Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Passengers Refuse To Fly Without A 340 Wingtip.  
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1315 posts, RR: 25
Posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 22380 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

"It’s not clear what the big deal was. It was only part of the wing.

But SriLankan Airlines passengers said there was no way they were flying without it.

Britain’s Daily Mail reported that after an airliner lost its wingtip in a runway collision at London’s Heathrow Airport, passengers rebelled and said they weren’t getting back onboard.

"

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/in...l/europe/view.bg?articleid=1042668

"When the cabin crew then admitted there was still a 5-foot section of wing tip missing, there was “a minor revolt” as seven passengers demanded to be let off the plane. The crew insisted that the plane could fly just fine without it, but passengers weren’t buying it."

[Edited 2007-11-11 16:35:46]


World Wide Aerospace Photography
65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWirelock From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 22357 times:

its allowed on the a320 to fly without a wing tip. Maybe is the same for an A340. A check in the CDL should be able to confirm if this is possible

User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 22318 times:

Didn't we have a long discussion about this a week ago??

User currently onlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3392 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 22243 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
Didn't we have a long discussion about this a week ago??

Yes, but that was concerning the British Airways 747 involved in the accident.


User currently offlineDakar From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 22172 times:

Is this considered part of the MEL, CDL, or neither?

Oops, I guess I should have asked this first, was it the winglet or the actual wingtip itself? I guess a portion of the wing would fall under MEL/CDL, but wouldn't a winglet?

[Edited 2007-11-11 16:29:19]

[Edited 2007-11-11 16:31:39]

User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4703 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 22160 times:

I believe a winglet on the A330/A340 is not on the MEL (Minimum Equipment List) so you can fly without it. You take a drag (and thus fuelusage) penalty though


For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1315 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 22078 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...d=536885538&filename=phpYhnaFT.jpg
Here is the wingtip post incident. It is likely that engineering REMOVED it due to damage sustaied before the incident noted in the first post.



World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1851 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 22072 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's not clear in the article how the situation was resolved, but, if the aircraft is fit to fly, as judged by the airline and its trained maintenance personnel, then not flying becomes a voluntary change and any fare increases and or change penalties would apply. I wonder, after being informed of that, how many of those seven still had qualms about getting on the affected aircraft?


Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 21784 times:

Quoting Dakar (Reply 4):
Is this considered part of the MEL, CDL, or neither?

If it's anywhere, it would be on the CDL. The MEL is for inoperative equipment. The CDL is for missing structure.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 5):
I believe a winglet on the A330/A340 is not on the MEL (Minimum Equipment List) so you can fly without it.

That's not the right way to interpret the MEL. A winglet would be CDL anyway, but Minimum Equipment List isn't the minimum list of stuff you can fly with (despite the title), it's the list of things that you're allowed to fly without. If something isn't on the MEL then you can't fly without it unless you get approval from some other source.

Tom.


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 21441 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9):
but Minimum Equipment List isn't the minimum list of stuff you can fly with

Ummmmm, that's exactly what it is AFAIK. The MEL is the minimum equipment you need to safely operate the aircraft.


User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 21426 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
Didn't we have a long discussion about this a week ago??

so the Passengers think they know the best about their safety?  scratchchin 



"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 21382 times:

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 11):
so the Passengers think they know the best about their safety?

Hey, this is an age where unmanned drones crash because of pilot error. Aviation can't win any battles, might as well let the passengers have their day.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 21265 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 10):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9):
but Minimum Equipment List isn't the minimum list of stuff you can fly with

Ummmmm, that's exactly what it is AFAIK. The MEL is the minimum equipment you need to safely operate the aircraft.

No, it isn't There is no single document that lists the minimum equipment you need to safety operate the aircraft. The MEL provides a list of items you are allowed to dispatch without. If something is not listed on the MEL, then you need it to dispatch or you need to get authority from another source to dispatch without it.

For example, the thrust reversers are on the MEL. That means you can dispatch with inoperative reversers. The engines are not on the MEL. That means you cannot dispatch with an inoperative engine.

Tom.


User currently offlineSQ452 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 20888 times:

I remember when the back of a pylon was missing on the left wing of a CO 737-800 from BOS to EWR...a few passengers (including myself) asked the FA's if the plane could fly without it and eventually the captain came on and said it was ok...

...My guess is that the A340 could fly no problem without a wingtip. The A380 did it after its tip got clipped at BKK, but that was because they actually removed the wingtips on both sides instead of just the damaged one. You'll see this in the videos of the low pass over HKG a few days later. But I can obviously see why the passengers would consider getting off the plane if they saw the wingtip missing.



SIN > CVG > BOS
User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 20507 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 13):
The engines are not on the MEL. That means you cannot dispatch with an inoperative engine.

