Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Anonz263x
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 10:35 am

Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:58 am

As my question goes why wasnt N106US repaired instead of being put as a display, as I did read into another flight that ditched although by mistake, Japan Airlines flight 2, which the dc-8 was repaired afterwards, or is it that the a320 had more that makes it unfeasible compared to say had it been a 737 instead?
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6068
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:16 am

AFAIK a damaged aircraft (temporarily) belongs to the insurance. Then the insurance decides whether it's worth to repair the aircraft, or not.
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
unimproved
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:52 am

Engines were a write off, electronics drowned, and lots of structual issues. At that point it's cheaper to start looking at the second hand market.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20602
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:33 am

Japan Airlines 2 was a very gentle impact. N106US was very much not.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:29 pm

Check out the state of the aircraft and how much further damage was done when it was lifted. No was was this ever going to be an 'economic repair'.

https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-airbus-a320-new-york
 
Crackshot
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:57 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:49 pm

JAL2 is a great story. First you have a pilot unintentionally making a perfect water landing, and then when questioned about the incident comments "as you Americans say, I f**ked up!"
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3081
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:57 pm

I don't think JAL 2 ever ended up being basically fully submerged in water like N106US did.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:14 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
I don't think JAL 2 ever ended up being basically fully submerged in water like N106US did.


JAL 2 was in less than 10 feet of water...at high tide. I believe the nose barely even touched the water, saving the cockpit. Not too bad.

US1549 was towed a few miles, lost an engine on the way, then mostly sunk and stayed that way for a few days before being craned onto a barge. Overall a much more “traumatic" event
 
Lpbri
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:18 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:42 pm

Saltwater immersion.
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:50 pm

A DC8 is going to have less complex systems to repair compared to an A320.
The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26655
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:03 am

The rest of the aircraft hit exceptionally hard, causing the pressure vessel to be breached. That airplane was way too expensive to fix.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
flymad
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:00 am

Interesting pictures. What was the cause of the starboard forward door being damaged?
 
shamrock137
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:23 pm

flymad wrote:
Interesting pictures. What was the cause of the starboard forward door being damaged?


I think it was either one of the ferry boats pushing the fuselage or during the recovery of the aircraft. Videos and the NTSB report show and state the R1 door and slide were successfully used and deployed for the evacuation.

https://youtu.be/fwIe-e7Apkc?t=151
Time to spare? Go by air!
 
Wacker1000
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:36 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:10 pm

A day or two after it happened, the FAA said they'd never let it fly again. No further discussion was necessary.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 7421
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:08 pm

The FAA just has to issue an AD on that serial number. RR did it on the Global damaged at Fox Harbor, NS so the engines and parts couldn’t be put back into service.
 
Charleytuna
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:13 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:35 pm

Would saltwater immersion be a death sentence for most aircraft ? Aluminum, electrical, hydraulics .
 
chimborazo
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:51 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:35 pm

It took a hell of a battering during the impact. I suspect there is much more structural/internal damage than that which is easily seen from external pictures.

That lifting system won't be doing it much good either. It's necessary to allow a crane to lift it from the water of course, but it's likely putting stresses not designed for in a relatively small surface area at those points very close to wing root. Aeroplane wings are immensely strong as we all know, and they have a jacking point in each one, structurally integrated, but those straps won't be doing a great deal of good for the wing structure.

Saltwater and airframe/electronics already mentioned.

Note the lifting strop configuration: of interest there is a double strop on port wing and single on starboard, even though port wing is the one missing the motor (it could be that starboard double strop has slipped in towards fuselage - can't see in the photos).
 
N1120A
Posts: 26655
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:36 am

Charleytuna wrote:
Would saltwater immersion be a death sentence for most aircraft ? Aluminum, electrical, hydraulics .


The Hudson was likely still mostly freshwater at that point during that time of the year.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
trex8
Posts: 5658
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:06 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
AFAIK a damaged aircraft (temporarily) belongs to the insurance. Then the insurance decides whether it's worth to repair the aircraft, or not.

Qantas repaired the 747 which overran BKK at its own expense, insurers wanted to write off, Qantas wanted to preserve its "never had a jet hull loss" record.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20602
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:04 pm

trex8 wrote:
flyingturtle wrote:
AFAIK a damaged aircraft (temporarily) belongs to the insurance. Then the insurance decides whether it's worth to repair the aircraft, or not.

Qantas repaired the 747 which overran BKK at its own expense, insurers wanted to write off, Qantas wanted to preserve its "never had a jet hull loss" record.


Indeed they did. As you say though, it was very much an image-driven repair. It was not a good economic decision.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
N1120A
Posts: 26655
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:35 am

Starlionblue wrote:
trex8 wrote:
flyingturtle wrote:
AFAIK a damaged aircraft (temporarily) belongs to the insurance. Then the insurance decides whether it's worth to repair the aircraft, or not.

Qantas repaired the 747 which overran BKK at its own expense, insurers wanted to write off, Qantas wanted to preserve its "never had a jet hull loss" record.


Indeed they did. As you say though, it was very much an image-driven repair. It was not a good economic decision.


Well, it may have been a good economic decision in other ways.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6494
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:33 am

BlueberryWheats wrote:
A DC8 is going to have less complex systems to repair compared to an A320.


