Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NW 757 Diverts To Vegas After Losing Part Of Wing  
User currently offlineAviationbuff From India, joined Mar 2008, 1425 posts, RR: 3
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16214 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...gas-after-losing-part-of-wing.html

Quote:
A Northwest Airlines 757-200 with 193 passengers and crew declared an emergency in flight yesterday morning after a 3- by 2-ft panel, which included underlying hydraulic lines, ripped from the rear upper section of the right wing, hit the window at passenger row 28 and then damaged the right side of the horizontal stabilizer.

According to the US Federal Aviation Administration, the pilots notified air traffic controllers of the event at 9:10 am Monday morning when flying over Dagget, California, about 20 minutes out of Los Angeles. Flight 332 was enroute to Detroit.

The pilots declared an emergency and landed safely on Runway 25 at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas. There was no emergency evacuation, though the aircraft was towed to the gate from the runway, according to the FAA.

Quite Scary but the good part is nobody got injured.

Few days ago similar incident took place (US Airways - 757) where a small part of a wing dislodged.

[Edited 2008-05-13 08:58:22]

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4630 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16201 times:

Im starting to think this massive FAA crack down might not be a bad thing....


Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16110 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1):
Im starting to think this massive FAA crack down might not be a bad thing....

Why? It's not that there are more incidents like this happening. In fact, I'd wager there are fewer. It's just that the media gets hold of nearly every one of them and the ensuing stories are distributed through mediums that were never even imagined in the past few decades.

It's not that incidents like this never happened (or happened less frequently) in the past....it's that people didn't have the stories and images pushed to their PDAs, cellphones, laptops, etc within hours of each occurrence.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4630 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16094 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 2):
Why? It's not that there are more incidents like this happening. In fact, I'd wager there are fewer. It's just that the media gets hold of nearly every one of them and the ensuing stories are distributed through mediums that were never even imagined in the past few decades.

It's not that incidents like this never happened (or happened less frequently) in the past....it's that people didn't have the stories and images pushed to their PDAs, cellphones, laptops, etc within hours of each occurrence.

That still doesnt make it ok. Its probably a good thing that these are getting reported, to ensure we still have the safest system in the world. For many years nothing was done until we had a crash, and id rather not see it come to that again.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineWESTERN737800 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 691 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16100 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 2):
It's just that the media gets hold of nearly every one of them and the ensuing stories are distributed through mediums that were never even imagined in the past few decades.

I agree, the media gets a hold of stuff like this and they have a heyday.



Bring back Western Airlines!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21419 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16049 times:

The internet allows us to know about these things. They have been happening plenty in the past, but we just didn't know about them because they weren't big enough news to make a national broadcast.

I do wonder how many times pieces of wing ripped off of 757s, or off any planes for that matter. I know that planes can fly missing quite a few bits, just not efficiently.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 15959 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 3):
That still doesnt make it ok.

I never meant to imply that it is ok. My point was that incidents like these are not necessarily indicative of a chronic problem, much less a problem that's getting worse.

Say, for example, that there are now fewer panels departing aircraft today than anytime in the past few decades. Suppose that the decrease in panel departures is a direct result of maintenance procedures that have been constantly and steadily refined.

If this hypothetical situation were in fact reality....and it may very well be....what do you think the media would do? Run stories and programs lauding the advances in maintenance practices and air safety? Of course not. Virtually every media outlet will continue to see each incident as yet another opportunity to scare their audience and get ratings.

I should probably once again emphasize that this is just a hypothetical example, but it's precisely what the media does. Their coverage of aviation is consistently irresponsible, inaccurate, and counterproductive.

Widespread media coverage is usually a great thing, but when reporters actively omit completely relevant facts in an effort to make their stories more dramatic and scare their audiences, they should be fired and fined. In my opinion.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineGARUDAROD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1504 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 15748 times:

That explains why there is a NW B757 parked by the cargo facilities. Usually only a damaged or
maintenance related delayed aircraft are parked there.



Cargo doesn't whine, moan, or complain
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7504 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15524 times:

Interesting how all these fleet things happen at the same time.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineJettaKnight From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15331 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1):
Im starting to think this massive FAA crack down might not be a bad thing....



