From The Aviation Herald:
“An Envoy Embraer ERJ-175, registration N233NN performing flight MQ-3729/AA-3729 from Charleston,SC to Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA), was enroute at FL360 almost overhead Birmingham,AL (USA) when the aircraft encountered moderate to severe turbulence, the crew subsequently issued a pilot's report and advised ATC they had lost part of a wing. The crew decided to divert to Birmingham for a safe landing on runway 24 about 35 minutes after leaving FL360.”

https://avherald.com/h?article=4f84e603&opt=0

This is certainly an interesting one. Makes me wonder how heavy the turbulence was. I’m sure there will be a lot of investigation in the coming days.

Wow. Never saw an aircraft lose a winglet mid-air before. Will be interesting to see how this goes for Embraer or whoever designed/installed them.

Enviado desde mi SM-G780G mediante Tapatalk

This will make for a fantastic scavenger hunt item.

The extended winglets on the 175s are not small by any means. That's a significant piece of metal falling from the sky. Glad they're all safe.

Does anyone know if this E175 had the larger winglets added aftermarket or straight from factory? It is a relatively young frame.

argentinevol98 wrote:

Does anyone know if this E175 had the larger winglets added aftermarket or straight from factory? It is a relatively young frame.

There are no aftermarket winglets for the 175. All new 175s have the extended winglet straight from Brazil.

KCaviator wrote:

argentinevol98 wrote:

Does anyone know if this E175 had the larger winglets added aftermarket or straight from factory? It is a relatively young frame.

There are no aftermarket winglets for the 175. All new 175s have the extended winglet straight from Brazil.

Thanks for the info. Wasn’t sure myself. Will be interesting to see what the investigation reveals.

kabq737 wrote:

From The Aviation Herald:
“An Envoy Embraer ERJ-175, registration N233NN performing flight MQ-3729/AA-3729 from Charleston,SC to Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA), was enroute at FL360 almost overhead Birmingham,AL (USA) when the aircraft encountered moderate to severe turbulence, the crew subsequently issued a pilot's report and advised ATC they had lost part of a wing. The crew decided to divert to Birmingham for a safe landing on runway 24 about 35 minutes after leaving FL360.”

https://avherald.com/h?article=4f84e603&opt=0

This is certainly an interesting one. Makes me wonder how heavy the turbulence was. I’m sure there will be a lot of investigation in the coming days.

That must have been unsettling to see as a passenger.

Uh, oh. Astro.

Looks like someone with an A&P will be getting some time off to "reflect" why it fell off.

Regardless of whether there was a mtx fault, or if somehow the winglet's ultimate loads were indeed exceeded.... it's worth noticing how cleanly it was designed to sheer off. That's a pretty significant accomplishment, in favor of safety.

I wonder if these winglets have a designed fail point when overstressed. These winglets are most likely CFRP with a metal leading eage.

LAX772LR wrote:

Regardless of whether there was a mtx fault, or if somehow the winglet's ultimate loads were indeed exceeded.... it's worth noticing how cleanly it was designed to sheer off. That's a pretty significant accomplishment, in favor of safety.

It would be interesting to see a straight-up shot; unfortunately, this point of view does not show how cleanly it was sheared off.

JohanTally wrote:

I wonder if these winglets have a designed fail point when overstressed. These winglets are most likely CFRP with a metal leading eage.

It wouldn't be unprecedented. The Grumman F8F Bearcat had wingtips designed to break away at a certain point when the airframe exceeded g limits, and that was in 1945.

KCaviator wrote:

argentinevol98 wrote:

Does anyone know if this E175 had the larger winglets added aftermarket or straight from factory? It is a relatively young frame.

There are no aftermarket winglets for the 175. All new 175s have the extended winglet straight from Brazil.

At least 1xE175 was retrofitted with the larger winglets after delivery (N103SY). None of the American Eagle ones were retrofitted to my knowledge.

Of course the headline makers are really enjoying this one

"Plane loses wing at 36,000 feet!"

I flew into BHM this afternoon and saw it
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipN ... GHh55i6kcm

Web500sjc wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

argentinevol98 wrote:

Does anyone know if this E175 had the larger winglets added aftermarket or straight from factory? It is a relatively young frame.

