ANA Nose dive

[GomiGirl]

[floatr][/floatr]Japan Today: ANA plane makes emergency landing without front gear at Kochi airport
KOCHI ― An All Nippon Airways flight made a nose landing at Kochi airport Tuesday morning after circling above the airport for two hours due to failure to lower the front landing gear. None of the 60 people aboard ― 56 passengers and four crew members ― was injured, the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry said.

The DCH-8 twin-turboprop Bombardier landed around 10:55 a.m., with its nose scraping along the 2,500-meter runway and briefly giving off sparks. Flight 1603, run by Air Central Co, an ANA subsidiary, departed from Osaka International Airport in Itami, northern Osaka Prefecture, around 8:10 a.m.

My secretary tells me that this is the first time that a landing of this type has taken place in Japan but I don't have the link to confirm it.

[Buraku]

good job by the pilot

[Tsuru]

FYI: in these aircraft they circle to burn as much fuel as possible as these small aircraft have no means to "dump" fuel. What the article doesn't mention is that the crew also had to fly low and slow past the control tower a few times so the guys on the ground can get a good look and can tell the crew what was wrong with their landing gear.... after all, all that the crew really knows until the metal meets the concrete is a red light that doesn't turn green.

Good job all round. The plane will probably be back in service in a few months at most.

[Mike Oxlong]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/2007/03/13/k20070313000083.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17586367/

[GomiGirl]

An impressive outcome for a scary situation. Well done by crew and ground staff for sure.

So Tsuru, they will be able to get the plane back up in service again? How much damage would need to be repaired - fusalage etc?

[Tsuru]

You'd be amazed what they can accomplish on bent aircraft in only a few months time. They fly some people in from the manufacturer in Canada, have everything they need flown into Kochi and when they're done the only thing that tells you that this plane had an unfortunate incident is the maintenance log

In all likelyhood it's only a few square feet of aluminium skin that needs to be replaced, if the avionics bay isn't damaged. Most of the time will be used up testing and certifying the repairs when they are done. Although from the pictures it's hard to tell if any repairs will be more economically viable than stripping the plane for parts and leaving the carcass to rot, these planes are pretty new with ANA, so depreciation won't hurt it much.

[FG Lurker]

There are some more details in this Bloomberg.com story:

The plane is a two-year-old propeller-driven DHC8-400 made by Bombardier Inc., All Nippon said. Previously, landing gear on the same type of plane in the airline's fleet failed to work properly nine times, forcing pilots to manually override the automatic system.

[...]

The 36-year-old pilot first approached the ground at 10:25 a.m. to try and jolt the front gear loose using the shock from landing on the rear wheels, according to Takashi Nakamura, a spokesman for All Nippon's Air Central unit that operated the flight.

Sounds like the pilot did a good job... Probably a lot of passengers still shaking though.

[GomiGirl]

Sounds like the pilot did a good job...

This is why they get paid the big bucks and have all the training. I am more than happy that they do get both.

[Charles]

[quote="Tsuru"]You'd be amazed what they can accomplish on bent aircraft in only a few months time. They fly some people in from the manufacturer in Canada, have everything they need flown into Kochi and when they're done the only thing that tells you that this plane had an unfortunate incident is the maintenance log ]
Somehow, this does not inspire confidence in the flightworthiness of airliners.

[Adhesive]

This is why they get paid the big bucks and have all the training. I am more than happy that they do get both.

My father's cousin is a pilot for Southwest, and he always says that commercial pilots are like glorified bus drivers...until things go wrong.

I know in the U.S. a lot of commercial pilots are former military pilots, and I imagine mishaps like these are the only thing that keep it interesting...well, that and the alcohol.

[Tsuru]

Somehow, this does not inspire confidence in the flightworthiness of airliners.

Think about me the next time you check in

[dimwit]

Well it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in Bombardier which has had number of problems with their ANA fleet.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070313/Japan_bombardier_070313/20070313?hub=World

[Tsuru]

Not just their ANA fleet either... all DHC-8-400 operators are reporting shitty dispatch reliability. Not just some, all. The problem is that they (the Canadians) shaved off a little too much weight trying to make this aircraft competitive, and ended up with a plane that keeps breaking down all the time. "Flimsy", if you will.

