10 ms·

> Neil Firth, the Airbus local chief wing engineer for A330, added that the affected panel was a secondary structure used to improve the aerodynamics of the pla

> Neil Firth, the Airbus local chief wing engineer for A330, added that the affected panel was a secondary structure used to improve the aerodynamics of the plane. ... Each of these panels has 119 fasteners, so there was no impact to the structural integrity or load capability of the wing, and the aircraft was safe to operate, he said.

pohl 3y ago
[flagged]
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  That's because Boeing doesn't make Airbus planes. :)
  - Zandikar 3y ago
    No but Spirit Aero makes both A330 and 737 parts, including fuselages and wing components among others, so while I know this thread was made in jest, the commonality is still worth acknowledging given the greater context.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      I don't have full history so hard to know which plane it was exactly, but all the planes listed for VS127 at https://planefinder.net/data/flight/VS127 https://planefinder.net/data/flight/VS127 were delivered between 2011 and 2012, seems somewhat unlikely that it'd be an issue from back then even assuming Spirit was involved.
altairprime 3y ago
While it’s comforting to know that the ultimate outcome of this going unnoticed would have been non-fatal, we don’t yet know whether this was: 1) “after a series of maintenance and inspection failures, a passenger noticed something unusual”; or, 2) “the bolts had been inspected on an appropriate schedule and had since gone missing, and a passenger noticed a new defect before the next inspection was scheduled to occur for this non-critical part”. It matters whether it’s 1) or 2), or somewhere in between, and I don’t think we don’t know that yet. Public faith in airlines behaving safely is pretty low, and rightly so. I definitely support “treat as a process failure until determined otherwise” for airlines right now. Looking forward to that determination, regardless.
- chris_va 3y ago
  It's also possible that the A&P looked at it and decided it could wait, but then after the passengers noticed someone higher up decided it was not worth the brand risk. If the fastener is called out in part 21.31, then it would be a required part, but airplanes _never_ fly with 100% of their parts in working order... this one was not required, so under normal circumstances I would assume they'd fly the plane.
  - andix 3y ago
    Yes, this sounds plausible. Maybe the airline did know about the missing bolts and didn't want publicly admit it. If they didn't notice the bolts missing it's a completely different story. If 4 bolts get loose, maybe 50 more go loose soon after. It's not impossible that all of them were not mounted correctly and the first 4 were only the beginning.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > this going unnoticed You don't know it was unnoticed. In my profession, I see plenty of flaws that don't need attention, sometimes not immediately, sometimes not ever.
  - kkielhofner 3y ago
    I’ve been watching a lot of Mentour Pilot on YT lately. I’d never considered it before but he goes into a level of depth in his incident breakdowns to reference the aircraft maintenance log, etc. Perhaps unsurprisingly there’s always something “wrong” or “broken” on a machine as complex as a modern aircraft. He’ll often say “Oh this wasn’t working, this was broken, etc but that’s fine and it had nothing to do with this”. There was a story recently where someone tweeted about a Delta aircraft with chipped paint, expressing alarm. While it’s good to be proactive (especially in light of recent incidents) you’d never hesitate to drive a car with chipped paint…
darkerside 3y ago
Great that the part was nonstructural, but it still seems like our could seems terribly to have a loose piece come off midflight and potentially impact other parts of the plane.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  It seems like anyone who was in the aviation business when the Columbia disintegrated probably would not share the viewpoint that aero fairings’ attachment points aren’t safety critical.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  We have no reason to believe that is a risk, other than our wildest imaginations.
iancmceachern 3y ago
Yeah but that bolt Flys off on the runway and strikes the following small commuter plane in just the wrong place and you have an accident on your hands
- lupire 3y ago
  And a meteor could hit the plane.
  - Treblemaker 3y ago
    I am not aware of any reports of aircraft struck by meteors. However,there are planes which have been damaged or destroyed by debris on the runway [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage#Runway_debris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage#Runway_d...
  - iancmceachern 3y ago
    Plane strikes from FOD on the runway are a thing For some military planes it's such a big deal they have service members walk the runways.
stavros 3y ago
> Each of these panels has 119 fasteners, so there was no impact to the structural integrity This feels a bit off. It's implying that 119 fasteners are more than enough, but, if that's the case, why have more fasteners than necessary? How many are "just enough", and how many are too few?
- lm28469 3y ago
  Planes are possibly the most over engineered thing people use regularly, they rarely deal in term of "just enough"
  - stavros 3y ago
    Everything deals in "just enough", otherwise it wouldn't work. Apparently, 119 is the upper limit of how many bolts are "just enough" to fly.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      Planes work just fine with 50% of their engine offline. Or with a missing exit door, or with 50% of pilots missing. An airbus will fly with 4 of its 5 control computers offline If it was "just enough" to complete the mission anything going wrong would become a major issue
    - Sakos 3y ago
      Sorry, on what basis are you making the claim that 119 is the lowest bound of what they could get away with just so it can fly? I've never seen that be the case in aircraft, where everything is designed to tolerances way beyond what you'd see in normal or even extreme circumstances.
      - stavros 3y ago
        It's the highest bound, not the lowest bound, as that's how many it has.
    - numpad0 3y ago

