOT SECURED BY A BOLT. ATTACHMENTS TO ORIGINAL REPORT SENT TO FRANKFURT IFO WERE FORWARDED TO PMI FOR WORLD CARGO.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 2694 times:
In regards to the topic of this thread - why do you single out Europe on this?
Are you aware of a series of maintenance errors with World Airways? Are you aware of their operating certificate being withdrawn by the FAA? Have inspections of their repair stations in the US found a pattern of consistent maintenance errors?
Yes, from the report it looks very serious (don't know too much about aircraft engines, so I cannot comment on that - though it does sound quite serious), but you simply do not ban an airline for one error, even if it is a big one.
If their planes continuously operate to Europe in that condition, that's when you'll see them banned.
Because, even if some might deny this, European countries don't just ban an airline because they feel like it - when they do, they want to have proof that it wasn't just a "once off", but a systematic problem within the airline.
BoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 2533 times:
That's what I said in the Onur Air thread:
If Onur Air had to be banned, which can be understood, a lot of other companies (or particular a/c) have to as well. It's maybe easier to pass through the net of the random controls for smaller airlines than for airlines with a bigger fleet (like Onur Air).
I know there is a lack of controller (and means) in France so some suspect a/c may still fly without problem.
But I understand it's impossible to control each a/c individually.
Eilennaei From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2048 times:
The condition had apparently existed for some time. The fact that an unknown GE-authorized engine repair shop had misplaced not just one or two but a whole set of critical engine parts is well ... interesting.
World Air is by the way associated with trooping flights to some crisis zones as well as "codesharing" cargo flights with e.g. Lufthansa -- also in good terms with the lobbying set.
When the carefully designed engine fan disk/blade interface is disrupted for some reason, you may get for instance something like this case in return, but it may take a relatively long time to develop: