Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
767 Wing Skin Cracks  
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3553 posts, RR: 26
Posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 17651 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The attached article talks about "The FAA is proposing heightened scrutiny of the wing skin after cracks as large as a half-inch (1.3 centimeters) were found on either side of a fastener hole on a plane that had 18,900 flight cycles and 89,500 total flight hours. The 767 is a wide-body plane typically used on international flights. "

I question that the cracks are half and inch wide ... but they maybe that long..

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...-expand-jet-checks.html?cmpid=yhoo

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3659 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 17376 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Didn't AA find cracks on the wing skin of some 767s that had winglets installed?

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 16836 times:

Cracks in the wing skin, while not something to be ignored, are not as serious as cracks in the fuselage skin, as the wings are not pressurized. The biggest danger would be if the wing skin cracks were a result of structural cracks in the ribs or spars that are not visible.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5822 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 16451 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 2):
Cracks in the wing skin, while not something to be ignored, are not as serious as cracks in the fuselage skin, as the wings are not pressurized.

Tell that to the passengers who are watching out their window as fuel streams out of the wing and into the stratosphere....


User currently onlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7610 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 16391 times:

Would that happen if just the skin was cracked.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16071 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3):
Tell that to the passengers who are watching out their window as fuel streams out of the wing and into the stratosphere....

Structural cracks are nearly airtight...the amount of fuel going through them would be tiny; probably invisible, certainly not significant enough to freak people out. Besides, if the crack is where people can see it then it's on the top surface and may not have fuel against it at all.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 4):
Would that happen if just the skin was cracked.

With a *really* big crack, yes, but very unlikely for a 1/2" crack at a fastener hole. Depending on which fastener, the crack might be fully behind sealant anyway.

Tom.


User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 15955 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Besides, if the crack is where people can see it then it's on the top surface and may not have fuel against it at all.

Would the pressure differential from the venturi effect of all that air rushing over the wing "suck" fuel out the top?


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 15744 times:

So is 18,900 cycles a large number? What's the maximum cycles recommended for a 767??

The article says that some of AA's planes are in excess of 24 years, wow.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 15654 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 6):
Would the pressure differential from the venturi effect of all that air rushing over the wing "suck" fuel out the top?

Very unlikely for several regions:

o Cracks in structure as thick as wing skins may not extend completely through the material.

o Since the cracks are adjacent to fasteners, the substructure (rib, spar, fitting, etc.) attached to the skin by the fasteners, may (or may not) be cracked.

o Fuel should never reach the upper wing skin. The fasteners through the upper wing skin are not brush coated with sealant, just installed with sealant on the fastener shanks. .

[Edited 2011-10-10 07:43:30]

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 15654 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 7):
So is 18,900 cycles a large number? What's the maximum cycles recommended for a 767??

Cycles are of primary importance for fuselage cracks, as each cycle constitutes a pressurization and depressurization, which are the most significant loads on the fuselage. But it is not the case with wing skins; as the wings are not pressurized. The life of wings is less predictable than pressurized fuselages, as the loads they are subjected to are very much dependent on how the plane is used, and particularly on how much turbulence it has encountered. About 20 years ago a Piper Cherokee had a wing fail and crashed; the postmortem showed fatigue failure of the main spar. An AD was issued to inspect all Cherokees after 5,000 hours (the crashed plane had about 7,000) which was quite expensive as it required the wings to be removed, and severely affected Cherokee values. After several years none turned up with any signs of fatigue, and the AD was rescinded because it was determined that the crashed Cherokee had been used for pipeline inspection for its whole life, and therefore had been continually flown at very low level where turbulence was almost constant. I think the AD still exists for "unusually severe" operations, but it no longer applies across the board to all Cherokees. In the case of the 767, the hours are more significant than the cycles, and 90,000 hours is a significant number. There haven't been all that many aircraft that have flown beyond 100,000 hours, and the ones I have heard of have been either 747's or DC-9's.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 15529 times:

I've seen loads of aircraft with cracks on the wing in my time on the ramp. The answer appears to stick duct tape on it.

However, I would think that although this is merely a wing crack, the trouble is any weakness in the structure will lead to weaknesses somewhere else in the frame.

With wings taking so much bending it might be good to get it sorted out as soon as possible.


