LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13898 posts, RR: 49
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3935 times:
Quoting Dakota (Thread starter): Last week A Boeing 767 of Martinair landed in CUR with 'a hole' in the fuselage.
How did this happen?
Quoting Dakota (Thread starter): I would like to know: is this plane still at CUR or is the problem solved and did it fly back?
Ferrying it back to AMS would be very difficult, it might most likely have to fly at very low altitudes because of this. That being said, I doubt that a hole in the fuselage is something quick to repair. If you look back, Boeing had to work for months until they managed to repair the wrinkled fuselage of G-SJMC in PUJ. And given that the 767 is the workhorse for MP's longhaul fleet, its age could influence a decision on whether it should be repair or written off.
BTW: What's the registration of the MP 767 that had this fuselage hole in CUR?
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3853 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1): Ferrying it back to AMS would be very difficult, it might most likely have to fly at very low altitudes because of this. That being said, I doubt that a hole in the fuselage is something quick to repair. If you look back, Boeing had to work for months until they managed to repair the wrinkled fuselage of G-SJMC in PUJ. And given that the 767 is the workhorse for MP's longhaul fleet, its age could influence a decision on whether it should be repair or written off.
While I don't doubt that the bird with the wrinkled fuselage took some months to repair, fuselage holes are not usually as major damage with respect to severity and repair time.
The usual culprit for damaging the fuselage (and it's not always a "hole" one can put their fist through) is a piece of ramp equipment, such as a belt loader, lav cart, baggage cart, or their other item. In my personal experience, the usual practice for when such an incident occurs (at a place where the airline has no repair facilities) is that the aircraft will be first be inspected by local contract maintenance personnel. If the aircraft is deemed airworthy for a maintenance ferry flight, it will operate unpressurized (10,000 feet or below) to an airport where repairs can be made. I'm certainly not suggesting that the damaged bird here will ferry CUR-AMS at/below 10,000 feet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it ferry CUR-MIA, hangar space rented, and having a Boeing repair team work on it there. It could also ferry CUR-MIA and then on to another US point for repair. AA @ MCI or DFW? UA @ SFO or ORD? AAR @ OKC? BFGoodrich @ PAE? In the past, we've also used Boeing-Wichita (IAB), where the 737 fuselages are built--certainly alot of expertise there, even with the change in ownership and name change. In more recent years, we use BFG @ PAE, and in fact we ferried our nosegear bird N356SW OAK-PAE for the repair work.
Depending upon how bad the fuselage damage is, the aircraft could be out for as little as 2-3 days, or 2-3 weeks, or more. Even considering the age of the aircraft, I don't see much potential for the economics of the repair warranting a write-off of the aircraft--it'd have to be some really bad fuselage damage, and in that event, you wouldn't be talking about ferrying anywhere for repairs (probably wouldn't be airworthy, even for ferrying), you'd be talking about breaking the aircraft up there in CUR.
76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 580 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3176 times:
The damage was to the wing-to-fuselage fairing. An access panel had somehow sheared off and did some damage while flying off the aircraft. It was ferried back to AMS and returned to service a day later, IIRC it was PH-MCL (not sure).
Pax were either flown home on KLM or ArkeFly, some stuck around till the next MP plane came by. Read nothing about this in the dutch papers, so it must have been a relatively smooth operation.