It's not that the wings will come off, otherwise it would never have been certified to carry passengers. It's just the stuff like the electrics, landing gear, aircon, etc. that's bolted onto the airframe that keeps breaking down all the time. Which is too bad because it is a very very good plane for its passengers and crew... if it works properly.

[Charles]

It's just the stuff like the electrics, landing gear, aircon, etc. that's bolted onto the airframe that keeps breaking down all the time. Which is too bad because it is a very very good plane for its passengers and crew... if it works properly.

That is sort of like saying "the Titanic was a very very good ship for its passengers and crew.. until it sank."

Somehow, this does not inspire confidence in the flightworthiness of the DCH-8.

[Tsuru]

That is sort of like saying "the Titanic was a very very good ship for its passengers and crew.. until it sank."

Somehow, this does not inspire confidence in the flightworthiness of the DCH-8.

I think the word you were looking for Charles, is "airworthiness". The fact the Dash-8 is allowed to carry passengers means that it at least meets all the FAR-/JAR-25 standards by the FAA and EASA. There were no such regulatory bodies in 1912 to approve the Titanic for safe passenger travel, and that is why there was so much wrong with it. The Dash-8 is not a very reliable airplane, sure, but it is no Titanic. Your logic is flawed.

But sure, don't fly on any plane you think is unsafe. Do you want me to to tell you how much goes wrong on a daily basis? How often small systems failures occur that may or may not lead to incidents like this? Hey, maybe you shouldn't fly at all anymore, just to be on the safe side.

Charles, I work in aeronautical engineering, and am involved in training people to fly these aircraft, follow the correct procedures and work as a team up front. The same people that landed this crippled plane and saved the day. What I was trying to say is that there always is a procedure to follow when something breaks down, and if I thought there was something wrong with how all this is organized, I would be the first to scream my head off that I would never fly this airline or that type of airplane again. The fact is, that you are still more likely to be killed by your trousers than by flying on an modern airliner... and that includes the DHC-8.
Yes, things do break down, but every aircraft is designed in such a way that it can at least still be landed safely when something breaks down in the air, or even continue to its destination without you ever knowing that something went wrong. That includes a landing gear that won't come down.

But do as you wish. All the more room for me.

[Mulboyne]

Financial Post: Plane care questions in Japan

An unusual rash of landing-gear malfunctions in Japan on airliners made by Bombardier Inc. -- including an incident yesterday -- could be a result of how the planes are maintained and have nothing to do with how they are built, a leading aircraft safety expert said yesterday.Hans Weber, president of San Diego-based aviation technology consultant Tecop International, said that "with landing-gear problems it's not necessarily the design one should look at, but the maintenance record and history of the landing gear, because it is subject to fairly frequent maintenance interventions. The operator of the aircraft has full responsibility" over that...

...What is unusual is that the persistent problems are unique to Japan, particularly since landing gear problems "are very much out of the ordinary" in the aircraft business, said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation consultant with the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va. Bombardier has delivered 778 Dash planes and, despite some reliability issues when the Q400 entered service, they have had a "superb" safety record, he added. "If there was the slightest, most minute problem with any component or a design flaw, it would be uncovered very quickly."

Mr. Weber said landing-gear components undergo "a rather severe maintenance and repair procedure" since they absorb heavy pressure on takeoffs and landings. As a result, they need to be completely overhauled, reconditioned and rebuilt periodically. Since the Dash planes are used in high frequency on short haul flights, he said the landing gear should probably go for its first full maintenance checkup after 18 to 24 months. "It would be interesting to look at who's done the maintenance, repair and overhaul on the landing gear and see if there's a common denominator," he said.

[Jack]

Financial Post: Plane care questions in Japan

Those are relatively new airplane types but have been flying for ANA for quite some time. I think the issue is with ANA's maintenance procedures. Landing gears must be replaced or reconditioned after certain number of hours or cycles flown regardless of the condition, sooner if broken. I would guess that the landing gears on the ANA planes are not the original equipment that came with the aircraft. Given that this is happening principally with ANA the transport authority in Japan should be looking at ANA's procedures. Don't get me wrong as I don't want to defend the Canadian company but in this case I think ANA may be the problem not Bombardier.