User currently offlinedoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3407 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 15334 times:

Quoting Babybus (Reply 10):
I've seen loads of aircraft with cracks on the wing in my time on the ramp. The answer appears to stick duct tape on it.

Cracks in the wing skin or cracks in the fairing?



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2888 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 15320 times:

Quoting Babybus (Reply 10):
The answer appears to stick duct tape on it.

We utilize something called "Speed Tape" which is actually Aluminum Tape that is very strong, not duct tape. The most common one from my inventory is the 425 series which we procure from 3M:

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3...tyTape/ProdInfo/Spec6/AlumFoil425/



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3553 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 15080 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As I recall, the fix is to drill a stop hole at the end of the crack to keep it from continuing and glob some sealant under if necessary. Speed tape, while used frequently can trap corrosives in the crack if it wasn't properly cleaned and Alodined which will lead to more extensive repair later.

User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4329 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14914 times:

Quoting Babybus (Reply 10):
However, I would think that although this is merely a wing crack, the trouble is any weakness in the structure will lead to weaknesses somewhere else in the frame.

Could be wrong, but given that the crack was on either side of a fastener hole, the issue is not so much about the structural integrity of the wing or any part of it (at least at the moment), but rather the manufacturing process that was apparently flawed enough that allowed the crack to appear. This would indicate there are other fastener holes that may have suffered from the same manufacturing flaw, and may also be exhibiting cracks, which taken together could pose a safety issue.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 9):
There haven't been all that many aircraft that have flown beyond 100,000 hours, and the ones I have heard of have been either 747's or DC-9's.

I had the honor of flying on one of NW last DC-10's a few years back. The old gal had somewhere around 118k hours on her. May she rest in peace, wherever fine beer in cans are sold.  



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 14796 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 14):
I had the honor of flying on one of NW last DC-10's a few years back. The old gal had somewhere around 118k hours on her. May she rest in peace, wherever fine beer in cans are sold.

I stand corrected. But I think she is more likely in your car's cylinder head. 



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineSJUSXM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13341 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 7):
The article says that some of AA's planes are in excess of 24 years, wow.

That's the small subfleet of 762's that does the transcons. The 763's are all younger, under 20 at least...



AT7, ER3, ER4, ER5, CR7, E70, E75, F100, M82, M83, 722, 732, 738, 752, 762, 763, AB6, 320, 321, 772, 77W
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12700 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 8):

Hmmm, I wasn't thinking of cracks that didn't go all the way through the surface. That changes things for obvious reasons.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3553 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12388 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting redflyer (Reply 14):
but rather the manufacturing process that was apparently flawed enough that allowed the crack to appear.

I'm not sure how one arrives at that assertion... please elaborate.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4329 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 10608 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
but rather the manufacturing process that was apparently flawed enough that allowed the crack to appear.

I'm not sure how one arrives at that assertion... please elaborate.

Not sure what you're asking me to elaborate on. If the in-service life expectancy of an aircraft is, say, 100k hours or 20k cycles (just random numbers I'm using for demonstrative purposes), then I would venture to guess that fatigue cracks should not appear on major components of the aircraft within those time/cycle parameters. If they do then the reasons have to be understood. Cracks that appear to emanate from a fastener hole would indicate the hole was not properly drilled for a number of reasons. (I suppose the sheet metal may not have been correctly milled either, or that the rivet was not properly riveted/bucked, but I'm assuming those are not the cases here.)

That is exactly what happened on the WN 737 that blew a hole in its fuse a few months back flying over my great state. I seem to recall the rupture emanated from around some improperly drilled fastener holes that lead to fatigue cracks which eventually led to the "zipper" affect in flight.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6385 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 10270 times:

That it has taken this long for this (seemingly minor at this point) problem to crop up certainly makes the old bird look quite sturdy...   No doubt that an AD will be issued requiring inspection and/or repair. Does anyone know if the panel in question is aluminum or composite?


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8627 times:

Quoting Babybus (Reply 10):
I've seen loads of aircraft with cracks on the wing in my time on the ramp. The answer appears to stick duct tape on it.

Which Aircraft type are you rreferring to that had wing cracks stuck with duct tape & considered Airworthy?.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8408 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 19):
If the in-service life expectancy of an aircraft is, say, 100k hours or 20k cycles (just random numbers I'm using for demonstrative purposes), then I would venture to guess that fatigue cracks should not appear on major components of the aircraft within those time/cycle parameters.