Except in unusual circumstances such as a 3 engine ferry flight on a jumbo. This of course is non-revenue.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlineWirelock From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 20239 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 10):
Ummmmm, that's exactly what it is AFAIK. The MEL is the minimum equipment you need to safely operate the aircraft

it's definetley in the CDL. You should have a look in the CDL. There are all sorts of things that you can fly without. For example Flap fairings, LDG doors. The usual is there is an operational penalty, mainly fuel.


User currently offlineGraphic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 20022 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 10):
Ummmmm, that's exactly what it is AFAIK. The MEL is the minimum equipment you need to safely operate the aircraft.

Common misperception. The MEL is a document that specifies what needs to be done to make an aircraft airworthy when certain equipment is inoperative, it usually states how to defer the item for maintenance and how to deactivate the item. If it isn't listed in the MEL, then the aircraft will be unairworthy (there are exceptions to this, IIRC, but a winglet isn't).


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4399 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 19684 times:

Lufthansa operated a 744 without one winglet some time a while ago.

While I do not assume this to be an objective safety risk, I do not think that this is something good for reputation and prooven reliability. In this case, also I would not be concerned about the missing winglet - but would ask if the necessary checks have been done to the rest of the wing.


User currently offlineJustplanecrazy From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 18810 times:

i would be more concerned about wether the wing has been weakened by the collision and not at all bothered by the wing tip missing.


your pilots today on this 747 flight are captain oliver hardy and assisting will be FO stan laurel.Have a safe flight
User currently offlineAerofede From Italy, joined Sep 2006, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 18618 times:

Better to fly with a winglet missing, than not having an airplane flying (thus not producing any revenue) at all.

In MXP I have seen a couple of times a Royal Air Maroc 744 fly without a winglets.
After all safety check are done, only a performance penalty remains.


User currently offlineBluewhale18210 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 18558 times:

As long as the winglet was removed by MX, the aircraft was ok to go. Although it would suffer fuel penalty.
Remember that winglets were put in place to save fuel. Missing one or both winglet just meant more fuel burn.
Just think a 744 without winglet to be a 744D.......that should give you a clear picture.

As far as real incidents go, here's one.
About 3 years ago a CI 340 was taxing into gate A12 at SEA from IAH. It was supposed to pickup about 100 PAX at SEA and then go to TPE. When it was taxiing the right side winglet struck an AA MD80's horizontal stablizer. The MD was parked and the A340 was on the taxiway centerline. Later SEATAC admitted the misplaced centerline would not accomodate an A340 quite well and since repainted the line.
Anyway the A340 left a few hours later, one winglet short. It also took on 5% extra fuel to compensate for the lost of aerodynamic efficiency. I know this firsthand because my father was the manager in charge at the scene. It's perfectly safe to fly without winglets.



JPS on A300-600RF A319/320 B737-400/800 B757-200F B767-300F CRJ-200/900. Looking to add more.
User currently offlineGregarious119 From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 16512 times:

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 11):
so the Passengers think they know the best about their safety? scratchchin

This is the real problem here.

Some person, in their absolutely limited knowledge of what it takes to lift an airplane out of the air, and even further limited knowledge about the operating requirements of an A340, takes it upon themselves to make a judgement call about the safety of a widebody airliner and the effect that a missing wingtip will have.

Did they really believe that this captain, who probably has thousands of hours of flight experience, would just ignore a problem like that and no doubt fly off unto his ultimate peril? Where's the trust in the captain's experience?!


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16437 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 13):



Quoting Graphic (Reply 17):

I hate to be "that guy" but I think you have it backwards.

MMEL:
A Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) is an approved document created specifically to regulate the dispatch of an aircraft type with inoperative equipment. It establishes the aircraft equipment allowed to be inoperative under certain conditions for a specific type of aircraft and forms the basis for a Minimum Equipment List

MEL:
The MEL is a joint operations and maintenance document prepared for or by an air operator to:
a) identify the minimum equipment and conditions for an aircraft to maintain conformity with the standards of airworthiness and to meet the operating rules for the type of operation;

I think what this is saying is the MMEL identifies what can be inoperative while the MEL identifies what must be operative.
So my above statement is true..

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 10):
The MEL is the minimum equipment you need to safely operate the aircraft.

Here's the source that has this info...
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ment+list&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us


User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16243 times:

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 7):
It's not clear in the article how the situation was resolved, but, if the aircraft is fit to fly, as judged by the airline and its trained maintenance personnel, then not flying becomes a voluntary change and any fare increases and or change penalties would apply.

I think you're nuts if you think that it's unreasonable for passengers to be skeptical about the safety of a Sri Lankan Airlines plane they had just suffered a collision on and that still was not repaired. Charge them a change fee? Freakin' crazy.