[Tsuru]

Those are relatively new airplane types but have been flying for ANA for quite some time. I think the issue is with ANA's maintenance procedures. Landing gears must be replaced or reconditioned after certain number of hours or cycles flown regardless of the condition (must be fixed earlier if there is a problem of course). I would guess that the landing gears on the ANA planes are not the original equipment that came with the aircraft. Given that this is happening principally with ANA the transport authority in Japan should be looking at ANA's procedures. Don't get me wrong as I don't want to defend the Canadian company but in this case I think ANA may be the problem not Bombardier.

Very few original parts remain on one single aircraft after a few maintenance cycles. It happens with all airlines. Only the airframe is regarded as a single unit, all the bits screwed onto it have individual serial numbers and serviceability status. These particular components (landing gear assy's, brakes and wheels) are part of the "rotables" category, and are usually replaced when the aircraft goes "offline" for maintenance and these particular parts are due to be serviced. The old part is removed and taken to a specialized shop where it will be serviced (usually outsourced, very few airlines are actually licensed to do this kind of specialized maintenance on individual parts), another part of the same specification is bolted back on the aircraft so no time is wasted and the plane can get back into the air. When the original part has finished servicing it will be used to replace another part on the same type of aircraft when it's this plane's turn to come in for a check.

Any part may have a different tag on it, but as long as it is suitable for this aircraft type and the part has the status "SERVICEABLE" it may be used.

Where it usually goes wrong is with the peeps screwing things off and back on, dis- and reconnecting all the hydraulic lines, electrical wiring, etc...

[Charles]

Very few original parts remain on one single aircraft after a few maintenance cycles. It happens with all airlines. Only the airframe is regarded as a single unit...

[Tsuru]

That plane ended up being not unlike your sense of logic.

Something seems to be missing....

[Charles]

Something seems to be missing....

Yes, large pieces of the airframe.

The point being, you can replace everything bolted to the airframe, but things can still go wrong. Usually these are maintenance problems that become obvious only after a catastrophic failure.

[Tsuru]

Usually these are maintenance problems that become obvious only after a catastrophic failure.

"Usually" meaning what? The highest percentage of all hull losses? I wouldn't think so Charles.

[Jack]

If I recall that was the Hawaian Airline that lost its top due to metal fatigue. Airframes are built for 90,000 cycles or so and in Hawaii distances are short so an aircraft can achieve a very high cycle rate in a short period of time. This aircraft being pressurized and de-pressurized several times a day cracked the hull. Yes shit can go wrong but the manufacturer is rarely to blame. Most accidents are due to maintenance and human error. I know Boeing was blamed for a faulty crack repair on that JAL 747 that crashed in the mountain but that was maintenance done by Boeing.

Aircraft are built for a lifespan of 35 years (or 90,000 cycles) but sadly many airlines stretch the usefull lifespan of an aircraft until it crashes.

[Tsuru]

Most accidents are due to maintenance and human error.

This site has recorded 12557 incidents and accidents since 1950 in all transport aircraft in the whole world, and only 65 of which could be attributed to maintenance errors. That's roughly 0.5%.

Pilot error accounts for about 70%.

but sadly many airlines stretch the usefull lifespan of an aircraft until it crashes.

In Africa perhaps. But by the time the aircraft reaches the end of its lifespan and becomes a danger to its occupants and people on the ground it will no longer be allowed to fly into or over countries that have properly organized aviation authorities, even if the plane belongs to Sudan Oilpan Hadjj Airways.

[Charles]

This site has recorded 12557 incidents and accidents since 1950 in all transport aircraft in the whole world, and only 65 of which could be attributed to maintenance errors. That's roughly 0.5%.

Pilot error accounts for about 70%.

That isn't the issue. What percentage of mechanical failures are due to maintenance problems? I suspect it's closer to 100%.

[Tsuru]

That isn't the issue. What percentage of mechanical failures are due to maintenance problems? I suspect it's closer to 100%.