There are no aftermarket winglets for the 175. All new 175s have the extended winglet straight from Brazil.

At least 1xE175 was retrofitted with the larger winglets after delivery (N103SY). None of the American Eagle ones were retrofitted to my knowledge.

Who retrofitted them though? My point was/is there is no third-party aftermarket winglet available that I'm aware of.

trexel94 wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

From The Aviation Herald:
“An Envoy Embraer ERJ-175, registration N233NN performing flight MQ-3729/AA-3729 from Charleston,SC to Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA), was enroute at FL360 almost overhead Birmingham,AL (USA) when the aircraft encountered moderate to severe turbulence, the crew subsequently issued a pilot's report and advised ATC they had lost part of a wing. The crew decided to divert to Birmingham for a safe landing on runway 24 about 35 minutes after leaving FL360.”

https://avherald.com/h?article=4f84e603&opt=0

This is certainly an interesting one. Makes me wonder how heavy the turbulence was. I’m sure there will be a lot of investigation in the coming days.

That must have been unsettling to see as a passenger.

Not going to lie, I'm a pilot on the 175, and if I was in a window seat and saw that I also would've sh** my pants.

KCaviator wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

From The Aviation Herald:
“An Envoy Embraer ERJ-175, registration N233NN performing flight MQ-3729/AA-3729 from Charleston,SC to Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA), was enroute at FL360 almost overhead Birmingham,AL (USA) when the aircraft encountered moderate to severe turbulence, the crew subsequently issued a pilot's report and advised ATC they had lost part of a wing. The crew decided to divert to Birmingham for a safe landing on runway 24 about 35 minutes after leaving FL360.”

https://avherald.com/h?article=4f84e603&opt=0

This is certainly an interesting one. Makes me wonder how heavy the turbulence was. I’m sure there will be a lot of investigation in the coming days.

That must have been unsettling to see as a passenger.

Not going to lie, I'm a pilot on the 175, and if I was in a window seat and saw that I also would've sh** my pants.

Absolutely. I’ve been in aviation for awhile and flown plenty of times, but if we’re bouncing around and I see parts falling off the wing, I’m going to start soliciting offers from various deities.

KCaviator wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

From The Aviation Herald:
“An Envoy Embraer ERJ-175, registration N233NN performing flight MQ-3729/AA-3729 from Charleston,SC to Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA), was enroute at FL360 almost overhead Birmingham,AL (USA) when the aircraft encountered moderate to severe turbulence, the crew subsequently issued a pilot's report and advised ATC they had lost part of a wing. The crew decided to divert to Birmingham for a safe landing on runway 24 about 35 minutes after leaving FL360.”

https://avherald.com/h?article=4f84e603&opt=0

This is certainly an interesting one. Makes me wonder how heavy the turbulence was. I’m sure there will be a lot of investigation in the coming days.

That must have been unsettling to see as a passenger.

Not going to lie, I'm a pilot on the 175, and if I was in a window seat and saw that I also would've sh** my pants.

Why? It’s just a winglet…not like it keeps the plane in the air. I’d be more concerned about what/who it might have landed on.

JoseSalazar wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

That must have been unsettling to see as a passenger.

Not going to lie, I'm a pilot on the 175, and if I was in a window seat and saw that I also would've sh** my pants.

Why? It’s just a winglet…not like it keeps the plane in the air. I’d be more concerned about what/who it might have landed on.

Ok

KCaviator wrote:

JoseSalazar wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

Not going to lie, I'm a pilot on the 175, and if I was in a window seat and saw that I also would've sh** my pants.

Why? It’s just a winglet…not like it keeps the plane in the air. I’d be more concerned about what/who it might have landed on.

Ok

He’s partially correct.
It is not a control or lift surface area.
I remember correctly, there were many articles talking about this possibility when winglets started to appear, that were dismissed because it is not a lift or control surface. That if one did go on a flight of its own, that it was something easily handled by just a little more rudder.

This could be the result of nothing more than an old, undetected (or improperly inspected) bird strike.

spottingBOG wrote:

Wow. Never saw an aircraft lose a winglet mid-air before. Will be interesting to see how this goes for Embraer or whoever designed/installed them.