Quoting Gregarious119 (Reply 21):
Some person, in their absolutely limited knowledge of what it takes to lift an airplane out of the air, and even further limited knowledge about the operating requirements of an A340, takes it upon themselves to make a judgment call about the safety of a widebody airliner and the effect that a missing wingtip will have.

Why not? Some person, in their absolutely great knowledge of airplanes, had just crashed their airplane into another airplane. Why shouldn't passengers be skeptical about what the airline says?

It's one thing if this happened to a Lufthansa or BA airplane, but I'm sure that things don't operate as efficiently, honestly and smoothly in Sri Lanka as in Brittan or Germany. Perhaps Sri Lankan is a great airline, but I can fully understand passengers being unsure of whether the airline is trying to cut corners in certifying it to fly without replacing the wingtip.


User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 15427 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 22):

The FAA approved MMEL includes those items of equipment related to airworthiness
and operating regulations and other items of equipment which the
Administrator finds may be inoperative and yet maintain an acceptable
level of safety by appropriate conditions and limitations; it does not
contain obviously required items such as wings, flaps, and rudders.


This is taken from the preamble to the MMEL (Master Minimum Equipment List) for the B747-400 on th "MyBoeingFleet" website. Other fleet types are similar. The MMEL is generated by the FAA and the manufacturer.

As can be seen the MMEL is a document that tells you what systems can be inoperative yet still allow the aircraft to fly safely. It is not a listing of the minimum equipment required to operate the aircraft.It is a listing of what can be inoperative. The MEL is a derivative document that is unique to the operator that developed it. It CAN NOT contain anything that is not in the MMEL.

The Dispatch Deviation Guide (DDG) or Dispatch Maintenance Procedures (DMP) is used in conjunction with he MEL in order to render an inoperative component or system safe for dispatch. Some MEL items have associated DMP's, some don't. From the MBF B747-400 website:

Document Purpose
This document is intended to assist airline operations and maintenance organizations in developing the
procedures required to operate the aircraft in the various nonstandard configurations allowed by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) and the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM) appendix Configuration Deviation List (CDL).


The CDL (Configuration Deviation List) is a document produced by both the manufacturer and the operator, and approved by the FAA, which allows certain, non-structual components to be missing from the aircraft. Some examples: access panels, flight control seals, fairings, winglets, landing gear doors, etc. These items being missing usually incur a weight of fuel penalty, or both. Not all items that can be missing on one aircraft can be missing on another.

Quoting Remcor (Reply 23):

