Mostly asking this because I am curious what happened to the aircraft parts after TWA 800.



Is it currently being stored somewhere, or did it get scrapped?

And in a bad crash with survivors, would they bother recovering luggage (even if it is probably not worth any money due to the damage)?

Many passengers on Cactus 1549 in the Hudson got their soaking wet bags back. Parts are condemned for the most part. The engines on the Fox Harbor Global accident were condemned by an AD note in cooperation with RR.

GF

Did the NTSB compensate TWA? The plane, and presumably, its wreckage belonged to them, or is it a case of salvage rights?

exFWAOONW wrote:

Did the NTSB compensate TWA? The plane, and presumably, its wreckage belonged to them, or is it a case of salvage rights?

AFAIK, many seriously damaged accident aircraft go to the insurer.

exFWAOONW wrote:

Did the NTSB compensate TWA? The plane, and presumably, its wreckage belonged to them, or is it a case of salvage rights?

If they would, the scrap metal rate is the best approximation for those pieces. Less the cost of recovery, of course...

Would the insurer wait for the cause before paying anything?

Parts from EA401 went to other TriStars, and there are multiple cases of people on planes that gots the parts seeing the F/E who was in the avionics bay at the time of the crash.

USAir 1549 is an interesting example ...

The passengers got their belongings back (cleaned/dried, decontaminated, etc)
The airplane became the property of the insurer, which donated it to the museum where it now sits on display

Most of the time, I'd expect the wreckage after the insurer is done with it, anything that isn't required to be kept for legal reasons goes to the salvage yard where the bits and pieces are recycled.

Supposedly there are still pieces of the Lockerbie Pan Am 747 stored in a scrapyard, for legal reasons.

After the Challenger accident, they buried the wreckage in an ICBM silo at Cape Canaveral Air Force station and sealed it.

litz wrote:

Supposedly there are still pieces of the Lockerbie Pan Am 747 stored in a scrapyard, for legal reasons.

Correct, the wreckage of N739PA is still kept at a scrapyard in-case of any further legal cases brought on by the bomibing of flight 103. It has been kept in a separate part of the site and is behind fencing with security however that didn't stop the scrapyard owner's son from selling some wreckage as morbid souvenirs...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/lockerbie-wreckage-sold-as-sick-memorabilia-1660800

This is the pin for the location on Google maps, the wreckage is visible on Satellite view but you can't zoom in close enough to see much.
https://goo.gl/maps/tvPkZSxSQSRjn9gs6

This image shows a better angle closer up.
https://i2-prod.coventrytelegraph.net/incoming/article13414741.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/PM80519.jpg
As you can see all of the big bits were broken down to more manageable sizes for transportation, the infamous front portion of the aircraft with the cockpit is no more. There are a couple of larger pieces visible in the above photo. There is also another site with much better photos however I am on the company PC and it doesn't like certain websites due to adverts overloading it's minimal memory...

Incidentally, just like with the wreckage of TWA Flight 800 which is used as an NTSB investigation training tool the rebuilt portion of the fuselage of N739PA is also used as a training tool for new AAIB investigators (or at least was a few years back).

The remainder of the wreckage from TWA800 I believe has been placed into secure government storage.

Regarding the wreckage from the Challenger Disaster, that was eventually joined with the wreckage from Columbia following the completion of their investigation into that disaster.

In general, the personal items & baggage are returned to their owner or nex of kin while the aircraft one no longer required by the investigating authorities is handed over to the insurance company who generally scap it. The most notable exception being the previously mentioned N106US which is now in a museum.

From what I understand (from a documentary on counterfit aircraft parts several years ago) is that the FAA do not allow parts salvaged from crashed aircraft to be re-used but would allow non-safety critical things like cabin furnishings to be re-used ala Eastern Flight 401 though I'm not sure which airlines would go so far to do that these days...

Of course there are also numberous crash sites where there is still wreckage strewn around as it was either unrecoverable (such as those which crashed into mountainous terain, rainforests etc...) or that the investigators took the large pieces that they needed and left other "non-pertinent" pieces (such as the UTA DC-10 in the Sahara Desert) or that almost everything was taken by the authorities but small bits were left behind (such as the Turkish Airlines DC-10 where small fragments are often found in the woodland).