Enviado desde mi SM-G780G mediante Tapatalk

The China Southern 738 crash had its winglet depart the aircraft as well.

JoseSalazar wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

That must have been unsettling to see as a passenger.

Not going to lie, I'm a pilot on the 175, and if I was in a window seat and saw that I also would've sh** my pants.

Why? It’s just a winglet…not like it keeps the plane in the air. I’d be more concerned about what/who it might have landed on.

In all fairness, it's one thing to see it occur out the window at FL360 in turbulence and another to discuss it after the fact when the aircraft is safely on the ground.

FlyingElvii wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

JoseSalazar wrote:

Why? It’s just a winglet…not like it keeps the plane in the air. I’d be more concerned about what/who it might have landed on.

Ok

He’s partially correct.
It is not a control or lift surface area.
I remember correctly, there were many articles talking about this possibility when winglets started to appear, that were dismissed because it is not a lift or control surface. That if one did go on a flight of its own, that it was something easily handled by just a little more rudder.

This could be the result of nothing more than an old, undetected (or improperly inspected) bird strike.

But Joe and Jane Normal in 15D don’t know that.

The pilots were sufficiently concerned to get the aircraft down at the closest available. Was that an overreaction? Possibly, but anyone can play quarterback on Monday morning.

Cayden wrote:

I flew into BHM this afternoon and saw it
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipN ... GHh55i6kcm

The link for the picture isn't working, but is it still parked at gate B5?

KCaviator wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

From The Aviation Herald:
“An Envoy Embraer ERJ-175, registration N233NN performing flight MQ-3729/AA-3729 from Charleston,SC to Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA), was enroute at FL360 almost overhead Birmingham,AL (USA) when the aircraft encountered moderate to severe turbulence, the crew subsequently issued a pilot's report and advised ATC they had lost part of a wing. The crew decided to divert to Birmingham for a safe landing on runway 24 about 35 minutes after leaving FL360.”

https://avherald.com/h?article=4f84e603&opt=0

This is certainly an interesting one. Makes me wonder how heavy the turbulence was. I’m sure there will be a lot of investigation in the coming days.

That must have been unsettling to see as a passenger.

Not going to lie, I'm a pilot on the 175, and if I was in a window seat and saw that I also would've sh** my pants.

I am pretty sure I too would have needed to change my pants!

I was on a 175 out of RNO about a year ago, and we hit severe turbulence. I wonder how severe it would have to be to shear a winglet like that? Wow! Our 175 handled it like a pro. While the guy sitting behind me yelled out to get the plane back on the ground, I held it together pretty good.

gdavis003 wrote:

Cayden wrote:

I flew into BHM this afternoon and saw it
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipN ... GHh55i6kcm

The link for the picture isn't working, but is it still parked at gate B5?

It is

I don’t envy the Envoy AOG team…even if there is a spare available somewhere - logistics will be an issue but I’m sure they’ll figure it out. All of the Envoy E175’s have the enhanced winglets. (I previously worked for the carrier that was flying the first 20 American Eagle 175s before they went to Envoy.) Anyhow, There are no aftermarket options for the enhanced winglets from what I recall - it was all done at the factory. I do recall there was an instance where an “original” 175 winglet had damage and had to be removed and there were ways to fly the plane with penalties but it was a lot to work through and it ended up being replaced in the city the plane was in.

Cayden wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/52051249366/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/195575321 ... ed-public/

Thanks for linking these photos. That's about as clean a break as possible. Certainly looks like it broke as likely designed to so as not to further damage the wing. I don't know enough about metalurgy or engineering to gather much else or clues to why it broke. Would be interesting if anyone has such insight based on the photos.

zeke wrote:

spottingBOG wrote:

Wow. Never saw an aircraft lose a winglet mid-air before. Will be interesting to see how this goes for Embraer or whoever designed/installed them.

Enviado desde mi SM-G780G mediante Tapatalk

The China Southern 738 crash had its winglet depart the aircraft as well.

The China Southern 738 had both its entire wings depart while in a nose dive!! Not exactly the same

Fixinthe757 wrote:

The China Southern 738 had both its entire wings depart while in a nose dive!! Not exactly the same

That is not true, just a winglet was found 10 km from the crash site.

zeke wrote:

Fixinthe757 wrote:

The China Southern 738 had both its entire wings depart while in a nose dive!! Not exactly the same

That is not true, just a winglet was found 10 km from the crash site.