That’s not the reason. As others noted, JAL 2 landed on a sand bar with minimal impact and immersion.

By comparison, a TWA 707 freighter ran off the end of runway 1R and into the bay during an RTO at SFO in 1972. It was damaged beyond repair and not put back in service.

A number of posters have given good accurate answers to the OP’s question. Some posts are just making up something.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20602
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:05 am

N1120A wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Qantas repaired the 747 which overran BKK at its own expense, insurers wanted to write off, Qantas wanted to preserve its "never had a jet hull loss" record.


Indeed they did. As you say though, it was very much an image-driven repair. It was not a good economic decision.


Well, it may have been a good economic decision in other ways.


Image driving economics. Yes, fair point.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
hitower3
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:43 pm

kurtverbose wrote:
Check out the state of the aircraft and how much further damage was done when it was lifted. No was was this ever going to be an 'economic repair'.

https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-airbus-a320-new-york


OK, no further questions - the electronics bay and all other sensitive systems were submerged. The engines ripped off. Exitus.
You most certainly could find desert-stored A320s in OK condition, which could be re-activated at lower total cost (acquisition & necessary maintenance).

Hendric
 
Wacker1000
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:36 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:01 pm

chimborazo wrote:
It took a hell of a battering during the impact. I suspect there is much more structural/internal damage than that which is easily seen from external pictures.


https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=DCA09MA026

Specifically docket items #76 and #79. If it was repaired, it would have been too shady for even the shadiest of third world operators.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26655
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Sat Jan 30, 2021 10:11 pm

Ultimately, a combination of the FAA and insurance is making the decision on this. There was no way the insurance wasn't going to total that airplane.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Philippine747
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:54 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:03 am

trex8 wrote:
flyingturtle wrote:
AFAIK a damaged aircraft (temporarily) belongs to the insurance. Then the insurance decides whether it's worth to repair the aircraft, or not.

Qantas repaired the 747 which overran BKK at its own expense, insurers wanted to write off, Qantas wanted to preserve its "never had a jet hull loss" record.


I'm aware of the reputation issue but I read somewhere it was cheaper to repair that 744 than order a new one at the time?
A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 AT75 AT76 B732 B733 B738 B744 B752(M) B763 B772 B77W DHC7 DH8C DH8D D328 MA60

2P 5J 6K CX DG EK GA KE MI PR VN OS QR A3 OK TG RA U4 JL GK UB K7 WE BR
 
FGITD
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:40 am

Philippine747 wrote:
trex8 wrote:
flyingturtle wrote:
AFAIK a damaged aircraft (temporarily) belongs to the insurance. Then the insurance decides whether it's worth to repair the aircraft, or not.

Qantas repaired the 747 which overran BKK at its own expense, insurers wanted to write off, Qantas wanted to preserve its "never had a jet hull loss" record.


I'm aware of the reputation issue but I read somewhere it was cheaper to repair that 744 than order a new one at the time?


744 has an interesting history of being repaired. AF also fixed the 744 that went for a swim in Tahiti despite fairly extensive damage. The aircraft was well known internally as F-GITANIC
 
trex8
Posts: 5658
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:54 am

Philippine747 wrote:
trex8 wrote:
flyingturtle wrote:
AFAIK a damaged aircraft (temporarily) belongs to the insurance. Then the insurance decides whether it's worth to repair the aircraft, or not.

Qantas repaired the 747 which overran BKK at its own expense, insurers wanted to write off, Qantas wanted to preserve its "never had a jet hull loss" record.


I'm aware of the reputation issue but I read somewhere it was cheaper to repair that 744 than order a new one at the time?

That may well be true but the point is the cost of the repair was higher than the value of a used 9 year old plane
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:59 am

Why would anyone think repairing it would have been a good idea? It wasn't a simple bump on the ramp. It was submerged in water. Most smartphones don't even recover from that. Not to mention that US Air's A320 fleet was much older than their A319 and A321 fleet. And notice it was also a much smaller fleet. There was zero reason to even entertain the idea of repairing it.
 
Philippine747
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:54 am

Re: Why was N106US the a320 involved in the hudson river ditching never repaired?

Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:47 am

FGITD wrote:
Philippine747 wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Qantas repaired the 747 which overran BKK at its own expense, insurers wanted to write off, Qantas wanted to preserve its "never had a jet hull loss" record.


I'm aware of the reputation issue but I read somewhere it was cheaper to repair that 744 than order a new one at the time?


744 has an interesting history of being repaired. AF also fixed the 744 that went for a swim in Tahiti despite fairly extensive damage. The aircraft was well known internally as F-GITANIC


That repair job was quite impressive, especially after being exposed to saltwater...

trex8 wrote:
That may well be true but the point is the cost of the repair was higher than the value of a used 9 year old plane


Fair..
A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 AT75 AT76 B732 B733 B738 B744 B752(M) B763 B772 B77W DHC7 DH8C DH8D D328 MA60

2P 5J 6K CX DG EK GA KE MI PR VN OS QR A3 OK TG RA U4 JL GK UB K7 WE BR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aca763er, Starlionblue and 21 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos