Sign in to follow this  
st27

330 Heavy Mtc Fail

Recommended Posts

A Canadian operator recently had one of its 330 suffer extensive damage while in the hangar at an offshore MRO facility [fell off the jacks]. It was reported in the Quebec media.

Do any of the mtc types here have any insight as to the damage and repair involved?? Rumour on the line indicates itwill be out of service for 6 months.

http://www.985fm.ca/actualites/nouvelles/un-avion-d-air-canada-s-affaisse-au-sol-dans-un-ha-812323.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the gear up, or down?

I guess these things can happen anywhere, but once the shortcomings associated with 'cheap' services that can and do lead to expensive repairs & delays etc. are factored in, the contracting corporations sure can't be saving on operational costs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This occurred at ST Aerospace in Singapore, who normally do pretty good work. I can't understand much of the article, as I only have cereal-box French. Was this a Air Canada machine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is a translation from the linked article, using Babylon. I don't know if it is marginally better or worse than Google or other translation programs. Clearly these translation programs have a long way to go before syntax and technical language idioms are accurate.

 

Quote

 

The device, an Airbus A330-300 aircraft built in 1999, had arrived to the facilities of St Aerospace on 5 November last. It should undergo significant work to update in the framework of a contract last year and to amend the eight A330 aircraft in service with Air Canada.

Six months for the repair for an unexplained reason, the aircraft would have fallen from its supports to collapse to the ground causing significant breakages to the fuselage, the wings and engines.

Two sources we have indicated that the damages are so important that it will take at least six months for the repair. At Air Canada, the responsible for communications, Isabelle Arthur, refuses to give more details on the incident. "The repair work is currently being done and we do not have more information, if this is only to clarify that there is no impact on the operation of our flights".

However, according to our information, to fill the loss of his device Air Canada will reallocate to other aircraft the connections that was to perform the Airbus damaged.

Reactions in AVEOS on the side of the former workers of Avéos, if it is not happy about the incident, it is estimated that there is a lesson for the carrier who turned to the International for the maintenance of its aircraft.

The ex-President of the Union of Avéos, Jean Poirier, puts in doubt the quality of the service offered by these companies. "The question is to know how Transport Canada can ensure that the jobs are facts of safely, in countries where the standards of quality of labor, are different", supports Mr. Poirier.

Attached to the phone, ST Aerospace has refused to comment on the incident. A text of Louis Lacroix, 98.5

 

 

Edited by Don Hudson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern will be with the repair...will Airbus or Air Canada oversee/certify the work? I remember a Sky service 67 in Punta Cana having structural repairs done.. so does the manufacturer become involved in major reconstruction work???

Doesn't instill confidence in the facility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word on the street is that the aircraft was placed up on the 3 main jacks along with a 4th for the tail.  Apparently it was in the process of being lowered down to the gear but someone forgot to remove the tail jack - not sure if the tail jack punched up through the fuselage or if that jack caused the aircraft to fall forward off the main jacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar incidents have happened/could happen anywhere.  Many years ago Air Nova dropped a Dash off the jacks and put a big hole through the aft tailcone damaging the rear pressure bulkhead in the process.  Good solid Canadian AMEs did that one.  I don't mean that as a disparaging comment - simply stating that keeping the work domestic is not a guarantee against errors being made.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several years ago a 767 dropped on it's nose in YYZ when nose gear pin was not installed.  Boeing sent specials from the production line in Seattle to do the repairs. I wonder if Airbus will be sending specials to Singapore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tx Seeker, re, "offshore", in terms of human error that makes sense. I was also pondering costs "in-house", (internal transfers & tax), vice third-party arrangements. That said, I expect insurance would be applicable in both cases as would the loss of re-deploying fleet and loss of capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the costs associated with the ferrying of the aircraft, tax, downtime, etc, etc are carefully calculated and show a savings to farming out the work otherwise it wouldn't be done.  This is no different than Canadian Tire sourcing their Christmas Lights inventory from China or the average person ducking across the border to buy their dairy products and car parts. Lowest price wins.  Unfortunately I think that longer term effects (which are essentially "costs" by another name) are not accounted for.

Edited by seeker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repairs will add to the ac's empty weight too, which will be one of the factors the affected parties use to determine whether the hull is a write-off, or fixable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to figure out how the a/c was damaged.... if the a/c was on jacks and they lowered/fell off, providing the gear was down..how was it damaged?? The tail jack maybe the key, as it would provide support in an area not necessarily supported..ie bend open the fuselage on the underside.  Just spitballing..trying to figure the damage

A picture would be worth a zillion words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, conehead said:

Those 330's are very busy... take one off line unexpectedly for 6 months, it's gonna hurt.

Not this winter.  There is 1 or 2 off line at any given time to complete the cabin refit. (Premium economy)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Repairs will add to the ac's empty weight too, which will be one of the factors the affected parties use to determine whether the hull is a write-off, or fixable.

 

 

not necessarily.  Depending on the extent of the damage it could be returned to the drawing specifications instead of a "Repair"  We had a 747 get hit by a catering truck aft of the aft cargo door.  Damage was 8x10 Feet.  Boeing returned it to original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of speculation with very few facts.

The savings on outsourced maintenance are significant in in labour cost, productivity, and aircraft downtime.

AC did the 767 nose drop twice, once in YZ and once in UL. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AMEfirst said:

 

AC did the 767 nose drop twice, once in YZ and once in UL. 

Also did a 747 nose drop in YZ, back in the mid '80s....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this