Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ANA's B767-300 Landing With The Body Cracking  
User currently offlinektachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 48905 times:

I am glad that all of the passengers on this flight were safe.

The article states that at 1:20 pm, an ANA flight from Beijing was trying to land at NRT. Upon landing, the pilot held up the nose of the aircraft and the aircraft bounced twice.

According to the ministry of land infrastructure and transportation, the body of the B763 changed shape (looks like a crack to me).

All of the 193 people onboard were safe.

I thought the B763 was popular amongst airlines due to its low maintenance costs, but I guess not for this bird.......

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/videone...s/fnn?a=20120620-00000845-fnn-soci

I hope everyone can view this video...

It seems like the aircraft encountered some type of windsheer before it touched down?


Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
101 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 48952 times:

That was a very odd landing. There must have been an electronics issue or something.

There will be a few people on that plane that won't be flying again I'm sure.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 48736 times:

Quoting ktachiya (Thread starter):

What a landing. Thats a massive crack, even visible from afar in low-res video. If it would be a car I´d say next stop is the scrapheap. As ANA has begun retiring its older 767s (another one a few days ago) I wonder how old this one is. With lots of 787s arriving this plane wont be needed anymore and could be retired in place of another scheduled one.


User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 793 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 48583 times:

It would appear that the winds were quite gusty this day, which never happens in NRT (sarcasm). The reason that I say this is that the airplane is approaching slightly nose low. This only occurs on the 763 if you add speed to the approach speed as you would on a windy day. It would also appear that passing 100' or so agl the winds shifted as the airplane pitches to adjust to the loss of speed. The pilot stays with the approach but ends up touching down in a high sink condition, bounces, and subsequently comes down hard on the nose. The proper move would have been to go around and try it again, preferably on 34L as it doesn't have that giant hole on short final which makes the winds even worse.


727forever



727forever
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 48465 times:

WOW! Hopefully that was an older bird and not one of the brand new ones.

Planted on the mains, bounced, planted on the nose first, bounced, planted on mains again then slammed down the nose... Almost like the real life version of the that airbus video YouTube porpoising down the runway.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1952 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 48518 times:

Damage like this has been repaired before:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerard Isaacson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Pries - ATR Team


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Claudio Sallaberry



[Edited 2012-06-20 06:44:10]


This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 48274 times:

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 5):
Damage like this has been repaired before:

Even worse cracks have been repaired like this maintenance mishap:
http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/photos/01dabyz.jpg

But if this ANA 767 will be repaired will come down to age. If its less than 10 years old it´ll likely fly again. But if its close to 20 years they wont do it as those aging planes are currently being wfu by ANA and hardly worth a penny.


User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 48006 times:

Fore pure dialectic ( I really hope this will never happen again) what would have been the outcome with a CRFP 787?
No damage at all or, if limit passed complete destruction of the cabin?
Does the 787 still have longitudinal beams structure or does it rely only on its super rigid skin?



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlineandrewtang From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 461 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 47847 times:

The aircraft is JA610A.

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 47773 times:

Quoting andrewtang (Reply 8):
The aircraft is JA610A.

Thanks. That one is only 9 years old. I bet ANA wished it was an older one to make decisions easy!


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 47712 times:

This has happened on a number of occasions. 767s really don't like landing hard on the nose gear. Given the age of the aircraft I would expect it will be repaired.

User currently offlineje89_w From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 2361 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 47495 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Wow, those cameras at NRT sure catch a lot of incidents/accidents on that runway! JA610A arrived from PEK at 13:22 local, wonder what the wind conditions were like during that time.

Quoting babybus (Reply 1):
There must have been an electronics issue or something.

Please explain.


User currently offlineDaleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 47284 times:

There was a Skyservice 767 which had a hard landing in PUJ years ago, they fixed it and it's flying daily for TCX now. Think the aircraft may actually have been on lease from TCX at the time...




Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2193 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 47036 times:

Quoting ktachiya (Thread starter):
I thought the B763 was popular amongst airlines due to its low maintenance costs, but I guess not for this bird.......

Please explain this statement - Maintenance costs have nothing to do with a hard landing and the subsequent damage caused by said hard landing.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4990 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 47002 times:

It is pretty difficult to make Boeing's finest hit the ground hard, but the conditions all see to be similar. Gusty/wind-shear, combined with high runway temperatures.

The "Boeing Bubble" wont save you then.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinenighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5157 posts, RR: 33
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 46270 times:

Quoting Daleaholic (Reply 12):
There was a Skyservice 767 which had a hard landing in PUJ years ago, they fixed it and it's flying daily for TCX now. Think the aircraft may actually have been on lease from TCX at the time...

It was indeed on lease from TCX at the time, and made a hard landing, I think it was in the Caribbean. Because it was on lease, they had to fix it, which involved flying a team of Boeing engineers down to the Caribbean, building a hanger around the aircraft, then cutting the fuselage to remove the broken section.

The aircraft is now back in service with TCX, and I flew on the aircraft 3 years ago. I was sat right where the crack used to be.



That'll teach you
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 46225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 7):
...what would have been the outcome with a CRFP 787? No damage at all or, if limit passed complete destruction of the cabin?

There is no way the 787 would have been certified if a landing like that would have sheared the fuselage apart.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 45612 times:

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 7):
Does the 787 still have longitudinal beams structure or does it rely only on its super rigid skin?

The 787 is still a semi-monocoque design, with stringers and frames providing stiffening against body bending inside the skin.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 7):
what would have been the outcome with a CRFP 787? No damage at all or, if limit passed complete destruction of the cabin?

Assuming you could get the 787 to perform the same bounce at landing (the flight controls are augmented to prevent it), the results of destructive static strength testing for body bending indicate the 787 will fair much better than any aluminum aircraft in this same scenario. The static test for body bending of the fuselage forward of the 787 wing was abandoned well past 100% ULF, after the body wouldn't break but the test fixture began to fail. Subsequently, large cuts were put in the skin and some frames were cut as well, in order weaken the structure and the test was resumed. The forward body still would not buckle, as you see in the ANA frame.

