Dmanmtl From Canada, joined May 2006, 92 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1221 times:
I have often wondered how much work it takes to take an aircraft out of desert storage. I think AC did this recently with a couple of 762s but I am not sure.
Are they stored in such a manner that they can simply be loaded with fluids and started up or is there a more lenghty process?
Pygmalion From United States, joined Jun 2006, 820 posts, RR: 32 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1183 times:
it depends.
Yah, I know. but it really does. Some are kept in "active" storage, they keep them in flying condition, ready to take off in hours to a day. Some are inactive, everything taped off and "preserved", might take weeks to a month to bring to flying status. Some are parked like the car in the pasture. Unless someone comes along that wants a "project" for a screamin deal... it will never fly again. Mostly these are parts supplies on wheels (or blocks).
If I rememeber the stats right
10-15% in flying or near flying condition
20-25% are mothballed but could fly with some work...
at least half or 50% will never fly again and eventually become soda cans and engine blocks.
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8371 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1076 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 2): Many stored aircraft are nearing major checks and thus it would probably require them to be done to bring it out of storage.
Not in most cases. Aircraft that are leased are required to have the next curret check done before it comes off lease and placed in storage. This is done so the aircraft can be quickly re-leased...and it is the responsiability of the former airline to pay that bill. The cycle control items are frozen until the aircraft flies again, but the calander items still keep running. For aircraft that are owned that would hold true. It is not in the airlines best intrest to perform the check if it's due to be parked.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
N8076U From United States, joined Jun 2006, 425 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1053 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 3): Aircraft that are leased are required to have the next curret check done before it comes off lease and placed in storage.
True, I remember doing "A" checks on at least a couple leased classic 747s that only flew a few more revenue flights before being returned, rather than being taken out of service before the check was due for this reason. There are other stipulations that may be a part of the lease as well, like the original engines the aircraft was leased with being returned, and in their original positions.
One particular case that sticks in my mind was a freshly retired UA DC-10 that was parked at the SFO maintenance base for weeks, without any #1 engine. It was a lease-return and had two of the three original engines already installed. It turns out that the "missing" original #1 engine was on the UA DC-10 that crashed at Sioux City. Apparently, UA finally did end up putting some other engine on that airplane that the leasing company was happy with, and it eventually left.
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8371 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1047 times:
N8076U-
Yup... with most cases all the orgional engines and gear must be on the aircraft at the time of return. Also, time controlled items must be less then 'half life'. I've done in-lease and out-lease for around 30 aircraft.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Litz From United States, joined Dec 2003, 1553 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1027 times:
Quoting N8076U (Reply 4): It turns out that the "missing" original #1 engine was on the UA DC-10 that crashed at Sioux City.
Interesting ... was it in the #1 position on UA232? Can you move powerplants around to other positions (ie: could it have been the doomed #2 engine on that flight?) ?
N8076U From United States, joined Jun 2006, 425 posts, RR: 13 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1014 times:
Quoting Litz (Reply 6): Interesting ... was it in the #1 position on UA232? Can you move powerplants around to other positions (ie: could it have been the doomed #2 engine on that flight?) ?
Yes, as long as the basic engine is the same (most are), the engines can be moved from one position to another, sometimes with no extra work (P&Ws on 747-400 for example, all four are identical) or with some added work (727, for instance, mounts, pneumatic ducts, accessories are not the same in all of the three positions).
As for the "missing" engine, I do not know for sure which position it was in, which is why I didn't specify, as the only fact I knew at the time is that it was one of the three. But supposedly, according to one of the supervisors I talked to, it was in the infamous #2 position, so physically, "could" it have been? The answer is yes.
EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 8371 posts, RR: 18 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1008 times:
Quoting N8076U (Reply 7): But supposedly, according to one of the supervisors I talked to, it was in the infamous #2 position, so physically, "could" it have been? The answer is yes.
It really would not matter as it was not the engine that failed, but the fan. That would has been changed out at one time and not the same as delivered new.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 92 posts, 
From United States, joined Jun 2006, 820 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