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 6):
I never meant to imply that it is ok. My point was that incidents like these are not necessarily indicative of a chronic problem, much less a problem that's getting worse

I don't see anything in PVD's replies suggesting that the problem is chronic or getting worse. To me, he's saying that the FAA's job isn't done until these sorts of things NEVER happen.

When I'm climbing to 35,000 feet and a part of the wing hits my window, I'll hardly be comforted by the fact that it's a rarer occurrence than it used to be.

[Edited 2008-05-13 11:14:35]

User currently offlineSSRJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15221 times:



Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 3):
That still doesnt make it ok. Its probably a good thing that these are getting reported, to ensure we still have the safest system in the world. For many years nothing was done until we had a crash, and id rather not see it come to that again.

Well, don't worry about the thousands of automobile "accident" deaths that happen every year. (We don't see the government doing anything serious about those crashes now do we?

I think FAA and the airlines do a fine job with U.S. airline safety. I think that the news outlets seize on stories they can sensationalize for profit (which is their purpose - profit).

 Smile



When all else fails, read the directions. Else then, get the hammer
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2196 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15157 times:



Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1):
Im starting to think this massive FAA crack down might not be a bad thing....

First, the FAA needs to be cracked on.

Quoting SSRJ (Reply 10):
Well, don't worry about the thousands of automobile "accident" deaths that happen every year. (We don't see the government doing anything serious about those crashes now do we?

I think FAA and the airlines do a fine job with U.S. airline safety. I think that the news outlets seize on stories they can sensationalize for profit (which is their purpose - profit).

This bit of truth always escapes the media, and the guy/gal going 85mph talking on his/her cellphone.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21419 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15095 times:



Quoting JettaKnight (Reply 9):
When I'm climbing to 35,000 feet and a part of the wing hits my window, I'll hardly be comforted by the fact that it's a rarer occurrence than it used to be.

How about the fact that it rarely results in crashes? Or that crashes are really, really, really, really rare even when components fail?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2968 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14836 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
Quoting JettaKnight (Reply 9):
When I'm climbing to 35,000 feet and a part of the wing hits my window, I'll hardly be comforted by the fact that it's a rarer occurrence than it used to be.

How about the fact that it rarely

I think it's more the fact that even if it turns out to be "nothing", when something breaks off a plane (esp on takeoff/climb) and hits near your window, it's a traumatic experience. The kind of thing that in a paying passenger's mind, all these inspections and checks should find and avert before they happen.



Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlineJettaKnight From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14786 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
How about the fact that it rarely results in crashes? Or that crashes are really, really, really, really rare even when components fail?

I understand all of that, but certainly crashes have occurred when relatively minor parts have failed. My points are:

1) It's never acceptable to have parts of the aircraft unexpectedly fall off during flight, regardless of how minor or inconsequential the event may be. A 'zero tolerance' policy for this type of occurrence is something we should all demand from the FAA, the manufacturers, and the airlines.

2) The media coverage of aviation incidents can be distorted and erroneous, and I'm sure that if you Google this particular story, you can find examples of this. That doesn't seem to be the case in the story that was included by the OP.

Fact: Parts fell off of the wing of a NW 757 resulting in a successful emergency landing.
Fact: The media link to this story that was included by the OP seems to be accurate and balanced.

If anyone cares to start a thread defending the current state of aviation safety or bashing the media for inaccurate aviation stories, please do so. However, I would appreciate it if this thread could include some constructive and informative dialog regarding the facts of the story (causes, previous similar incidents, corrective actions, etc).

[Edited 2008-05-13 13:02:19]

[Edited 2008-05-13 13:23:00]

User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14713 times:

Anybody get the Northwest ship number or reg (N) number?
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 14313 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 3):
Its probably a good thing that these are getting reported, to ensure we still have the safest system in the world.

They're always being reported between the airlines, OEM's, and the regulators. It's just rare that it hits the press. *Huge* difference.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 3):
For many years nothing was done until we had a crash, and id rather not see it come to that again.