As you would expect from a first generation CFRP aircframe, testing has shown the 787 structure is quite conservatively designed.


User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3018 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 45175 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
There is no way the 787 would have been certified if a landing like that would have sheared the fuselage apart

Fair enough statement... But what would have happened if that would have been an MD-11?



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineSiren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 313 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 44513 times:

Quoting 4holer (Reply 18):
But what would have happened if that would have been an MD-11?

Low blow... we already saw that happened to an MD-11 under similar conditions at NRT...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_80


User currently offlineEY460 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 44468 times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS4LGjcYPDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=S7pXjQ16f5c

These are the links of the landing and damages.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12475 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 43364 times:

Wow, that was some touchdown!

The British AAIB recently released a report on an similar incident involving a Thomson 767 at Bristol in 2010, which makes interesting reading; the circumstances and the damage are similar to the ANA aircraft:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/...ay_2012/boeing_767_324__g_oobk.cfm


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 43274 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 1):
That was a very odd landing. There must have been an electronics issue or something.

It would be wind related, not the first, and will not be the last wind related incident.

The low level turbulence is impossible to see, and the reported wind measurements by the tower do not tell you about the column of air above the runway for the last 100 ft.

The only real question is if they exceeded the normal approach attitudes at all, which should have prompted a go-around. This can be very heard to tell in a very dynamic environment in the the flare.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offline747srule From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 43032 times:

Looked like Bouncing Betty to me!!


Jesus is the way,the truth,and the life
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 42977 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I hope everyone is ok (no soft tissue injuries). I hope they'll all also fly again.  
Quoting na (Reply 2):
Thats a massive crack, even visible from afar in low-res video. If it would be a car I´d say next stop is the scrapheap.

It will matter on the internal damage. As others have noted, the exterior damage has had like repaired before. Like with your car, the decision rests with the insurance company.

Quoting Siren (Reply 19):
Quoting 4holer (Reply 18):
But what would have happened if that would have been an MD-11?

Low blow... we already saw that happened to an MD-11 under similar conditions at NRT...

   Yea, that solves the scrap/repair question.

Quoting CM (Reply 17):
Assuming you could get the 787 to perform the same bounce at landing (the flight controls are augmented to prevent it), the results of destructive static strength testing for body bending indicate the 787 will fair much better than any aluminum aircraft in this same scenario.

   I suspect the 787 will eventually have a lower insurance bill. (I suspect today it is higher being a new airframe with unknown (but bracketable) damage costs.)

Quoting CM (Reply 17):
The static test for body bending of the fuselage forward of the 787 wing was abandoned well past 100% ULF, after the body wouldn't break but the test fixture began to fail.

Wimps. Grumman (with the F-14) showed one should continue until the airframe bounces off the ceiling.  
Quoting CM (Reply 17):
As you would expect from a first generation CFRP aircframe, testing has shown the 787 structure is quite conservatively designed.

   Which will help Boeing remove some weight.   


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2561 posts, RR: 53
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 44024 times:

As with the Thompson 767 mentioned a couple of posts ago, this looks very much like damage from too hard a landing on the nose gear. In my 767 sim training they stressed the importance of not slamming the nose gear down (or worse yet, landing nose-gear first), and 'flying' the nose to the ground after touchdown. Because of the weight of the aircraft, high forces on the nose gear can cause this kind of buckling in the fuselage. This is true for all large aircraft.

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 43456 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 22):
It would be wind related, not the first, and will not be the last wind related incident.

Wind (especially gusting) can be devastating to any aircraft and then you have wind-shear...that will ruin your day!

A lot of people old enough remember this: the L1011 that hit windshear in Dallas, it was before the technology was readily available to detect wind-shear and wreaked havoc on so many planes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db7-MvXkbjs

Quoting Siren (Reply 19):
Low blow... we already saw that happened to an MD-11 under similar conditions at NRT...

I really like the MD-11 (and loved the DC-10 family), but after reading up on it...it reminds me of the Ford Explorer...likes to flip over?! Sad that happened to them a few times. (No, I'm not ripping on them, just noticed in my readings).  


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 43978 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 1):
That was a very odd landing. There must have been an electronics issue or something.

767 has conventional (cable+hydraulics) flight controls. Unless the autoland computers all completely and simultaneously lost their mind (in which case they're supposed to disconnect) an electronics issue shouldn't result in that kind of aircraft motion.

Quoting ktachiya (Thread starter):
(looks like a crack to me).

That's a buckle. It's on the compression side of the impact. There may well be cracks on the lower skin to match but they'd be much harder to see.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 7):

Fore pure dialectic ( I really hope this will never happen again) what would have been the outcome with a CRFP 787?
No damage at all or, if limit passed complete destruction of the cabin?

If the cabin was destroyed past limit load the design would be uncertifiable. Since the structure here yielded but did not outright fail, they were somewhere between limit and ultimate load. CFRP has a much higher yield strength, relative to ultimate strength, so the likely outcome on a 787 is no damage (if below the yield point) or delamination of the stringers and possibly skin (if above).

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 7):
Does the 787 still have longitudinal beams structure or does it rely only on its super rigid skin?

Like CM said...conventional structural design. Anyone familiar with aluminum airliners will immediately recognize the structure on a 787; it's was just a material change, not a structural philosophy change.

Tom.


User currently offlinemfullmer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 43194 times:

This aircraft was delivered in April, 2003 so it's too young to be written off.

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12475 posts, RR: 37
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42917 times:

Quoting mfullmer (Reply 28):
This aircraft was delivered in April, 2003 so it's too young to be written off.

I know it's young, but I wouldn't be too quick to make that assumption; the age and value of the aircraft will certainly feature in the assessment of the aircraft and the possibility of repairing it, but the aircraft has been badly damaged.

Just looking at the Youtube video again, it's interesting to watch how the nosegear landings before the right MLG; that gives you some indication of the force that's being put on the nosegear and you can see how the crack in the fuselage exacerbates as the aircraft goes through the various impacts and rolls out. It will be very interesting to see the G-forces experienced during the various impacts.


