Moon The Loon Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 ...and letting the nosewheel "fall" contribute to that kind of damage on a '67? Yes, quite easily especially if there was a slight out of trim (nose down) during the final approach. One more reason for a fully stabilized approach <500' AGL. Haven't flown too many birds where it is unimportant to continue flying it after the mains touch. Still sad to see of incidents like this. Best wishes to those involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 We heard from a couple of our folks who were heading down to assist in moving the aircraft, a description of the landing that made it sound like the beast had porpoised. Prior to that, a fellow from SSV was telling another of our folks that it had landed nose first... No idea where these folks got their stories? Maybe from someone's imagination, maybe not. Who knows what may have been going on during that landing?.... It could be that result was the best to be salvaged from an ugly situation... It's been said that in some circumstances, any landing you can walk away from is a good one. I do believe they all walked away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amejazz Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 WOW that's nasty, must have freaked out a few passengers on that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictues Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 couldn't it be wieght and balance issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest directlaw Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 We heard from a couple of our folks who were heading down to assist in moving the aircraft, a description of the landing that made it sound like the beast had porpoised. Aircraft de rotated very hard and bounced....probably the reason for the porpoise description. According to maint the FDR shows the nose hitting the ground at 12 G. No idea if that is even possible. Another issue is the extra emergency exit forward of the wing due to Skyservices seating capacity. It may be a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 How old is the aircraft? I'm just wondering if might be in write-off territory. 12 g's yikes!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ...Another issue is the extra emergency exit forward of the wing due to Skyservices seating capacity. It may be a factor. A lot of 763's have 4 doors. Even some of the Air Canada ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 A 12G impact in a local area is certainly possible, given the rotation point and moment arm. I've been involved in a few ADs and SBs where even taxiing over mismatched concrete slabs generated high G's on actuators. We tend to think of G as something the entire aircraft experiences simultaneously, which is reasonable when thinking of gravity or flight loads. In cases like angular forces or impact loads, I tend to think of it as simply a load multiplier on the part - i.e the nose gear took an impact equivalent to 12 times the weight it sustains on the ramp. My opinion, FWIW. Cheers Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yul07 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Anybody know which agency is heading up the investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yul07 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Check out the pix.....scary. http://www.yulaviation.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=8702 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest directlaw Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 A lot of 763's have 4 doors. Even some of the Air Canada ones. Yup, AC has a huge mish mash of 767's. I suspect some of the used ones we acquired were initially designed for high intensity seating. What I was told is that the previous 767's that this has happened to all had the extra door a head of the wing. Anyone know if this is actually true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I suspect some of the used ones we acquired were initially designed for high intensity seating. All aircraft are designed and certified for a maximum number of passengers depending upon the exit type and configuration. Here is the data for the 767: Maximum Passengers 255 (767-200) with 2 pairs of Type A plus 1 pair of Type III exits. 290 (767-300) with 2 pairs of Type A plus 2 pairs of Type III exits. 290 (767-300) with 3 pairs of Type A plus 1 pair of Type III exits. 351 (767-300) with 3 pairs of Type A plus 1 pair of Type I exits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pratt Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 It made it into the news yesterday on Global in YVR they had a story about it. They had a video taken by a pax after getting off the a/c, with all of the other pax standing around looking at the fuselage, a couple of interviews with pax's that had returned to Canada since then talking about the landing. Saying that there were two really hard impacts, stuff flying around in the cabin and out of the overhead bins, the video monitors dropping out of the stowed position etc. Another pax told a story of how as he was walking forward to exit the a/c there was a big dip in the floor at one point around the forward wing portion.................first hand accounts like that, even if only from the pax are hard to ignore, just glad that there were no serious injuries. Pretty surprising that it took 10 days for it to make it into the news back home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictues Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 not too surprising it took this long for pax to come forward as they were on vacation and they wouldn't cancell due to this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazionic Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 So I over heard that Air Canada sent over a few people to check out the damage of the aircraft. Damage is all the way around the fuselage, the left side being the worst part. Ribs and spars bent, floor track bent also. The skin of the aircraft split in parts where it 'crinckled'. There is a boeing team there assessing the damage. Aircraft will be grounded for 1-2 months but they're thinking it might be a little longer. The exact reason why AC sent people im not sure but it had to do with someone at Skyservice knowing someone at AC and the insurance company wanting AC there. Anyways one of the AC's special response team ended up towing/pulling the aircraft to a gate. Sorry I couldnt get all info... just to early or late in the morning for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Lazionic, I was told our guys were there because we have the "recovery" equipment, and the people trained in it's use. In this case, the "recovery" needed was at least to tow it off the gate - via the mains, as it wouldn't do to just hook up a tug to the nose gear - where it was eating up valuable and needed space. I haven't heard any detail regarding the extent of the damage, but you said "ribs and spars"?? I suspect you meant formers and stringers? ...or was there really some wing damage? If Boeing is going to repair it, I hope there's a decent hangar there someplace, 'cause they're going to need to erect a jig of sorts for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazionic Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Hi Mitch, I am pretty sure i heard ribs and spar damage but stringers and formers sound more correct. And now that you mention the point about not being able to tow it, i rememeber them saying that they had to pull the aircraft away from the gate. Where they repair the aircraft I dont know but it aint flying nowhere for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 There is no hangar space in Punta Cana. It will probably be towed over to the GA area and repaired there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I'm betting it'll be gutted and written off... :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictues Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 heard on another forum from a guy who says he works for GECAS, who should know, that the plane is going to be written off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cargodawg Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 There is no hangar space in Punta Cana. It will probably be towed over to the GA area and repaired there. There is no hangar space in Punta Cana. It will probably be towed over to the GA area and repaired there. Or perhaps the Punta Cana CFR department just got a new fire fighting practice plane... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 From the "ACM Hotsheet"; ACTS, ACM rescue Skyservice B767. Meeting and exceeding the service requirements of our major customers is the name of the game in our maintenance organizations. That was proven again recently when a B767 operated by Canadian charter carrier Skyservice, a current ACTS customer, was damaged May 22 by a hard landing at Punta Cana Airport in the Dominican Republic. ACTS and ACM were quick to offer expertise to help in the recovery, ensuring as always that the customer – already familiar with our Heavy Maintenance and Component capabilities - were aware of other services we could provide. Upon Skyservice’s request, Toronto’s John Grigoropoulos and Joe Borcsok accepted the rescue mission and flew to Punta Cana early the next morning. With the assistance of Skyservice mechanics, the crew accomplished the aircraft recovery tow the following day. “My hat is off to John and Joe for their work in helping us exceed the expectations of a major ACTS customer,” said Marc Belliveau, Manager Customer Support who also credited MOC and Cargo for their contributions. “Skyservice is extremely happy with our diligence and quick response.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 This could be costly: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...5/03/c7278.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 .... everywhere you look there's people trying to milk the system. They should be happy it wasn't much worse and they can all tell the tale. Seems folks think hurtling several thousand pounds of machinery, flesh and blood through our atmosphere at mach .8, and getting it all woed up again on a tiny strip of pavement is such a simple thing it should cost next to nothing and always have the same pefect result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 This could be costly: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...5/03/c7278.html And there is a website, too. There is also an allusion in one post to getting media involved. http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.