This just isn't true. The *vast* majority of AD's are the result of findings that had nothing to do with a crash. Changes due to a crash are the rarity, not the norm.

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 8):
Interesting how all these fleet things happen at the same time.

They're not happening all at the same time, they're being *reported in the press* a lot more. So far as I can tell, there haven't been any major changes in rates recently.

Quoting JettaKnight (Reply 9):
I don't see anything in PVD's replies suggesting that the problem is chronic or getting worse. To me, he's saying that the FAA's job isn't done until these sorts of things NEVER happen.

Except that's not the FAA's job. Aircraft aren't engineered so that even catastrophic events will *never* happen...why in the world would you then engineer for a non-catastrophic event to never happen?

Quoting JettaKnight (Reply 14):
1) It's never acceptable to have parts of the aircraft unexpectedly fall off during flight, regardless of how minor or inconsequential the event may be. A 'zero tolerance' policy for this type of occurrence is something we should all demand from the FAA, the manufacturers, and the airlines.

You can demand it as soon as the flying public demonstrates that they're willing to pay for the *vast* increase in cost that such a change would require. Which, based on current purchasing habits in the marketplace, will be about the 5th of never.

It does not make engineering, safety, or economic sense to take a zero-tolerance policy to non-critical events.

Tom.

[Edited 2008-05-13 15:08:04]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21419 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 14220 times:



Quoting JettaKnight (Reply 14):
A 'zero tolerance' policy for this type of occurrence is something we should all demand from the FAA, the manufacturers, and the airlines.

Undoable. Air travel would be so expensive, airliners so expensive, there would be no flying.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
You can demand it as soon as the flying public demonstrates that they're willing to pay for the *vast* increase in cost that such a change would require.

Ask NASA. They shoot for zero failure rate, they spend 10x to 100x what it would take for a 99% rate, and yet things still fail. For manned space flight, I can see it, but for unmanned flight it's wasteful, as you'd be better off sending up 10 satellites, one after the other, all with a 95% success rate than you are putting all your funds into 1.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSurfrider1978 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13783 times:

These occurances are more frequent than most would ever know about. However with the media facination at the moment in aviation, everything is under the microscope.

User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4972 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12995 times:

Quoting SSRJ (Reply 10):
Well, don't worry about the thousands of automobile "accident" deaths that happen every year.

Tens of thousands. 42,682 FATALITIES in 2006 in the US alone, according to the NHTSA. (A multiple of that, of course, for serious injuries.) That's roughly a 737 per day. Here we have the media panicking about a NON-fatal airline incident, but they don't say squat about carnage on the highways of a still-unimaginable order.

[Edited 2008-05-13 16:20:41]

User currently offlineSoxfan From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12634 times:

What happened to the flight, was another plane sent in to pick up the 193 passengers?


Pilot: "Request push, which way should we face?" JFK Ground: "You better face the front, sir, or you'll scare the pax!"
User currently offlineAguslamm From Argentina, joined Apr 2008, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12017 times:

Imagine sitting in 28F on that flight....

User currently offlineSoxfan From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11932 times:



Quoting Soxfan (Reply 20):
What happened to the flight, was another plane sent in to pick up the 193 passengers?

Clarification: I misread the number of people on the flight, the 193 was including crew (otherwise it didn't make sense given the NWA seat maps saying the 757s had 180-something seats at most). Sorry  Smile



Pilot: "Request push, which way should we face?" JFK Ground: "You better face the front, sir, or you'll scare the pax!"
User currently offlineVHECA From Australia, joined May 2007, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10989 times:



Quoting Aguslamm (Reply 21):
Imagine sitting in 28F on that flight....

Your telling me!  eyepopping  Minding your own business and then all of a sudden ... *BANG*!

I would have messed myself!  butthead  No kidding!! The plane would have had been scheduled for repairs and upholstery cleaning!  blush 

Am glad that this was only an incident and not an accident. Hate to see the '57 go a la concorde!