User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1947 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42711 times:

That's a pretty scary video. Just glad that they landed without a big crash.

User currently offlineKDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 41418 times:

Wow. I can just imagine the thoughts of the pax. I have no doubt several of them now have "a drinking problem" (aka Airplane).

User currently offlineRobertS975 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 41088 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Reminds me of the FEDEX MD11 crash at NRT.

User currently offlineB738FlyUIA From Kazakhstan, joined Dec 2009, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 40582 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 30):
Just glad that they landed without a big crash.

Yes, indeed it could have worse.... Glad that nothing more happened and the airframe was stable enough for that landing.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 29):
Quoting mfullmer (Reply 28):
This aircraft was delivered in April, 2003 so it's too young to be written off.

I know it's young, but I wouldn't be too quick to make that assumption; the age and value of the aircraft will certainly feature in the assessment of the aircraft and the possibility of repairing it, but the aircraft has been badly damaged.

What you think after a examination of the aircraft, it will be able to repair? Have there been other similar landings to some aircraft and what has been decided? Really I do hope they will be able to get it fixed and a 2003 767 has some good long years ahead!!!


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 40344 times:

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 32):
Reminds me of the FEDEX MD11 crash at NRT.

NRT is quite a windy airport. I've flown into it probably two dozen times and have never experienced a smooth landing.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineTradewinds From Japan, joined Jun 2008, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 40286 times:

Quoting Siren (Reply 19):
Low blow... we already saw that happened to an MD-11 under similar conditions at NRT...
Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 32):
Reminds me of the FEDEX MD11 crash at NRT.

First thing I thought of when I saw the video. The bounce is pretty much identical (less violent, of course, thankfully). That could have been much worse than a simple cracked airframe!



Tradewinds
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12475 posts, RR: 37
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 39353 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 34):
NRT is quite a windy airport. I've flown into it probably two dozen times and have never experienced a smooth landing

Indeed; here's a report from another pilot, who landed shortly before the NH flight:

"Landed at NRT around the same time. Probably just before the aircraft concerned.
Winds observed at 1000 ft agl were 240/58-72 kts, dropping down to 230/48 kts steady at 500 ft. And then there was a +/- 15 kts WS reported. On my observation it was more like +/- 20 kts windshear!
And the turbulence was huge. Moderate to moderate/severe turbulence REPORTED by 4 airplane before me from 500 ft to touchdown. I observed Moderate/Severe all the way down from 500 ft to touchdown.
And BTW the winds reported on ground were 220 to 250 at 28 gusting 44 kts".

Interesting experience, no doubt!


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 37654 times:

A few soiled seats I can imagine? That much be awful to experience as a passenger? I once experienced a long drop in a storm cloud going into Cairns, my coffee cup emptied on the ceiling, people were a bit shaken but no one screamed, it was over in a few seconds. It just lost lift and fell..very strange feeling. Lucky to be buckled up in such events.

User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 36740 times:

I don't see any cracks in the videos links posted by EY460 - just wrinkling. Am I missing something?

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25338 posts, RR: 22
Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 36487 times:

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 5):
Damage like this has been repaired before:

Also this Air Algérie 738 damaged in a heavy landing at Sétif, Algeria (QSF) in 2008.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080314-0


http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9251/dsc05614ry5.jpg


User currently onlinequiet1 From Thailand, joined Apr 2010, 355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 35011 times:

I wonder what it sounded like in the cabin near where it buckled.

User currently offlinesoftrally From Canada, joined Mar 2012, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 33355 times:

A similar thing happened to an OZ 767 on landing in CJU in 1992. The aircraft was just over a year old! It was repaired and then returned to service
. http://cfs2.tistory.com/upload_contr...N0b3J5LmNvbTovYXR0YWNoLzAvMTYuanBn
The photo is funky, as OZ painted the aircraft into KE colours. I'm not exactly sure about that; There isn't much information about this incident.
The aircraft (24798/331) later operated for ZG and now is stored.



Flown on: 738, 744, 762/763, 772, 77W, 788, A306, A318/319/320/321, A332/333, E145, E190, CRJ700
User currently offlinegrude1087 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 32884 times:

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 40):

I wonder what it sounded like in the cabin near where it buckled.

I can imagine there might have been quite a bit of screaming during the last 10 seconds of the flight, based on how that thing was rocking around!!


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 32887 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 29):
I know it's young, but I wouldn't be too quick to make that assumption; the age and value of the aircraft will certainly feature in the assessment of the aircraft and the possibility of repairing it, but the aircraft has been badly damaged.

Several 767s have had this happen before. To my knowledge, all of them have been repaired.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 29):
Just looking at the Youtube video again, it's interesting to watch how the nosegear landings before the right MLG;

...and that's exactly what precipitated this sort of damage in previous hard landings with 767s.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 31765 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 38):
I don't see any cracks in the videos links posted by EY460 - just wrinkling. Am I missing something?

The same type damage, "compression fracture", much like a broken collarbone, occurred to CN-RNT, Royal air Maroc. Once the crown buckled then relaxed, the buckled skin pulled and the skin developed voids. The nose gear bay bulkheads were probably torqued out as well and would need structural repairs as the RAM 767 did. Boeing mechanics performed an incredible repair. I still see the aircraft flying into JFK.

If the same damage was inflicted on a 787, it would be carted off to the scrap yard. CFRP's are not indestructible.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 31115 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 44):
If the same damage was inflicted on a 787

You can't inflict the same damage on a CFRP fuselage. The failure mechanism of the material is very different. See Tom's comment...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 27):
CFRP has a much higher yield strength, relative to ultimate strength, so the likely outcome on a 787 is no damage (if below the yield point) or delamination of the stringers and possibly skin (if above).
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 44):
If the same damage was inflicted on a 787 it would be carted off to the scrap yard.

You didn't state why you believe this, but you are mistaken. Major damages (larger than what you are seeing in this ANA 767) have already been deliberately inflicted on the 787 static frame by Boeing (post static ULF test) and the follow-on repair methods have already been developed and demonstrated.