pohl 3y ago

[flagged]

kayodelycaon 3y ago
That's because Boeing doesn't make Airbus planes. :)
- Zandikar 3y ago
  No but Spirit Aero makes both A330 and 737 parts, including fuselages and wing components among others, so while I know this thread was made in jest, the commonality is still worth acknowledging given the greater context.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    I don't have full history so hard to know which plane it was exactly, but all the planes listed for VS127 at https://planefinder.net/data/flight/VS127 https://planefinder.net/data/flight/VS127 were delivered between 2011 and 2012, seems somewhat unlikely that it'd be an issue from back then even assuming Spirit was involved.

altairprime 3y ago

While it’s comforting to know that the ultimate outcome of this going unnoticed would have been non-fatal, we don’t yet know whether this was: 1) “after a series of maintenance and inspection failures, a passenger noticed something unusual”; or, 2) “the bolts had been inspected on an appropriate schedule and had since gone missing, and a passenger noticed a new defect before the next inspection was scheduled to occur for this non-critical part”. It matters whether it’s 1) or 2), or somewhere in between, and I don’t think we don’t know that yet. Public faith in airlines behaving safely is pretty low, and rightly so. I definitely support “treat as a process failure until determined otherwise” for airlines right now. Looking forward to that determination, regardless.

chris_va 3y ago
It's also possible that the A&P looked at it and decided it could wait, but then after the passengers noticed someone higher up decided it was not worth the brand risk. If the fastener is called out in part 21.31, then it would be a required part, but airplanes _never_ fly with 100% of their parts in working order... this one was not required, so under normal circumstances I would assume they'd fly the plane.
- andix 3y ago
  Yes, this sounds plausible. Maybe the airline did know about the missing bolts and didn't want publicly admit it. If they didn't notice the bolts missing it's a completely different story. If 4 bolts get loose, maybe 50 more go loose soon after. It's not impossible that all of them were not mounted correctly and the first 4 were only the beginning.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wolverine876 3y ago
> this going unnoticed You don't know it was unnoticed. In my profession, I see plenty of flaws that don't need attention, sometimes not immediately, sometimes not ever.
- kkielhofner 3y ago
  I’ve been watching a lot of Mentour Pilot on YT lately. I’d never considered it before but he goes into a level of depth in his incident breakdowns to reference the aircraft maintenance log, etc. Perhaps unsurprisingly there’s always something “wrong” or “broken” on a machine as complex as a modern aircraft. He’ll often say “Oh this wasn’t working, this was broken, etc but that’s fine and it had nothing to do with this”. There was a story recently where someone tweeted about a Delta aircraft with chipped paint, expressing alarm. While it’s good to be proactive (especially in light of recent incidents) you’d never hesitate to drive a car with chipped paint…

darkerside 3y ago

Great that the part was nonstructural, but it still seems like our could seems terribly to have a loose piece come off midflight and potentially impact other parts of the plane.

singleshot_ 3y ago
It seems like anyone who was in the aviation business when the Columbia disintegrated probably would not share the viewpoint that aero fairings’ attachment points aren’t safety critical.
wolverine876 3y ago
We have no reason to believe that is a risk, other than our wildest imaginations.

iancmceachern 3y ago

Yeah but that bolt Flys off on the runway and strikes the following small commuter plane in just the wrong place and you have an accident on your hands

lupire 3y ago
And a meteor could hit the plane.
- Treblemaker 3y ago
  I am not aware of any reports of aircraft struck by meteors. However,there are planes which have been damaged or destroyed by debris on the runway [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage#Runway_debris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage#Runway_d...
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  Plane strikes from FOD on the runway are a thing For some military planes it's such a big deal they have service members walk the runways.

stavros 3y ago

> Each of these panels has 119 fasteners, so there was no impact to the structural integrity This feels a bit off. It's implying that 119 fasteners are more than enough, but, if that's the case, why have more fasteners than necessary? How many are "just enough", and how many are too few?

lm28469 3y ago
Planes are possibly the most over engineered thing people use regularly, they rarely deal in term of "just enough"
- stavros 3y ago
  Everything deals in "just enough", otherwise it wouldn't work. Apparently, 119 is the upper limit of how many bolts are "just enough" to fly.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    Planes work just fine with 50% of their engine offline. Or with a missing exit door, or with 50% of pilots missing. An airbus will fly with 4 of its 5 control computers offline If it was "just enough" to complete the mission anything going wrong would become a major issue
  - Sakos 3y ago
    Sorry, on what basis are you making the claim that 119 is the lowest bound of what they could get away with just so it can fly? I've never seen that be the case in aircraft, where everything is designed to tolerances way beyond what you'd see in normal or even extreme circumstances.
    - stavros 3y ago
      It's the highest bound, not the lowest bound, as that's how many it has.
  - numpad0 3y ago