JAL tailstrike video

[Tsuru]

You sound like a colleague of mine, always arguing against shit no-one said. Do you read?

[Coligny]

You sound like a colleague of mine, always arguing against shit no-one said. Do you read?

Meanwhile, you read my mind...

Dood... from those linkz... it's not the official repair method that was the problem...

Yes it was. Before, the proper procedure (...)

The subsequent repair of the bulkhead did not conform to Boeing's approved repair methods.

Does your colleague would also favor death penalty for engineers coming up with these kind of design:


And blaming tailstrikes on the operators...

[Tsuru]

Whatever, you're the expert!

[Coligny]

Whatever, you're the expert!

Yeah whatev' too, sorry if I stick with Boeing version over yours...

[Tsuru]

[yt]Vmbm-3dOKlE[/yt]

Are you really this thick or are you just posing? I know full well that they did not follow the correct repair method, but obviously the point I was trying to make (that Boeing also revised their own, approved repair method since JAL123 and CAL611) bounced right off your thick skull.

Stop shitting up other people's threads.

[Coligny]

Sorry, I didn't notice you marked your territory...

[yt]48GiirdveXw[/yt]

[Mock Cockpit]

In a semi-related "crappy national airlines in One World" aside;

A QANTAS jet that suffered a mid-air engine failure in 2010, sparking the grounding of its entire A380 fleet, has finally taken to the skies again.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-a380-returns-to-the-skies-after-engine-explosion/story-e6frfq80-1226327707706#ixzz1sBHLhQhC

[matsuki]

Are you really this thick or are you just posing? I know full well that they did not follow the correct repair method, but obviously the point I was trying to make (that Boeing also revised their own, approved repair method since JAL123 and CAL611) bounced right off your thick skull.

Stop shitting up other people's threads.

Ehhhh Tsuru, English isn't his native tongue and even I had to go back and reread what you wrote to understand your view and that you weren't arguing whether they followed or ignored the Boeing instructions. Can't we all just get along?

[Mock Cockpit]

Yes it was. Before, the proper procedure would be to cut away any damaged material and patch it, typically further obscuring any fatigue cracking that may exist in an area of the aircraft already not seen very often, as it is accessed only by mechanics to work on other stuff, such as the flight controls (as opposed to the aircraft skin, which is seen by everyone all the time by comparison)

There is a Chinese cargo 777 being repaired in Copenhagen at the moment which suffered a tailstrike in much the same fashion as the JAL 777 did, and they took the entire tail off to replace the whole rear pressure bulkhead as a single structure. I remember seeing some pictures posted, but I can't for the life of me remember where. But I'm sure your collective Google-fu will find them.

Boeing seems to be doing rather well with all of those expensive repairs that they need to do at the moment...

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5120854/

Be interested to know whether these newer planes are designed so that replacing the entire tail and/or pressure bulkhead is now the only way to repair a tail-strike.

[Tsuru]

In a semi-related "crappy national airlines in One World" aside]Now this I never expected to happen. I'm waiting with baited breath for the gritty details as to how they were able to pull this repair off without replacing the complete main spar or wing (if that's not what they did). Knowing how delicately these wings are produced (frictionwelded metal, cured in an autoclave) and the extent of the damage, I literally have no idea how it was possible to fix without replacing complete structures, and still guaranteeing a lifetime of safe operation.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5120854/

Be interested to know whether these newer planes are designed so that replacing the entire tail and/or pressure bulkhead is now the only way to repair a tail-strike.

Strictly speaking it's not necessary, but this extensive (and expensive) way is basically to guarantee nobody has a chance to botch it in ays that leaves chances for hidden fatigue cracking to develop in a relatively hidden area of the aircraft. It's not really that complex a procedure to replace a bulkhead, remember that the 777 is fly-by-wire and there are no control cables to re-attach and re-rig (just electrical, bleed air and hydraulic lines), and as such there is no chance of the aicraft handling differently after the repair. (it's just a little heavier and thirstier, and might develop some trim drag)

Ehhhh Tsuru, English isn't his native tongue

Neither is mine, so let's leave it at that

[Mock Cockpit]

[quote="Tsuru"] It's not really that complex a procedure to replace a bulkhead, remember that the 777 is fly-by-wire and there are no control cables to re-attach and re-rig (just electrical, bleed air and hydraulic lines), and as such there is no chance of the aicraft handling differently after the repair. (it's just a little heavier and thirstier, and might develop some trim drag)Neither is mine, so let's leave it at that ]
Makes sense. I notice that in the article I posted above about the Qantas A380 it said the aircraft is now 250 kgs heavier.
By coincidence I was watching the Mayday episode today about Air Canada 797 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 where there's speculation that the fire was related to an earlier incident where the rear bulkhead blew out.

[Coligny]

Makes sense. I notice that in the article I posted above about the Qantas A380 it said the aircraft is now 250 kgs heavier.

Might include the upgrade for the wing cracks problems...
Would feel funny if it's just from this repair... one side 250 kg heavier...

[Mock Cockpit]

Might include the upgrade for the wing cracks problems...
Would feel funny if it's just from this repair... one side 250 kg heavier...

In my experience of Qantas, 240 kgs of that would come from the weight gains of the crew in the 18 months since the incident. Last time I flew Qantas one of them was so fat as he moved the trolley along the aisle he used his guts to push it while pouring drinks. I didn't know whether to be horrified or impressed.

[waruta]

In my experience of Qantas, 240 kgs of that would come from the weight gains of the crew in the 18 months since the incident. Last time I flew Qantas one of them was so fat as he moved the trolley along the aisle he used his guts to push it while pouring drinks. I didn't know whether to be horrified or impressed.

Couldn't have been as bad as my last United flight to France, the female Cabin Attendant had an *ahem* larger-than-normal derriere causing her behind to brush past everyone's forearm on the drinks run.

Switched over to Air France after that, nothing but young Japanese CA and old matriarch-type French headmistress FA....service sucked though, but better than any 'merican airline currently.

[Coligny]

Switched over to Air France after that, nothing but young Japanese CA and old matriarch-type French headmistress FA....service sucked though, but better than any 'merican airline currently.

I think it's called a Madame...

And I'm going to patent the idea of flying brothel immediately...

after the bangbus video series... the bangairbus...

[Kagetsu]

Idea...
Then I remembered this... Terrible smelling stuff, but got to hand it to them.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aVfCrFbkbqE

If it really did exist... I would certainly be a member of the Mile High Club.