User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1952 posts, RR: 9
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 31084 times:

Quoting softrally (Reply 41):
A similar thing happened to an OZ 767 on landing in CJU in 1992. The aircraft was just over a year old! It was repaired and then returned to service
. http://cfs2.tistory.com/upload_contr...N0b3J5LmNvbTovYXR0YWNoLzAvMTYuanBn
The photo is funky, as OZ painted the aircraft into KE colours. I'm not exactly sure about that; There isn't much information about this incident.

That photo is from an article in Boeings' "Airliner" magazine. I imagine that Boeing conceals the identity of customers of aircraft involved in accidents.



This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineaviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 30691 times:

Looks like one of my landings!


I believe the LAB incident was caused by a malfunction during a practice autoland. Anybody know about this?


PS



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 28635 times:

Quoting ktachiya (Thread starter):
thought the B763 was popular amongst airlines due to its low maintenance costs, but I guess not for this bird.......


I don't think you thought this through, or you are taking a swipe at the 767 for something happening that has nothing to do with its life-cycle costs.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12475 posts, RR: 37
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 28271 times:

Apparently the nosegear was badly twisted (on the ANA 767); the impact was in excess of 5G.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 50, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 28188 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kaitak (Reply 49):
the impact was in excess of 5G.

Good thing there is the 9G design requirement.   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 51, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 27834 times:

http://avherald.com/h?article=45173104&opt=0

There's a video there (the OP's video isn't workIng?)

That looked BRUTAL...how come there are so many brutal landings at NRT? This reminds me of the FX MD11 that crashed a little while ago  



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinektachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 27095 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 48):
I don't think you thought this through, or you are taking a swipe at the 767 for something happening that has nothing to do with its life-cycle costs



Maintenance costs of the B767 is accounted for by JAL. At least they find that the maintenance costs of the B767 are inexpensive compared to the other types. But yes as you say, I should have omitted that phrase.

Sorry for confusion



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlinektachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 27036 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 49):
Apparently the nosegear was badly twisted (on the ANA 767)

Do you know if JA610A taxied to the gate by itself after this happened, or do you think it was towed to its gate?



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19712 posts, RR: 58
Reply 54, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 26871 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 29):
you can see how the crack in the fuselage exacerbates as the aircraft goes through the various impacts and rolls out.

You know, I've been watching it over and over and I'm not so sure. The aircraft has some special insignia painted right where the buckle appears and I think it is the insignia that appears more obvious as the aircraft approaches. You can definitely see a big shock pass through the fuselage, but I don't see a visible, sustained bend appear. The damage is actually not very visually impressive (unless you know about planes), and given the poor resolution of the video, I doubt you can actually see it.

That must have been a back-breaker of a landing.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8153 posts, RR: 26
Reply 55, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24188 times:

It's worth pointing out that a good-sized typhoon passed directly through Honshu overnight Tuesday/Wednesday here, and this would have been around the time the low pressure cyclone was still over northern Honshu. Narita, being located in Chiba, is not terribly far from that area.

Yesterday I had a meeting in Osaka and around 0730 shinkansen service was suspended or delayed in the vicinity of Mt. Fuji due to 50+ knot winds. Even though the typhoon had passed, there was wild weather all day. Looks like NRT was no exception.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 56, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22664 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 55):

Same with TPE yesterday, understand they also had an incident which resulted n one of the runways closing.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 57, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 21017 times:

From Flightglobal:
"It is not yet decided whether we will return the aircraft to service," says the ANA spokeswoman.

Sounds like a truly serious damage. But as I said with many 787s coming in, not all 767s are needed anymore and ANA is accelerating retirements.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 43):
Several 767s have had this happen before. To my knowledge, all of them have been repaired.

I read somewhere 16 767s have had similar mishaps. The 767 seems to very prone for this kind of damage, I have hardly seen it on other planes.


User currently offlineDrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 141 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 20885 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 34):

Very true; I've sat on the terminal roof of Narita more than once and have seen some astonishing landings, statistically much higher than I have seen elsewhere.

In 2001, (a few days after 9/11 as it happens - I saw a F-15J in the distance believe it or not) my wife and I were coming into NRT on a Lufthansa 747-400. This was at the beginning of my return to university for a PhD and before I had any frequent flyer status at all and so we were sitting in the double seats by the toilets at the back, which were smelly, noisy and nasty but also pretty bad when things got choppy.

Coming into land, the plane was pitching up and down an astonishing amount and felt light, fast and unstable. We saw the threshold of the runway and then the nose pitched down at an alarming rate, the front wheel bumped, the plant pitched up, the rears wheels touched down and the entire aircraft thumped down on the runway like a drunk hitting the table in a pub.

There was some localised screaming and I threw myself over my wife. I made eye contact over my shoulder with the steward who had served us during the flight and he smiled, then said, 'Are you a fan of roller coasters? Narita is the best in the world'

Now that put me at ease  


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 59, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 20726 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 50):

Good thing there is the 9G design requirement.

You mean for passenger seats etc ? it is not a civil airframe requirement. if the nose gear saw 5g, it does not translate to mean the passenger seats saw 5g also.

Quoting na (Reply 57):
From Flightglobal:
"It is not yet decided whether we will return the aircraft to service," says the ANA spokeswoman.

Sounds like a truly serious damage

Give them a few weeks, you would have trouble getting an answer from an insurance company on a small dint in a car in less than 24 hrs, this will need some detailed inspection of the airframe and the recorded data.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 20464 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 27):
CFRP has a much higher yield strength, relative to ultimate strength, so the likely outcome on a 787 is no damage (if below the yield point) or delamination of the stringers and possibly skin (if above)..

Thanks Tom, this was what I suspected as well. Failure models of CRFP parts look very different from metal parts, more similar to wood, if I can say that. And I did not know that even stringers can delaminate. Or do you meaant where they are connected to the skin or the structure?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 27):

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 7):
Does the 787 still have longitudinal beams structure or does it rely only on its super rigid skin?

Like CM said...conventional structural design. Anyone familiar with aluminum airliners will immediately recognize the structure on a 787; it's was just a material change, not a structural philosophy change.