I thought it was just a metal strip off the winglet, not the whole winglet.

It was China Eastern, not China Southern.

Related topic. Any YX guys here with info? Images of N416YX show original and then enhanced winglets.
I want to use the correct term - retrofit? In-house?

Jfoxwi78 wrote:

I previously worked for the carrier that was flying the first 20 American Eagle 175s before they went to Envoy.

Ayoo CPZ!

The non-EWT (legacy winglets) aircraft did have a CDL for removal of the winglet and its associated penalties, but the Enhanced winglets were significantly more because they had a greater surface area and more of an impact to drag reduction.

As for the Skywest retrofits, their original 175s were delivered with the old winglets. I believe they were retrofitted by Embraer in Nashville at EAMS (Embraer Aircraft Maintenance Services)

argentinevol98 wrote:

Cayden wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/52051249366/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/195575321 ... ed-public/

Thanks for linking these photos. That's about as clean a break as possible. Certainly looks like it broke as likely designed to so as not to further damage the wing. I don't know enough about metalurgy or engineering to gather much else or clues to why it broke. Would be interesting if anyone has such insight based on the photos.

Indeed.
It looks too clean of a break to NOT have been designed this way.

Have they found the winglet?

rexchase12 wrote:

Have they found the winglet?

I hope not.

Those E-Jet extended winglets are in a virtual tie with the 737 MAX "Advanced Technology Winglet" for butt-ugliest wingtip device of all time.

LTEN11 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Fixinthe757 wrote:

The China Southern 738 had both its entire wings depart while in a nose dive!! Not exactly the same

That is not true, just a winglet was found 10 km from the crash site.

I thought it was just a metal strip off the winglet, not the whole winglet.

It was China Eastern, not China Southern.

haha I am searching my brain to figure out when CZ did crash a 738.

Sorry, my mistake. Got confused. Dont live my life on anet...i just work on the jets

This most likely will be attributed to insufficient / improper torque on the mount bolts possibly combined with insufficient run-on torque of the barrel nuts. A structurally sound winglet that is properly installed would not depart the aircraft even in moderate to high turbulence.

Embraer issued a service bulletin about winglet spar fatigue in 2018, it was slowly being complied with and Envoy had roughly 40 airplanes left to modify. These mods are now being sped up after this incident.

The theory is that the turbulence was caused by the winglet failing, not the weather.

Haven't seen it mentioned, but N233NN was ferried to ABI on Friday afternoon for the repairs.

MLIAA wrote:

Embraer issued a service bulletin about winglet spar fatigue in 2018, it was slowly being complied with and Envoy had roughly 40 airplanes left to modify. These mods are now being sped up after this incident.

The theory is that the turbulence was caused by the winglet failing, not the weather.

I'd imagine if the failure was due to fatigue cracking in the winglet spar there will be fleetwide inspections due asap since it was a known issue, or the sb will become an AD.

A missing winglet can be MEL’d, I’ve flown a couple planes configured that way. I’ve seen worse things.

battlegroup62 wrote:

MLIAA wrote:

Embraer issued a service bulletin about winglet spar fatigue in 2018, it was slowly being complied with and Envoy had roughly 40 airplanes left to modify. These mods are now being sped up after this incident.

The theory is that the turbulence was caused by the winglet failing, not the weather.

I'd imagine if the failure was due to fatigue cracking in the winglet spar there will be fleetwide inspections due asap since it was a known issue, or the sb will become an AD.

They are ramping up inspections on these spurs, and replacing the remaining 40. This airplane was one of those.

MLIAA wrote:

They are ramping up inspections on these spurs, and replacing the remaining 40. This airplane was one of those.

Hope the FEDs don't made it a grounded till inspected or repaired deal. With all the supply chain issues I doubt there are a ton of spare spar kits available plus it takes a good week to have 1 shipset off and on.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

A missing winglet can be MEL’d, I’ve flown a couple planes configured that way. I’ve seen worse things.

Sure when they are taken off on the ground by engineers, slightly different story when they come off in flight.