The life expectancy is dependent upon regular inspection and repair. Any aircraft that gets that many hours will have had numerous repairs, including cracks, and will likely have had some structural elements and skins replaced at some point. That is what heavy checks are all about.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 19):

That is exactly what happened on the WN 737 that blew a hole in its fuse a few months back flying over my great state. I seem to recall the rupture emanated from around some improperly drilled fastener holes that lead to fatigue cracks which eventually led to the "zipper" affect in flight.

Just because one plane had a skin failure that resulted from a manufacturing defect does not mean that whenever you have a crack it is the result of a manufacturing defect.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4329 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8073 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 22):
The life expectancy is dependent upon regular inspection and repair.

The overall (read final) life expectancy is dependent upon regular inspection and repair, but I thought OEMs establish minimum lifespans for their hardware to ensure they maintain integrity to a certain number of hours/cycles?

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 22):
Just because one plane had a skin failure that resulted from a manufacturing defect does not mean that whenever you have a crack it is the result of a manufacturing defect.

True, but what else would account for cracks developing on either side of a fastener hole? I'm sure if a piece of metal is worked long enough that cracks will develop somewhere eventually, but if they develop around a fastener hole wouldn't that indicate the hole (or fastener) was the weak point on the component when in fact that point should be just as strong, if not stronger, than the surrounding area?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3553 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7782 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One odd part about this conversation is we have no idea where on the wing the crack is located.. It's obviously in an area the authorities consider worth watching. The wing skin panels and stringers are assembled using NC riveters, so most drilling, prepping, and riveting is beyond the human error factor. The skins themselves are not hand profiled, but also NC produced. There is man work required when the upper, lower and inspar ribs are joined. So without knowing where on the wing and in the assembly process this fastener is located, it's hard to assess blame.

25 SEPilot : The life expectancy of any part cannot be precisely predicted; it is only an estimate, as two seemingly identical parts will fail at different points
26 Post contains links redflyer : I agree, and maybe we're talking two sides of the same coin. However, we are not talking here in the case of the 767 wing skin cracks the life expect
27 474218 : Any time you remove material, such a drilling a hole you weaken original part. The fastener does not restore the strength, it attaches another part t
28 tdscanuck : You guess incorrectly. On a modern damage tolerant design, you *expect* cracks to appear before you reach the life expectancy. What you don't expect
29 Post contains images redflyer : Thanks for the clarifications, Tom. I was waiting for an engineering expert like you to jump in and give the definitive answer. A follow-up question:
30 tdscanuck : Failure at fasteners is a tension phenomenon...in compression, the hole "squashes" onto the fastener and you have much better load sharing. You don't
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...
NTSB: Seaplane Wing Had Cracks posted Wed Dec 21 2005 15:44:41 by LUVRSW
767 Wing Started To Crack During Flight.. posted Sat May 25 2002 12:35:04 by Alessandro
Boeing 747/767/777 Could Carry Wing-mount Missiles posted Tue Jun 13 2006 06:27:20 by MD-90
Birds Hit Boeing 767 Jet, Leave Hole In Main Wing posted Tue May 16 2006 20:03:44 by Magic48
Airbus Orders Checks After A340 Wing Cracks posted Wed Jan 12 2005 17:35:52 by CXoneWorld
CI611 Fatigue Cracks Penetrated Skin posted Tue Jun 3 2003 09:53:50 by Singapore_Air
Wing Cracks Caused C-130 Air Tanker Crash posted Fri Sep 27 2002 15:34:49 by Jgore
767-400 Wing Designer To Revolutionize Golf Balls? posted Fri Jun 14 2002 07:12:25 by Clickhappy
767-300 Over Wing Exits posted Mon Mar 4 2002 04:28:58 by Fly_emirates
767-300ER Behind The Wing Exit posted Fri Sep 21 2001 00:29:35 by Fly_emirates
Airbus Orders Checks After A340 Wing Cracks posted Wed Jan 12 2005 17:35:52 by CXoneWorld
CI611 Fatigue Cracks Penetrated Skin posted Tue Jun 3 2003 09:53:50 by Singapore_Air
Wing Cracks Caused C-130 Air Tanker Crash posted Fri Sep 27 2002 15:34:49 by Jgore