Oh , very interesting also. Is the structure (i.e. longitudinal beams, ribs if any) metal or CRFP?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
Wimps. Grumman (with the F-14) showed one should continue until the airframe bounces off the ceiling

Yes, true. When working for an US company I had a fellow engineer coming from the Navy, and he said similar things. In his opinion the TomCat was the last fighter truly designed for operating from a carrier. Things might have changed in the last 15 years, tough.



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 20212 times:

Several have posted similar types of buckling incidents involving the 767-300. Is the 767-300 particularly prone to this type of damage, or has it happened to other aircraft types as well?

User currently offlineFlying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2392 posts, RR: 9
Reply 62, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 19761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That one is even "better", though I have no idea whether its fuselage sustained any damage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfaNapjz8K4



Life is great at 41.000 feet...
User currently offlineB738FlyUIA From Kazakhstan, joined Dec 2009, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 19634 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 57):
Sounds like a truly serious damage. But as I said with many 787s coming in, not all 767s are needed anymore and ANA is accelerating retirements.

If you ask me I think they should have it repaired and even they will phase out some 767's and this one will be one of it then sure they can get some good money for it that also will cover a part of the repairs!!

Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 58):
There was some localised screaming and I threw myself over my wife. I made eye contact over my shoulder with the steward who had served us during the flight and he smiled, then said, 'Are you a fan of roller coasters? Narita is the best in the world'

That must have been a hell of a experience and quite shocking!!! So that is rather dry humor of the steward for sure!!!


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 19398 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 45):
You can't inflict the same damage on a CFRP fuselage. The failure mechanism of the material is very different. See Tom's comment...

Nonsense...Of course you can, The striking forces don't change because the substrate is different, the damage will appear different than metal because of the properties of composites but thats a moot point. Again, if a 787 sustained compression damage on the crown the presssure vesel is a write off. For all that hink Carbon Fibre is some indestructible material, I can assure you its not. I've got pleny of photos to prove it. I have seen failures on Boeing Transport aircraft, sailplanes, boats, racing cars. I'm aware Tom knows his stuff but he didn't write the book. CFRP's like all other materials, can fail when overstressed and when CFRP fails, it is not forgiving. Alloy may be. Even the FAA is concerned and if you want a "source"...I'll find it...it is an article stating such.
I'm not going to get into a pllastics vs metal war on the threads, I've seen it, worked with it. Static testing is different from real time, real environment with loads, temperature influences and rote sloppy flying. According to static tests, A300 v/ fins aren't supposed to come off or A332's aren't supposed to fall from cruise altitude but they have, thats real time, real world.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 65, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18905 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 59):
if the nose gear saw 5g, it does not translate to mean the passenger seats saw 5g also.

The nose gear has no independant accelerometer (at least on a normal 767)...the closest one would be the pilot's seat normal accel. If that saw 5g it's certainly possible that no passenger saw 5g but the premium cabin would have been very close.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 60):
Failure models of CRFP parts look very different from metal parts, more similar to wood, if I can say that.

That's very accurate; wood is also a fiber reinforced composite (cellulose fibers reinforced by lignin, as I recall). The failure modes are very similar. If you count growth rings, wood is even sort of a laminate.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 60):
And I did not know that even stringers can delaminate. Or do you meaant where they are connected to the skin or the structure?

The stringers are laid up, just like the skin, so they can delminate. Only non-laminate CFRP can't delaminate in the traditional sense and that's relatively rare (only used in extrusions and resin-transfer parts, as far as I know).

The stringers can also detatch from the skin but that would normally be considered a disbond, not a delamination. Although the stringers and skin are co-cured so the line between delam and disbond is a bit fuzzy.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 60):
Oh , very interesting also. Is the structure (i.e. longitudinal beams, ribs if any) metal or CRFP?

The vast majority is CFRP. A 787 fuselage is basically is CFRP skin over CFRP stringers with CFRP frames, Ti bulkheads, and Ti splice plates.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 64):
Again, if a 787 sustained compression damage on the crown the presssure vesel is a write off.

Why? It's the same repair in either case...cut out the damaged skin/stringers, splice in new one. Multiple OEM's have proven splice repairs at this scale.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 64):
CFRP's like all other materials, can fail when overstressed and when CFRP fails, it is not forgiving.

True, but neither is alloy. Buckled aluminum alloy in primary structure comes out; it's structural replacement either way.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 64):
According to static tests, A300 v/ fins aren't supposed to come off

Actually, according to the static tests, the A300 fin *was* supposed to come off under that load. That keeps getting missed...that fin was taken way over ultimate load. It would have come off if aluminum, CFRP, or unobtanium.

Tom.


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4009 posts, RR: 33
Reply 66, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17926 times:

Quoting na (Reply 57):
The 767 seems to very prone for this kind of damage, I have hardly seen it on other planes.

Just an idea, but. Aircraft are usually loaded so that the CofG is as far aft as possible. In fact some aircraft like A330 have a fuel system that actively maintains this in flight.
When we fly the B763 out of here, the CofG is reguarly very close to the fwd limit. We can only carry pallets in the fwd hold (because the door is bigger) so the fwd hold is usually full of freight. It is normal for the dispatchers to have problems. They must move pax aft or remove a pallet to keep within the fwd CG limit. The freight dept are also encouraged to use LD3s if possible, so they can be loaded in the rear hold.
Could this be a contributing factor?


User currently offlinemd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 67, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17344 times:

Quoting Siren (Reply 19):
Low blow... we already saw that happened to an MD-11 under similar conditions at NRT...

Put an engine's weight on the tail of the 767 and watch a far worse outcome than what we witnessed on MD-11. The "crack" on this 767 would be a complete shear off on first MLG contact considering the extreme force delivered by an engine mounted 80 feet behind and 30 feet above the main landing gear attachment points.


User currently offlineflyabr From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15504 times:

The 767 was not designed for a tail engine...so I don't understand the point of the above post??? That said, the video of the ANA 767 does give one the same "oh sh_t" feeling you get while watching the video of the FedEx MD-11 skipping down the runway before the MLG/Wingspar breaks!