Phil
FlyingColours

Future technology will allow more information to be extracted from some of those parts. I suspect that critical parts of accidents will be archived.

I'd forgot about this one however the right wing from the DC-9 which was involved in the fire on Air Canada Flight 797 was removed and sold to Ozark Air Lines who used it to replace a DC-9 wing which had been destroyed in a serious collision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozark_Air_Lines_Flight_650

Quite possibly the largest salvaged aircraft part to be re-used?

Phil
FlyingColours

One of the first pieces of documentation I would require when purchasing used hydraulic pumps, RATs, generators, actuators, etc., was a non-incident statement. I wouldn't/couldn't buy it if there was some sort of question as to whether it had ever been on an incident related aircraft.

EasternSon wrote:

One of the first pieces of documentation I would require when purchasing used hydraulic pumps, RATs, generators, actuators, etc., was a non-incident statement. I wouldn't/couldn't buy it if there was some sort of question as to whether it had ever been on an incident related aircraft.

Pretty much a requirement on all rotable parts these days if the part is to be re-sold at least in the 121 world

It was always my understanding that if a part had survived an accident, it would never be used again in service. Could be wrong....

EasternSon wrote:

One of the first pieces of documentation I would require when purchasing used hydraulic pumps, RATs, generators, actuators, etc., was a non-incident statement. I wouldn't/couldn't buy it if there was some sort of question as to whether it had ever been on an incident related aircraft.

Yikes! wrote:

It was always my understanding that if a part had survived an accident, it would never be used again in service. Could be wrong....

Is there a relevant FAR that prohibits the use of such rotables, or your company's policy?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The engines on the Fox Harbor Global accident were condemned by an AD note in cooperation with RR.

...and the cockpit from that wreck is now used as a GLEX sim at CAE DFW.

I'm not well versed enough on the FARs to quote one specifically.

All I know is that any 121 or 135 customer I ever dealt with from the beginning of my career in 2001 requested a non-incident statement with any component that I ever sold them.

It's all I've ever known. I can't speak to practices prior to that.

FlyingColours wrote:

litz wrote:

Supposedly there are still pieces of the Lockerbie Pan Am 747 stored in a scrapyard, for legal reasons.

Correct, the wreckage of N739PA is still kept at a scrapyard in-case of any further legal cases brought on by the bomibing of flight 103. It has been kept in a separate part of the site and is behind fencing with security however that didn't stop the scrapyard owner's son from selling some wreckage as morbid souvenirs...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/lockerbie-wreckage-sold-as-sick-memorabilia-1660800

That's horrible.

As you can see all of the big bits were broken down to more manageable sizes for transportation, the infamous front portion of the aircraft with the cockpit is no more.

Are you sure? I know the nose section had been cut in smaller pieces when it was removed from Tundergarth Hill but it has been said that section is also at Tattershall.
I've never been able to locate it in/around that pile though. (I've never been able to identify anything on that pile anyway)
There's also a photo somewhere on the internets that I've seen that supposedly shows the inside of the cockpit that was supposedly taken there in Tattershall.

If it's not there (anymore) I'm sure it's still stored somewhere else; I highly doubt it's gone completely.

Incidentally, just like with the wreckage of TWA Flight 800 which is used as an NTSB investigation training tool the rebuilt portion of the fuselage of N739PA is also used as a training tool for new AAIB investigators (or at least was a few years back).

Indeed it was stored in this hangar at Farnsborough but in 2013 (probably just before 2013) it was moved to a secure location in Dumfries, Scotland.
(I have no idea exactly where)

Many residents of Lockerbie gathered luggage and other belongings of the victims, cleaned/washed them and send it to the relatives.
It's an amazing thing when you think of it.

The remainder of the wreckage from TWA800 I believe has been placed into secure government storage.

The TWA 800 remains have been collected and build op in 1996/1997 in this hangar.
It has been moved to a different hanger('s?) at that field but has since been moved in 2003 to this hangar at the NTSB Training Center.

I've read somewhere that AS once had a 732 that had parts from the British Airtours 732 that caught fire in Manchester, as well as the 732 that flew Aloha 243.

EasternSon wrote:

I'm not well versed enough on the FARs to quote one specifically.

All I know is that any 121 or 135 customer I ever dealt with from the beginning of my career in 2001 requested a non-incident statement with any component that I ever sold them.