Cheers

VHECA



Types Flown on - 312,320,722,732,733,73H,73W,742,743,74C,752,762,AB4,D1C,D28,DHT,F27,L11
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8876 posts, RR: 40
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10832 times:

My first 757 flight was on a DL plane that appeared to have an aileron loose on one of its side. The thing would slowly rise and fall on take off roll and landing.


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
25 Crash65 : Amazing! 24 posts on a forum of "so called" aviation enthusiast discussing an incident where a wing panel separates from an aircraft, causes damage, a
26 Jetracer5 : I call a bit of B.S. in this story. From the way I read it it sounds like a GLD (ground lift dumper) came off in flight. These are those panels on the
27 ContnlEliteCMH : Indeed they did an excellent job! Such excellence is expected. The pilots on this site have been telling us for years that this is why/when they earn
28 44k : I saw a picture on NBC news,. I'd wait till that is online before we can be sure, it looked fairly substantial.
29 FlyPIJets : valid thinking. panels falling off airliners is probably not a good thing. Of course we are aware that parts periodically fall off of aircraft in fli
30 N808NW : The aircraft reg was N514US a 5500 srs which are the older 757s in the NW fleet...this aircraft is about 21yrs old. if you'v ever flown on one you can
31 DaCubbyBearBar : I personally was up close to the plane last night. I could not see the top of the wing so I cannot be sure as to what piece came off. There is obvious
32 CptRegionalJet : It's quite normal for an aileron to move up and down.That's what they are intended to do on an airplane.Movement during t/o or landing roll is for di
33 Goaliemn : They do heavy checks on the aircraft every so many flights. I don't think there would be any way to do a heavy check after every single flight. Aviat
34 Rbgso : And that's why they invented speedtape.....
35 Aguslamm : True! By the way, how did the pilots find out? VHECA..was that you on 28F? Did you have to tell them?
36 Charliejag1 : That is not fact, its your opinion. I know because you said "seems to be". Anyway, I agree that parts shouldn't be falling off of airplanes, but ther
37 LASOctoberB6 : Runway 25L... I had to do it.. How about as of 0720?
38 Surfpunk : There is a video on the KVBC-3 Las Vegas (www.kvbc.com) that shows the missing panel from inside the aircraft. It is a triangular panel on the inboar
39 PPVRA : Not like that, it was moving as it was only attached at one point and other other side was bending up. Pretty sure it wasn't normal unless that's som
40 SSTsomeday : I hate to be cynical, but I can't imagine the financial situation of North American airlines not having ANY impact on maintenance. There must be a co
41 Cactus739 : You mean a few days ago as in March 22nd?
42 JettaKnight : I agree with both of you that it will never be economically feasible to engineer and maintain an aircraft so that something like this 'never' occurs,
43 DaCubbyBearBar : The plane is still in LAS as of 0030 on 5-16-08. It appears that the dented piece of the tail has been replaced, but now there is an approximately 3 f
44 HAWK21M : Were the Fastners not torqued properly? regds MEL.
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...
Concorde Lands After Losing Part Of Rudder posted Thu Feb 27 2003 17:17:38 by Jaspike
News: USAir 757 Loses Part Of Wing In Flight posted Sun Mar 23 2008 17:47:19 by Crewchief
Losing A Part Of The Wing posted Thu Nov 6 2003 09:17:50 by Thaigold
When Will The Wingletted NW 757 Return To IAD/DCA? posted Mon Oct 2 2006 19:40:04 by D L X
NW 230 Diverts To IAD Re Turbulence posted Thu Mar 16 2006 01:17:23 by Dtwclipper
NW 757-300 To Go Transatlantic? posted Thu Jan 26 2006 02:10:15 by AirRyan
IA To Connect London As Part Of Expansion Plans posted Wed Nov 23 2005 01:43:45 by Aseem
LH Diverts To Budapest After Bomb Scare posted Sun Aug 15 2004 17:13:03 by Andz
NW 757-300 To HNL From SEA posted Thu Feb 12 2004 14:53:10 by COAB767
NW 757-300s To HNL posted Mon Dec 1 2003 13:11:20 by LatinAviation
NW 757-300 To HNL From SEA posted Thu Feb 12 2004 14:53:10 by COAB767