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 69, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15359 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 66):
When we fly the B763 out of here, the CofG is reguarly very close to the fwd limit...
Could this be a contributing factor?

It shouldn't be. The difference between full fwd and full aft CG, in absolute terms, is on the order of ~10'. The change in actual loading of the gear or aircraft handling is relatively small, especially at low speeds and normal landing weights.

Forward CG also makes the aircraft more longitudinally stable, which tends to help prevent the kinds of rapid pitch oscillation seen in the video.

Tom.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9642 posts, RR: 52
Reply 70, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15246 times:

I personally doubt it would be a write off like some have speculated. It is hard to estimate the cost, but I’ve seen an airplane with skin repair, fuselage cracks, etc damage like that be repaired in 3-4 weeks at a cost under $2 Million. The airplane is worth far more than that.

Serious damage does happen from time to time. Tail strikes, overweight landings, hard landings, thrown tire tread, airplanes colliding while taxing/pushback, etc. They get repaired. It can be weeks out of service, but there are repair procedures for this type of work.

[Edited 2012-06-21 14:36:52]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 71, posted (2 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 15119 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 50):

Good thing there is the 9G design requirement.
Quoting zeke (Reply 59):

You mean for passenger seats etc ? it is not a civil airframe requirement.

Also for clarification, the 9G requirement for forward acceleration(deceleration). Vertical deceleration is different. I can't recall which value but for some reason the number 3 or 6 comes to mind.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 64):
CFRP's like all other materials, can fail when overstressed and when CFRP fails, it is not forgiving.

And that is why they overbuilt the CFRP to cover the shortfall . . .

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (2 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 14641 times:

Can't they just build a new runway going in the direction of the wind?

User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 688 posts, RR: 3
Reply 73, posted (2 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 14580 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 72):

Can't they just build a new runway going in the direction of the wind?

a swivelling runway ?    


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 74, posted (2 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 14444 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 65):
Why? It's the same repair in either case...cut out the damaged skin/stringers, splice in new one. Multiple OEM's have proven splice repairs at this scale.


This is news to me but in time I would gather as with all past technologies...repairs will be identified and satisfied through much trial and error. If I weren't so busy I would pull up some articles that I recently found, one in aviation week, another somewhere else but either way the FAA has concerns of its use on the grand scales that we are now seeing. It would appear that I don't champion Carbon fibre products. This is not really the case...but I do have reservations about some of its applications and performance expectations just through personal experience. And this goes back some 25 years. CFRPs is not new, of course but the current scale of its use is. I think the science of it boarders an art form. But I have seen a 737 400 trim tab CFRP fail under normal operating conditions. It fractured at the torque rod attachment and a 757 aileron split in two under normal moderate turbulant conditions. Excepting overspeed incidents, you really don't see metallic tructural failures on these type surfaces 'cepting corrosion issues possibly.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 65):
True, but neither is alloy. Buckled aluminum alloy in primary structure comes out; it's structural replacement either way.


Tom, I know you know structure and much else and I think you would have to agree that the monocoque alloy construction provides many more load paths and flexibility in extreme high stress situations while its counterpart experiences more of a shock and stress point failures are more acute. In the case of lets say a similar hard landing as demonstrated on the 767 video, I would hazard a guess that the possibility of the 787 (theoretically) pressure vessel might endure such an event with little or no damage however the passengers may be subject to higher impact loads as a result of load path absence. Next question regarding this?....are 787 seats 16G? Lastly...if the pressure vessel holds up, might not wing spar trunnion areas fail?


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2116 posts, RR: 22
Reply 75, posted (2 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 14395 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 72):
Can't they just build a new runway going in the direction of the wind?

You mean vertical - wind shear style?


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 76, posted (2 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 14425 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 72):
Can't they just build a new runway going in the direction of the wind?

I think I see what you're getting at.

The situation in NRT is pretty much absurd. The master plan called for the two parallel runways you see now to be at equal length AND a cross runway (resulting in the choppy looking taxiways we see now), but the protestors prevented this. Now that the protestors are mostly gone and the new runway is getting it's well-deserved expansion, maybe this cross runway should be looking at, especially if another incident like this (OR WORSE: a repeat of the Fed-Ex crash from a few years back) repeats itself.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (2 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 14388 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 71):
And that is why they overbuilt the CFRP to cover the shortfall . .


And in that I agree but then their goes your weight saving issue at tremendous expense. China is manufacturing a new regional jet that will revert back to alloy vs composites as stated, "it is cheaper and quicker to build and the ultimate weight gain in composites was not enough to validate the expense of production". (Aviation International News.)Yesterday I was working by the aft bulkhead of a G-V and noticed the bulkhead cap has been replaced with carbon fibre. The earlier versions were stamped alloy at about.060 gauge. The Carbon fibre was layered 1/4 inch thick. I know which one was heavier just by visual observation. Last month we had to order nomex material in 4x8 sheets. We received fiberglass nomex and carbon fibre nomex. I cut out the fibreglass verison at 1/4" thick, 12"x12" and the same with the carbon fibre sheet. The CF was about 8% heavier. It was no doubt stronger. And that is the point but at how much of an overall weight savings. From what I have seen carbon fibre is notoriously lite weight and strong when observed on non critical products like motorcycles, racing cars, high end competition sailboats however with aircraft as mentioned above, much testing on types to get certification and to meet that certification, the weight gains in the 787 started to dwindle. Having said that would Boeing venture forward with another new airframe whose construction technologies are fashioned after the 787 or would they back up a bit to more conventional like the 747-8?


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 78, posted (2 years 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 14268 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 72):
Can't they just build a new runway going in the direction of the wind?

Crosswinds are a problem, but not *the* problem. This landing mishap was not caused by a crosswind. Neither was the FedEx accident.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 76):
The master plan called for the two parallel runways you see now to be at equal length AND a cross runway (resulting in the choppy looking taxiways we see now), but the protestors prevented this.

*Protesters* didn't prevent it, the *owners of the land* prevented it. And they were there first.

Narita was built using eminent domain. It was occupied land. Some of it still is. The government assumed the landowners would roll over, as the Japanese were prone to do for the government up until that point in their history. But they didn't. Sucks for the airport, but next time, pick a location for an airport that's either already government-owned or where the landowners are cooperative. Narita should never have been built, bottom line. It's a terrible airport in a terrible location where nobody wants it. The government should have found a better location that was actually obtainable, rather than starting construction on an airport before they even had the land for it secured.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 79, posted (2 years 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 14230 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 78):
Narita should never have been built, bottom line. It's a terrible airport in a terrible location where nobody wants it.

I actually don't mind NRT, or its location.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 80, posted (2 years 3 months 17 hours ago) and read 14096 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 79):
I actually don't mind NRT, or its location.

HND was well too overcrowded. NRT needed to be built and it's in a perfect location if the TYO area continues to grow.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 78):
The government should have found a better location that was actually obtainable, rather than starting construction on an airport before they even had the land for it secured.

At the time, nothing was available, unless they wanted to spend a bunch of money they didn't have to build it off shore in a precarious location, or in the Hachioji area where EVEN MORE eminent domain would've been used. Narita was the best possible location.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 81, posted (2 years 3 months 17 hours ago) and read 14076 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 74):
Tom, I know you know structure and much else and I think you would have to agree that the monocoque alloy construction provides many more load paths and flexibility in extreme high stress situations while its counterpart experiences more of a shock and stress point failures are more acute.

I don't really follow you here: the 787 CFRP structure is monocoque construction essentially identical in structure philosophy to aluminum...it has the same load paths and flexibility as aluminum. Going to CFRP on the 787 is basically equivalent to discovering a higher E, higher sigma_y aluminum alloy with nearly infinite fatigue life.

The overall E of CFRP is somewhat higher (depends on the fiber fraction) so I will give you a higher typical shock load but I don't really follow that stress point failures are more accute. The loading hasn't changed, the yield point of CFRP is higher, therefore one would expect less yielding (i.e. less permanent damage) on a CFRP structure subject to the same load as an aluminum structure.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 74):
Next question regarding this?....are 787 seats 16G?

Yes.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 74):
Lastly...if the pressure vessel holds up, might not wing spar trunnion areas fail?

Possible, if they're subject to loads beyond ultimate load. But, if you go beyond ultimate load, an aluminum structure will fail catastrophically too (that's the basic definition of ultimate load).

The differences between CFRP and aluminum are non-existant for static loading below limit load, so there's no reason to do a comparison. Above ultimate load both will fail catastrophically. The differences lie between limit and ultimate load...and here CFRP has the advantage because it's yield strength is higher (relative to ultimate strength) than aluminum alloy.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 82, posted (2 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 13743 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 81):
But, if you go beyond ultimate load, an aluminum structure will fail catastrophically too (that's the basic definition of ultimate load).

That is exactly what has happened on a number of hard landings. From what I recall from reading older 767 hard landings that Boeing were to incorporate a fix to strengthen the crown of the 767 fuselage.

Being a 9.5 year old aircraft, was this crown mod done to this aircraft ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2954 posts, RR: 3
Reply 83, posted (2 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 13585 times:

NRT location in itself is not the problem. The problem is and to a certain degree still existing today, was that there is no dedicated high-speed rail to connect it and central Tokyo. Neither JR nor Skyliner can be considered high-speed in Japanese standards if one is stuck behind one of the local/limited express trains.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 78):
Narita was built using eminent domain.

There is no eminent domain laws in Japan. Hence, the Narita Airport predicament.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (2 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 13386 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 78):

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 72):
Can't they just build a new runway going in the direction of the wind?

Crosswinds are a problem, but not *the* problem. This landing mishap was not caused by a crosswind. Neither was the FedEx accident.

Thank you.


User currently offlineDrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 141 posts, RR: 1
Reply 85, posted (2 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 12891 times:

Despite the rough take off and landings, I quite like Narita and find the airport a very humane and relaxing experience.

Also, I wonder whether the location is that bad relative to Haneda; the JR Narita express takes around 60 minutes and the Keisei Skyliner can get you to Ueno (or a short walk from Ueno JR station, it arrives in a small terminus located under the corner of a park) in around 40 minutes. Moreover, I take the Narita Express on the through services to Shinjuku, no subway, no changes, no hassle.

Haneda is closer to the city (crikey imagine Heathrow dumped on the site of London City and you cannot go far wrong) and in theory it can take a little less than 20 minutes to get to the moderately central Hamamatsucho Station by monorail, but then you have to change. Again. And Again. Indeed, I have got to my destination quicker by Narita Express than I have ever done from Haneda.

The question about Narita is not whether it is well connected with transport links, sure the Shinkansen would help but not than much over a comparatively short distance, but whether it should have been built in the first place. Indeed, I wonder about its fate now that more and more international flights are heading into Haneda; if the authorities open the tap that I believe that Narita might lose a lot of its traffic. A more extreme Montreal Mirabel, perhaps?

Which is a shame, because as a regular user I can wholehearted state that Narita is a wonderful airport to use.


User currently offlinelitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1765 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (2 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 12167 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ktachiya (Reply 53):
Do you know if JA610A taxied to the gate by itself after this happened, or do you think it was towed to its gate?

Can't imagine why it wouldn't have ... unless the airframe was making weird noises while taxiing, alarms were sound, or other items of distraction, how would the crew have known it buckled?

Normal procedure after a hard landing is, after you park it, get out and look at it.

I would not be surprised if they did exactly that ... and then uttered more than a few expletives upon seeing the damage.


User currently offlineflybynight From Norway, joined Jul 2003, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 87, posted (2 years 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 11697 times:

Are all the expenses of repairing this plane placed on the airliner, or would there be insurance involved, similar to a car repair?


Heia Norge!
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9642 posts, RR: 52
Reply 88, posted (2 years 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 11566 times:

Quoting flybynight (Reply 87):
Are all the expenses of repairing this plane placed on the airliner, or would there be insurance involved, similar to a car repair?

This is the type of even that most likely the airline is paying for its own repairs. Repair caused by the operation of the airplane is typically part of the unscheduled maintenance that airlines pay.

However, I would not want to be the pilot flying who landed that airplane. I’m guessing ANA management is going to want to know why that happened!



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 89, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11331 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 88):
However, I would not want to be the pilot flying who landed that airplane. I’m guessing ANA management is going to want to know why that happened!

If there were really strong wings against the plane, i think that all he'd need to do is give that excuse.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently onlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13115 posts, RR: 12
Reply 90, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10987 times:

I would presume there will be a through investigation of this incident by ANA, Japan's air safety ministry and insurance reps to find out what happened to cause this damage and how to reduce such incidents in the future.

This is some serious and expensive damage, even if fixed I presume additional mx checks must be taken in the damaged areas that would add more cost as to keeping it in service. In the end probably a mix of ANA executives, insurers, the market and the accountants will make the decision if this a/c ever flies again. One option with this a/c is to part it out as might be worth more to do so than to fix it and keep it flying.


User currently offlinektachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9878 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 89):
If there were really strong wings against the plane, i think that all he'd need to do is give that excus

My questions were, are pilots not trained to go around in that situation?

If he went around even if the tires hit the ground, then things might have been better.

I wonder if ANA company regulations don't require a go around in that situation.



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 92, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9791 times:

Quoting ktachiya (Reply 91):

My questions were, are pilots not trained to go around in that situation?

If he went around even if the tires hit the ground, then things might have been better.

I wonder if ANA company regulations don't require a go around in that situation

There's a point of no return when the aircraft can't go around, especially when it's that close to the runway.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineDrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 141 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9620 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 92):
There's a point of no return when the aircraft can't go around, especially when it's that close to the runway.

Really?

I thought a certain throttle level had to be maintained on landing as a contingency, isn't that rule designed for a potential go around? I'm interested to know what the procedure is here.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9583 times:

A touch and go? That is done all around, why could this not have been that?

User currently offlinektachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9515 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 94):
A touch and go? That is done all around, why could this not have been that?

Exactly the word I was searching for. Sorry PHX787, go around might have not been appropriate for that. But if it were safer, and the pilot felt the wind going in different directions when approaching the rwy, why couldn't have he been able to go around.

It would have been much better than putting everyone's lives in jeopardy/



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9515 times:

If everyone did a go around or touch and go at Narita when they should, would they build up huge queues of planes waiting to land?

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 97, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9488 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 92):

There's a point of no return when the aircraft can't go around, especially when it's that close to the runway.

A rejected landing can be done at any stage up to the application of reverse thrust. Many situations where the wheels will touch the runway (e.g. bounced landing) or even when a slight de-rotation is needed with the aircraft on runway (like on a Cat 3 landing with no DH).

The rejected landing is a normal procedure on any aircraft from a C150 to and A380, once reverse is selected, a rejected landing is no longer possible.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 96):
If everyone did a go around or touch and go at Narita when they should, would they build up huge queues of planes waiting to land?

No.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9295 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 96):
If everyone did a go around or touch and go at Narita when they should, would they build up huge queues of planes waiting to land?

No.

Thanks. I was just asking because there were were a lot of complaints about Narita being a particularly difficult airport. Would pilots be less inclined to 'play it safe' because it is difficult and hence they are just trying to 'tough it out'? Are there just so many difficult landings there that, given that in any difficult to handle situation, there will be a certain percentage of errors made, that there will inevitably be more problems such as this one occurring at this airport?


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3525 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9287 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A Royal Air Maroc 767 had a similiar nose wheel landing at JFK with similiar damage resulting... It was repaired. Article and before & after pix at this link...

http://www.nycaviation.com/2009/08/f...yal-air-maroc-767-nearly-complete/



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 100, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8973 times:

Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 93):
I thought a certain throttle level had to be maintained on landing as a contingency

That's in the approach. Once you go into the flare the engines come back to flight idle. Flight idle is designed around providing adequate spool up time in the event of a go-around.

Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 93):
isn't that rule designed for a potential go around? I'm interested to know what the procedure is here.

Yes, it is. The aircraft is physically capable of executing a go-around or touch-and-go up until the braking devices come on.

Quoting sweair (Reply 94):
A touch and go? That is done all around, why could this not have been that?

It could have been. But in an airplane that's already touched down and porposing, it may not have been the best choice. Second judging the pilot in a scenario like this is very difficult.

The plane landed with nobody hurt; that's the primary thing we pay pilots for.

Tom.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 101, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8786 times:

Quoting ktachiya (Reply 95):
Quoting sweair (Reply 94):
A touch and go? That is done all around, why could this not have been that?

Exactly the word I was searching for. Sorry PHX787, go around might have not been appropriate for that. But if it were safer, and the pilot felt the wind going in different directions when approaching the rwy, why couldn't have he been able to go around.

Ah totally forgot about that....but could something like that do a touch and go in that situation?



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
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...
Is ANA Happy With The 787 So Far? posted Tue Dec 13 2011 21:50:46 by tonytifao
LOT. Do They Have The B767-300 On Order? posted Thu Nov 3 2005 10:53:06 by Boeing777/747
What Does 'ET' Stand For With The A310-300/ET? posted Tue Jan 4 2005 15:09:40 by Junior1970
Varig With B767-300 To South Africa posted Thu Jun 24 2004 17:23:18 by Argentina
Experiences With The A340-300? posted Wed Mar 24 2004 09:36:29 by Jkw777
Found With Fake Pics With Song On B767-300 posted Mon Jan 19 2004 05:54:15 by ScottysAir
Air Holland And The B767-300? posted Thu Feb 21 2002 09:13:17 by Air Orange
What Was Wrong With The 747-300? posted Sat Feb 16 2002 20:00:15 by Airplanetire
PIA Back In BHX With The 747-300? posted Wed Dec 26 2001 13:37:41 by Airmale
Landing A Job With The Airlines... posted Mon Dec 17 2001 22:23:28 by Jderden777