It's all I've ever known. I can't speak to practices prior to that.

Could you be referring to FAA form 8130-3 Airworthiness Approval Tag? Any part used on an aircraft must be determined to be in an airworthy state and FAA form 8130-3 is the FAA form that documents the part as such. From what I know, making an airworthy determination does not require knowledge of a parts history.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... _chg_1.pdf

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I've read somewhere that AS once had a 732 that had parts from the British Airtours 732 that caught fire in Manchester, as well as the 732 that flew Aloha 243.

Given the state G-BGJL was in after the Manchester Air Disaster I seriously doubt there was anything salvageable from the aircraft other than the forward cabin doors, nosegear, a few bits off the left wing and possibly the left engine. Very interesting if true.

Then again I suppose given both of those aircraft while written off they would have had various parts which were still intact and theoretically serviceable unlike something removed from a severe crash with a heavy impact.

Phil
FlyingColours

It would just depend on if the salvaged parts could be overhauled to an airworthy condition. Heat damage would certainly make many parts not repairable (Red Tagged) and scrapped.

stratclub wrote:

It would just depend on if the salvaged parts could be overhauled to an airworthy condition. Heat damage would certainly make many parts not repairable (Red Tagged) and scrapped.

Additional info. In a repair station, prior to being scrapped, Red Tagged parts are segregated in a locked impound area so that there is no chance of them being used again. The FAA regulations are very serious about reuse of parts and fines can be very steep if someone falsely hangs a serviceable tag and accompanying FAA form 8130-3 on a part that has not been verified as airworthy.

stratclub wrote:

EasternSon wrote:

I'm not well versed enough on the FARs to quote one specifically.

All I know is that any 121 or 135 customer I ever dealt with from the beginning of my career in 2001 requested a non-incident statement with any component that I ever sold them.

It's all I've ever known. I can't speak to practices prior to that.

Could you be referring to FAA form 8130-3 Airworthiness Approval Tag? Any part used on an aircraft must be determined to be in an airworthy state and FAA form 8130-3 is the FAA form that documents the part as such. From what I know, making an airworthy determination does not require knowledge of a parts history.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... _chg_1.pdf

No, I'm talking about a separate statement that said that the airframe (citing tail number) from which the component was removed was never involved in an accident or fire, and that the component itself had not been exposed to high heat, submerged in water, or suffered any other undue stress. Something to that effect.

https://www.avitas.com/non-incident-statement/

Referring to FAA Advisory Circular 20-62E cited in the article above, I don't see an explicit prohibition to using incident/accident parts. There's a statement in the AC that says those parts should be identified as such, but that's about it. I didn't follow any of the FAR citations.

EasternSon wrote:

stratclub wrote:

EasternSon wrote:

I'm not well versed enough on the FARs to quote one specifically.

All I know is that any 121 or 135 customer I ever dealt with from the beginning of my career in 2001 requested a non-incident statement with any component that I ever sold them.

It's all I've ever known. I can't speak to practices prior to that.

Could you be referring to FAA form 8130-3 Airworthiness Approval Tag? Any part used on an aircraft must be determined to be in an airworthy state and FAA form 8130-3 is the FAA form that documents the part as such. From what I know, making an airworthy determination does not require knowledge of a parts history.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... _chg_1.pdf

No, I'm talking about a separate statement that said that the airframe (citing tail number) from which the component was removed was never involved in an accident or fire, and that the component itself had not been exposed to high heat, submerged in water, or suffered any other undue stress. Something to that effect.

https://www.avitas.com/non-incident-statement/

I'm certain you are correct on the addition of an NIS with a shipped part has become a standard business practice.
An NIS does seems redundant when any part has to be documented as airworthy with an FAA form 3130-3 attached if that part is installed on an aircraft. An NIS seems to be a part of contractual agreements and not an FAA airworthiness requirement.
From the article you posted.
"The short answer is that it is not a requirement from any aviation authority, but it may be a contractual requirement in the lease. From our perspective, the requirement for the NIS is a business requirement, not an airworthiness requirement".

DFW17L wrote:

After the Challenger accident, they buried the wreckage in an ICBM silo at Cape Canaveral Air Force station and sealed it.

I don't know if it's still there but at least for a while the Colombia wreckage was stored in the vehicle assembly building at KSC.