Passengers neither have the knowledge nor expertise to make an informed decision about the airworthy status of an aircraft. If they insisted on some action...they should be free to get off the aircraft and be rebooked, if there is space available, and be charged the appropriate fees/fares.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
25 YYZYYT : No, it's us on a.net who know best. Let's remember that there are a lot of people out there who have a fear of flying at the best of times (irrationa
26 Post contains images Michlis :
27 Wirelock : well in this case, if the airplane was taxiing off the centre line then the pilot has to answer. However if the pilot of the 340 was taxiing normally
28 Post contains images Lh526 : taking away the "we are oh so knowledgabel average crowd" .. here's a scan of an A330s CDL that shoudl clear the problem: Mario LH526
29 Post contains links and images YOWza : View Large View MediumPhoto © Rotate YOWza
30 Boeingluvr : Although the plane may be able to fly without that part of the wing, it's still perception. If there are pax that don't want to fly, which maybe shoul
31 Futurecaptain : I agree with that. It's the MEL we are figuring out. Never said the MMEL was, I said the MEL was. Correct. So do you agree with what I posted.... ???
32 Arv79 : Forgive me if this question has been asked before. When the winglet has been removed, how is the wingtip capped? Also I assume the winglet assembly do
33 Fr8mech : Not to spin this off completely, but have you ever seen an MEL or MMEL? I work with them all the time. They are in the same format and have the same
34 SBBRTech : This is what they should have handled to each pax before telling them to shut up!
35 Cingularity : I have been studying commercial airliners, airlines, and the industry in general for about 20 years. I don't pretend to know everything but I also am
36 Wirelock : planes fly all the time with different parts, systems either inop or working with reduced capability. however people like urself and millions of othe
37 Futurecaptain : Nope, never seen one. But from what I read they seem like very different documents. Hence the confusion. MMEL: MEL:
38 Wirelock : High speed tape would used to cover the gap where the wing and the winglet are attached. then the strobe and the nav light missing would be released
39 MD11Engineer : Just believe the people who are using these documents everyday. The MEL lists those parts which are allowed to be inoperative or missing on an aircra
40 Aviateur : For what it's worth, this wouldn't be an MEL stipulation, it'd be a *CDL* stipulation. In any case, the poster above makes a good point with respect t
41 EI321 : Its like refusing to get in a car because theres no spoiler on the boot.
42 Post contains images FlyDeltaJets87 : Guess he shouldn't fly us then. We don't even require all the engines to be working. Signed, British Airways. The airline may have decided it was che
43 Remcor : I think a lot of us are talking at cross-purposes here. There are two issues: 1. whether the aircraft is truly safe or not 2. placating understandably
44 Virgin747 : ha! they should have seen the A380 a few weeks ago after that incident where it hit the hangar. It flew without its wingtip. And in 2004 Air Canada's
45 Aviateur : I disagree. Why should an airline be forced to placate passengers who are being unreasonable? Provided the airline offers a thorough and accurate exp
46 Wirelock : If both winglets are removed then that aircraft goes nowhere!!
47 Tdscanuck : I work with both documents every day. The MEL and the MMEL contain exactly the same kind of data. Although the definitions you posted from the CAA ar
48 JoeCanuck : While I completely understand that passengers might feel uneasy about getting back on a plane that was just in a collision, (no matter how minor), it
49 Post contains images Eksath : here is the wingtip in question Ok..I tried to make the image show up because it did happen last time I posted it. I guess this works! Great! [Edited
50 Boeingluvr : Having worked in the industry for some time myself I do realize this, however in my experience a lot of these parts that are not on the MEL list are
51 Mendaero : Lets just make it clear for everyone reading this thread that may be a little confused. The MEL (or MMEL) has nothing to do with Winglets missing or o
52 Wirelock : well boeingluvr, i absolutley respect your opinion. I can see how this damage would look to the untrained eye. A lot of peoples confidence in flying
53 Lowrider : A CDL allows certain to be absent from the aircraft without affecting the airworthiness. As a few people mentioned, items such as flap track fairings
54 Wirelock : Thanks to Canadian transport civil aviation for this explanation of MEL and CDL (i) Minimum Equipment Lists (MELs) provide an additional measure of co
55 Boeingluvr : Very true! I get a little testy when pax decide they can't fly because of something they don't think is safe. Unfortunately people sometimes think th
56 MD11Engineer : There also exist instances where you can defer an item as per AMM, SRM or some other documentation. Jan
57 2175301 : I am in total agreement with Remcor - even though I know a lot more about aircraft and their systems than the average public. I would be getting off
58 Eksath : You missed the story. There WAS a stand down! After the incident the passengers were sent to hotels for the night and engineering inspected the aircr
59 Hloutweg : Unfortunately the ignorance of the passengers overpowers the expertise of the operators. It's like Copernicus trying to explain the church institution
60 Zeke : This is a simple CDL item. One winglet may be missing provided hole is covered. An increase fuel consumption by 1% needs to be accounted for, and the
61 2175301 : I stand corrected; and I am glad to hear that there was a stand down. The original article is no longer available (or was not last night). Yet, I can
62 Richierich : my thinking is this - if the airline is too cheap to replace an obviously missing piece like the wingtip, then what faith should the pax have in them?
63 Eksath : Sri Lankan was merely carrying out an industry standard operation to return the aircraft back to its homebase for the repair. It is plain and simple
64 BDKLEZ : Where are the airline supposed to source this "missing piece" at very short notice; it may very well need to come from Airbus itself as I severely do
65 SkyexRamper : The Captain allowed the cabin crew to make that announcement? Might have let the gate agents tell them all about it as neither people would have the a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Passengers Refuse To Board Unsafe Phuket Air Jet posted Mon Apr 4 2005 13:55:43 by 777ER
Biman Pilots Refuse To Fly F28s To Nepal posted Wed Apr 28 2004 16:49:10 by Shilla
Airlines You Refuse To Fly posted Mon Oct 27 2003 15:47:13 by Zrs70
Legal For Airlines To Fly Without National Flag? posted Sun Oct 6 2002 16:42:41 by Bobcat
Any Airline You Refuse To Fly With Again? posted Fri Mar 15 2002 20:26:10 by Go Canada!
Any Aircraft You Refuse To Fly On Again? posted Thu Mar 14 2002 22:39:59 by Samurai 777
BRU:Israeli Jews Refuse To Fly With Arabs posted Sun Oct 21 2001 16:59:22 by Tca256
Does EK Ever Fly Their 340 To MAN posted Sun Nov 12 2006 02:20:24 by Fiaz
AR To Fly GRU-EZE-AKL-SYD 2x Weekly W/ 340 posted Fri May 20 2005 02:41:55 by Marambio
Ryanair To Fly Passengers For Free posted Fri Jul 23 2004 20:18:50 by Horus