If you had looked you would have found 685 occurrences in the database where something on the aircraft broke that wasn't the fault of maintenance. So that's 1 maintenance error for every 10.5 mechanical failures.

Also note that maintenance errors don't cause mechanical failures exclusively.

[Greji]

If you had looked you would have found 685 occurrences in the database where something on the aircraft broke that wasn't the fault of maintenance. So that's 1 maintenance error for every 10.5 mechanical failures.

Also note that maintenance errors don't cause mechanical failures exclusively.

Tsuru, you might have some insight in to this question. I do know that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries did extensive refurbishing and even preventative maintenance (to a degree) on US fighter aircraft during Vietnam. Also, this led to them getting the license from MD which fathered the J model F-4 and subsequently, the J model F-15. Both of which are still used by JASDF.

Even with all that exposure ot he aircraft and expertise, while I was in the USAF, the Japanese had an extremely bad reputation for aircraft maintenance. They never worked on any birds (flying type, not sea gulls or broads) that I ever had anything to do with, but regardless, I heard the rumors so much and while never witnessing or seeing any of these so-called problems "first hand", I came to believe the rumors. Are there any grounds, or reasons, to hold this opinion?

[Mike Oxlong]

5-6 years ago, a student working in the aerospace biz once said that ANA flew more cycles (daily) before maintenance was done than JAL. He advised me to always fly JAL when possible. Recently however, JAL's safety record has been worse. Does ANA still fly more daily cycles with their planes before inspecting/maintaining?

[Tsuru]

Tsuru, you might have some insight in to this question. I do know that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries did extensive refurbishing and even preventative maintenance (to a degree) on US fighter aircraft during Vietnam. Also, this led to them getting the license from MD which fathered the J model F-4 and subsequently, the J model F-15. Both of which are still used by JASDF.

Even with all that exposure ot he aircraft and expertise, while I was in the USAF, the Japanese had an extremely bad reputation for aircraft maintenance. They never worked on any birds (flying type, not sea gulls or broads) that I ever had anything to do with, but regardless, I heard the rumors so much and while never witnessing or seeing any of these so-called problems "first hand", I came to believe the rumors. Are there any grounds, or reasons, to hold this opinion?

I think you answered your own question. Unlike the US and Europe, there is almost no free market in Japan when it comes to engineering companies which might be capable of handling this kind of maintenance with homegrown J-aeroengineers, and the same names always seem to come back when it comes to aircraft construction and maintenance. Incidentally this is one of the things that for me personally kept me from trying to have a career in Japan and why I chose to stay in Europe.
People might argue that the Japanese aerospace industry was huge and powerful until it was bombed into nothingness by the Allies, but building and maintaining an $100 million+ F-15 is a whole different playing field, league, ballgame, and sport than doing the same for expendable subsonic piston-engined birds. Japan does not have a history of post-WWII supersonic research and development, and was given practically all the data on construction and aerodynamics by the US. The problem with this is, is that while they have the numbers, they don't understand the reasons why the those numbers are the way they are, and how they can solve drag, control or fracture problems when they occur. Even their best homegrown aerospace engineering boffins are monkeys compared to the brainpower of Boeing or EADS, and I would expect the top brass at Mitsubishi Aero has a big red telephone on his desk with a single knob on it that puts him through to someone in the USA. I don't think I need to explain what this does for their maintenance standards. The only thing the Japanese are historically really good at are high-level mathematics and metallurgy. Anything else aerospace related, much like everything worth a damn in Japan, is a direct result of foreign input.

The Koreans now have the same problems with their F-16K and F-15K's.

[Mulboyne]

...Even their best homegrown aerospace engineering boffins are monkeys compared to the brainpower of Boeing or EADS...

Sounds good for this project:

Business Week: Japan Flying Ahead with Mitsubishi Jet

China isn't the only country in Asia with hopes of getting its commercial jet industry off the ground. While Beijing has made headlines this week with plans to build a jet by 2020, Japan's entry into the fray could come far sooner than that. In the coming months, Japan's bureaucrats will decide whether to green-light their own national project for a 72- to 92-seat passenger jet. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' executives say they have been signing preliminary deals with suppliers and showing blueprints of the MJ―]...more...[/URL]