PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 6897 posts, RR: 53 Reply 1, posted (10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3045 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Look at the front of the SriLankan aircraft's wing - there is a fair amount of damage to both planes... and the media turned it into the UK's worst air disaster ever - as usual
It's the Daily Mail after all, turning a mole him into a mountain and the like, whilst getting facts frequently wrong. An old story dug up again, must be a slow news day!
ADXMatt From United States, joined Jul 2006, 544 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2823 times:
I forgot to add they wat the pictures are in the story it makes you think that it was the BA plane that flew.
I realize if you read the story carefully and look at the name on the plane it doesn't jive. But look at the pic of the badly damaged BA winglet and the circle around the missing piece on the taxiway. They lead you to believe it was the BA plane in this story.
PhilSquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3470 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2822 times:
Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 2): I don't dispatch a B747 but I could not find CDL data for the B757 or B737 with a winglet missing or damamged.
Here is the info out of the CDL:
CDL Number: 57-28-1
Item: Winglets [P]*
Model: All
No. Installed: 2
Requirements:
One may be missing provided the performance limited weights are reduced by the following:
Takeoff Enroute Climb Landing
9435 kg 4536 kg 9435 kg
Apply fuel penalty of 2.5% to the entire mission fuel.
NOTE: If a winglet is removed, the affected winglet fairings except the leading edge wingtip fairing Part Number
118U0010 and the trailing edge wingtip fairing Part Number 118U0030 must be removed. The forward
facing opening in the trailing edge wingtip fairing must be covered (e.g. sped tape).
However, I'm not sure that would apply in this case as an inspection and release from Boeing would have to be obtained. I've ferried several aircraft like that and there were additional restrictions such as 280KIAS/.80MN as the max speed.
RJdxer From United States, joined Nov 2006, 3778 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2733 times:
Even after server migration and several really annoying upgrades to the system, the search function still sucks to high heaven. I searched before starting a new thread and it missed it completely. Oh well. My post was that someone must have gotten the two airlines mixed up. I don't see any damage to the Srilankan A340 at all. At CO the winglets of several aircraft have been knocked off. Usually during pushback in a tight gate. Normally one aircraft comes away almost scott free while the other gets banged up pretty good so it's not unheard of. I wonder which plane was not where they were supposed to be since the taxi and parking lines are supposed to guarantee clearance.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
474218 From United States, joined Oct 2005, 2562 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2716 times:
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5): However, I'm not sure that would apply in this case as an inspection and release from Boeing would have to be obtained.
I think Boeing has already provided their approval, the CDL was written by Boeing. OEM does not have to be consulted everytime the CDL is used. The inspection for any additional (hidden) damage could easily be handled by BA.
PhilSquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3470 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2700 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 8): I think Boeing has already provided their approval, the CDL was written by Boeing. OEM does not have to be consulted everytime the CDL is used. The inspection for any additional (hidden) damage could easily be handled by BA.
The CDL only covers the removal of the winglet, not the removal after a collision. I have flown 4 744s back to their maintenance base to repair damage as the result of a ground incident. In all cases the damage to the wing was minimal, however the aircraft could not be used in revenue service. Now in the case of BA, they were at their maintenance base so it's really academic.
N62NA From United States, joined Aug 2003, 1287 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2643 times:
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 7): My post was that someone must have gotten the two airlines mixed up. I don't see any damage to the Srilankan A340 at all.
My point exactly!
Quoting 474218 (Reply 8): I think Boeing has already provided their approval, the CDL was written by Boeing.
Why is everyone talking about Boeing on here? Wasn't it the SriLanken A340 that the pax "revolted" and didn't want to fly on because of damage to it's winglet?
That's what's so confusing about this whole story. Yeah, the BA 747 has clear and ugly damage to it's winglet, but from reading the story, it was the pax on the SriLanken A340 that were faced with the prospect of riding on the same A340 with the "damaged" winglet the next day. I don't see any damage to the A340 winglet in those photos.
Strudders From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (10 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2617 times:
I think if you look at the second I on the British on the side of the 747, there would appear to be damaged on the A340.
My view is the leading edge probably chomped though the winglet on the 747 and thus the damage was not to the winglet on the A340 but the leading edge,
Just a thought.
A point though, if this is the case are the A340 winglets easy to remove? was this removed for the flight back?
I am also guessing that not having a winglet would only cause more fuel to be burned as it is not a flying surface, does anybody else know of any times when a A340 has been flown with out one?
Tristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 2125 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2475 times:
Quoting RJdxer (Reply 7): I wonder which plane was not where they were supposed to be since the taxi and parking lines are supposed to guarantee clearance.
The holding point where this happened has just been repaved religned. There is a note in the airport booklet that says, Wingtip clearance not assured, take care when passing!!!!!
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 9952 posts, RR: 69 Reply 13, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2422 times:
Yep, G-BNLL flew the next day, but don't tell the Daily Mail!
I must caution against using stories from this paranoid rag, for some time now, for whatever reason, they've decided that BA is to join the long list of people/organisations they want their readers to hate.
(Maybe a senior journalist did not get an upgrade or something).
I mean hate too, one ex editor of the Mail admitted that the task was to get the readership to hate someone or something, over their breakfasts.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1067 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2385 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 13): I must caution against using stories from this paranoid rag, for some time now, for whatever reason, they've decided that BA is to join the long list of people/organisations they want their readers to hate.
(Maybe a senior journalist did not get an upgrade or something).
I mean hate too, one ex editor of the Mail admitted that the task was to get the readership to hate someone or something, over their breakfasts.
Where are you coming from on this story ? The article clearly states in its 2nd sentence "The SriLankan Airlines customers had been on the Airbus A340 a day earlier when it sliced through a wing of a stationary British Airways 747 at Heathrow, delaying departure by 24 hours. "
Whilst the pictures primarily show the damage to the BA 747, the article only ever mentions the BA plane in the context of describing the incident;, and the diagram explaining the accident clearly states that the Sri Lankan plane ran into a stationary BA plane
PhilSquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3470 posts, RR: 52 Reply 16, posted (10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 14): There is no logical reason for removal of a wing let other than for damage.
However, this damage was caused by a ground collision. There are instances where the winglet itself is damaged, for example, by a birdstrike, lightening strike and there is no resulting damage to the wing structure. Had this happened at a non-maintenance base, the aircraft would have to be flown back to a maintenance base for inspection via a ferry permit or a team dispatched to the location to accomplish the inspection and removal of the winglet. The real problem with the latter option is if subsequent inspection of the wing area uncovered any damage. Since it happened at LHR it's really meaningless since any inspection/repair was accomplished there
Aftonbladet in Sweden is having fun too: "Pax forced to fly on damaged aircraft". I suggested to them that they could at least have gotten an opinion from SK which flies the same type before just recycling British tabloid copy.
Quoting Strudders (Reply 11): I am also guessing that not having a winglet would only cause more fuel to be burned as it is not a flying surface, does anybody else know of any times when a A340 has been flown with out one?
There must be hundreds of examples. Here are some more sans winglet pics, including a 340.
What's a "mole him" Dan ?. Something you student's do to each other
Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 2): Sri Lanken consulted with Boeing and the winglet manufacturer about this
Sri Lanken would have no reason to consult Boeing as they operate AIRBUS.
Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 3): I forgot to add they wat the pictures are in the story it makes you think that it was the BA plane that flew
The BA plane also flew the next day.
Quoting N62NA (Reply 10): I don't see any damage to the A340 winglet in those photos.
Just because you can't see in the pic doesn't mean it wasn't there. If there had been no damage, the highly trained licensed aircraft engineers would not have wasted valuable tea drinking time to remove it !!.
Quoting GDB (Reply 13): don't tell the Daily Mail!
I must caution against using stories from this paranoid rag,
The chaps over at pprune have the right idea in the Proffesional Pilots Forum. When the Daily Mail write sensationalist stories like this, they take the name of the writer then email them with real facts about what really happens in the various scenarios that they are making out to be major incidents !!.
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Aug 2003, 1287 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 6897 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 654 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3470 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 2125 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 12583 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2001, 3647 posts, 
