Kip Powick Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Rec'd an email this morning... Individual says a Skyservice 757 had an incident in Punta Cana yesterday. Apparently the pilot landed Ok but let the nose "drop" onto the runway. Fuselage is now wrinkled and Boeing reps are examining the aircraft. This would be one of their new aircraft however my email says that they think part of the problem may be metal fatique. I can not substantiate the email as the fellow who sent it to me is not answering his phone. I have seen nothing on this in any newspapers. No mention of any injuries etc. EDIT : Just noticed that an AC pilot posted basically the same info on the OAC private forum...no real additional info, Re-EDIT ..Posted in error. Evinrude is correct..the email says 767. Eyes not focused this early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evinrude Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I am told it was a 767 and the damages are important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cargodawg Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Any news on this yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickle Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 I just spoke with someone who seems to think they know what is going on. According to them the front gear collapsed on landing. Nothing beyond that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 26, 2005 Author Share Posted May 26, 2005 From another forum......Brackets and underlining mine. QUOTE An unfortunate incident happened last night with Skyservice and there(their) new to them 767 down in Punta Cana. Might be a right (write) off. Luckily no one was hurt. FO greased it on and put the nose down kind of hard. They taxied in and didn't even know something was wrong until the Gnd Crew told them. Boeing sent the reps down today because metal fatique might be a contributing factor. Nosewheel tires and oleo fine on the post walk-around. UNQUOTE This was posted in the morning after the incident. Perhaps JO will be able to enlighten us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaEH Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Had this picture forwarded to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Does Skyservice have two '67s or did they ferry it back to YYZ last night(25th). Saw one on approach past the house early evening landing on the south parallels. Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stones Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 I think that airplane is history. A better question is how did that metal fatigue make it through the last inspection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cargodawg Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Metal fatigue? Wouldnt it have to be pretty uniform fatigue in that area to cause such a bending effect? Ferry back to YYZ? Man, I'd be surprised if Boeing is going to allow that to be ferried back. Edited by self: Didnt mean to submited gear question - had validated prior to submission of post and though I removed the question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Who'd they get the airplane from? If fatigue was a factor(?), .....it's not exactly something that will jump out at you during inspection... You can't always tell by looking that something has been fatigued to the point it will fail soon. If it was easy to detect, you could keep all sorts of things in service until they appeared ready to replace.... but it isn't, so there are time limits and cycle limits on things that have been tested and are known to have had about enough at x amount of cycles or hours. ...just looking at that photo it's certainly impossible to say... But if anything other than a hard smack down contributed to the result, the only thing that comes to my mind that might have pre-existed to contribute, and that they could be expected to have known about, would be perhaps some corrosion? ...or possibly some kind of previous repair... but I can't imagine what. Any time a metal breaks, it could be said that it did so because of "fatigue". The thing is, was it a sudden heavy load that caused a rapid onset of "fatigue", or was it a cumulative thing? I'm wondering what differences there might be in handling during a landing that might result in a former Airbus pilot planting the nose on a '67 too heavily? Is it likely that familiarity with another machine could have led to mishandling this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Cargodawg... Negative... I don't see anything wrong with that gear leg. They're all cocked like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ORK Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Having flown both the 767-300 and 330-300 I can say there are no real handling differences between the two aircraft. The 767 seemed more responsive. During flare, touchdown and rollout both the aircraft types have a "light as a feather" feeling and roll on nicely. Especially when compared to a narrow body such as a 757 or 320. Other than a very small relaxing of the sidestick when the spoilers deploy on the 330 to check a slight nose up tendancy each are similar - but I was told the 330 nose was to be gently flown on during initial training, as I recall. The fulcrum on a derotating 767 is just over 22 meters behind the nosewheel at the mains...food for thought on any landing. Also, food for thought... a YYZ-PUJ flight is a very light flight for a widebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA@AC Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 How old is the aircraft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cargodawg Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Mitch, Damn, I though I deleted that... arrghhh. Pulled some 67 photos to confirm. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 FO greased it on and put the nose down kind of hard. They taxied in and didn't even know something was wrong until the Gnd Crew told them. "According to them the front gear collapsed on landing" The nose gear collapsed and they taxied in normally?? How does that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 "According to them the front gear collapsed on landing" The nose gear collapsed and they taxied in normally?? How does that work? Full power to taxi Seriously though, the damage looks severe. And that is only the damage you can see. Any info from the techs on what kind of typical translation damage occurs during such an event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 This document was posted in the Airliners.net discussion of the incident: FAA Flight Standards Information Bulletin: Derotation Accidents During Landings of B-757/767, DC-10, and MD-11 Aircraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 I've seen a 737-200 get written off for less bending stress than that... that's pretty major stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 So, is the aircraft still parked or was it ferried back to home as has been suggested??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted May 28, 2005 Share Posted May 28, 2005 The aircraft is still parked at the gate. The Boeing Evaluation Team has been on-site. Everyone is afraid to move it, and the airport wants it's gate back. The Air Canada Aircraft Recovery Team (from Maintenance) is being dispatched to try and see if we can get it towed off the gate, and moved to another area of the airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 28, 2005 Author Share Posted May 28, 2005 I've seen a 737-200 get written off for less bending stress than that... that's pretty major stuff! What ??--Who??---Where?? ??? Whomever was flying it should have been grounded for life !! A T-Rex abused like that ??? Good grief show a little respect for a "real" aircraft. Have a nice weekend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAT3DUAL Posted May 28, 2005 Share Posted May 28, 2005 First Air 737-200 cargo, about four years ago. Aircraft was really badly rippled from aft of the nose gear upwards to the forward entry door. Don't know if the aircraft was repaired or not, cargo 737 are hard to come by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatSlave Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Don't know if the aircraft was repaired or not, cargo 737 are hard to come by. Stripped and the hull given to the YZF CFR for exercises. Too bad, she was a good ship. Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 yes, yes she was, luckily i was off that day, and was fishing for trout over on prosperous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Can't speak for the widebody airbuses, but on the A320 I remember "relaxing" pressure on the sidestick after the mains touched down. On the '37 we "fly" the nosewheel on. Could relaxing pressure on the column and letting the nosewheel "fall" contribute to that kind of damage on a '67? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.