Accidents et incidents mineurs

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir cette image]

Accident: Swiss A343 at Hong Kong on Apr 1st 2010, wheel damage during taxi

A Swiss Airbus A340-300, registration HB-JMM performing flight LX-139 from Hong Kong (China) to Zurich (Switzerland), was taxiing along taxiway J for departure, when the hub of a right hand main wheel failed causing a chain reaction deflating all right hand main gear tyres and throwing debris into engine #4 (CFM56, outboard right hand) and against the underside of the right hand wing causing damage to the wing. The airplane got stuck on the taxiway, the passengers disembarked onto the taxiway and were bussed to the terminal. The airplane is still on the ground in Hong Kong (Apr 6th).

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir cette image]

Emirates plane drops 15,000 feet over India, 17 hurt

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, India, April 25, 2010 (AFP)A passenger plane flying from Dubai to India plunged 15,000 feet (4,600 metres) after hitting air turbulence Sunday, injuring 17 people, aviation officials said.

2010 AFP

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, India (AFP) – A passenger plane flying from Dubai to India plunged 15,000 feet (4,600 metres) after hitting air turbulence Sunday, injuring 17 people, aviation officials said.
The Emirates Boeing 777 jet with 361 passengers and 14 crew on board landed safely at its destination of Kochi in south India shortly after the incident, which occurred off the coastal state of Goa.
"In a short period of bad turbulence, some passengers suffered bruises and other minor wounds. They were given medical care at the airport on their arrival," an airline official in Kochi, who declined to be named, told AFP.
"Some passengers who were not wearing seat belts were thrown out of their seats, but the pilot regained control," he said.
Reports said the plane suffered some damage after dropping from 20,000 to just 5,000 feet in a few minutes.

Over 20 occupants of an Emirates aircraft have been injured after the jet encountered severe turbulence while en route to the Indian city of Kochi.
The aircraft was cruising at flight level 350, around 50nm south of Bangalore airspace, when the incident occurred.
Three crew members and 20 passengers sustained injuries on board flight EK530, states the United Arab Emirates General Civil Aviation Authority.

While the GCAA has not indicated the aircraft type, Emirates' online schedule shows that the Dubai-Kochi service is normally operated by [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]-200s.

"All injuries are classified as minor - sprains, bumps and bruises," says the authority, citing information from Emirates, adding that none of those on board suffered fractures or serious concussion.
"All passengers have been allowed to leave the medical centre in Kochi." The GCAA gives the time of the incident as 04:14, although it has not indicated the locality of the time zone.

Indian investigators, assisted by the GCAA and Emirates, are conducting an inquiry into the turbulence event.

Indian civil aviation authorities are analysing the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder from the Emirates Boeing 777-200ER that was involved in a severe turbulence incident while cruising at FL350 (35,000ft/10,680m) in Indian airspace on 25 April. Twenty passengers and three crew members suffered minor injuries during the flight from Dubai to Kochi. An inspection of the aircraft showed "minor cracks" in its cabin, says the Indian civil aviation authority.

Investigators have opened an inquiry after a [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] Q300, operated by Austrian regional [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], suffered damage after striking an electrical power line on approach to the Italian island of Elba.

The aircraft had been operating between Zurich and Elba's Marina di Campo Airport, a flight designated 3L284, on 1 May.

InterSky says the incident occurred at around the scheduled arrival time of 17:30.

The Q300 hit a power line located "near the runway", it says, but continued the approach to land on the runway safely.

The carrier states that the twin-engined aircraft sustained damage to one of its two propellers.

Meteorological data from the airport is not immediately available.

The nearest weather station, located at Monte Calamita, some 6.6nm east of the airport, was indicating fog and low visibility at the time.

InterSky, however, describes the weather during the approach as "normal".

It has not indicated the type of approach being conducted when the incident occurred.

But managing director Claus Bernatzik says: "The aircraft seems to have been located, on approach, a few metres off the intended flight path."We therefore cannot, unfortunately, rule out pilot error - according to our current knowledge.

"Bernatzik says that the pilot was highly experienced and was used to operating the service to Elba.

The extent of the damage to the Q300 is unclear but none of the 48 passengers and three crew members was injured.

"We immediately informed the authorities and will do everything to investigate the cause of this incident," says Bernatzik. "The most important thing, for us, is that the aircraft landed safely and no-one has been harmed."

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is investigating two incidents last week in which an [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] aircraft flew too low while approaching Gold Coast airport.
On 4 May, an [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] X [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], registration 9M-XXB, went "below the radar lowest safe altitude" while approaching the airport after a flight from Kuala Lumpur, says the ATSB, which has classified the incident as serious.

The approach was made in instrument meteorological conditions, indicating low visibility due to cloudy or bad weather conditions at that time.
The bureau says a similar incident involving the same aircraft occurred on 3 May in visual meteorological conditions, which indicates sufficient visibility.
An investigation into the incidents is ongoing, says the ATSB, adding that no injuries occurred as a result.
Malaysia-based AirAsia X says it is working with the bureau on the investigation.
"If any anomalies are found or identified, we will rectify them with immediate effect. Both flights landed safely without any passenger incidents. Safety remains and has always been a priority for AirAsia X," says a carrier spokesman.

Air India Express is investigating an incident in which a [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]-800 experienced a sudden loss of altitude mid-flight.

The aircraft was operating from Dubai to Pune on 26 May when it "lost some height", says the carrier, adding that there were no reports of injuries.
Some local media reports say the aircraft plunged more than 4,500m (15,000ft), but the airline denies this.

"The pilots have been de-rostered to enable them to participate in the enquiry. The matter is being investigated," says the carrier.

The incident took place four days after an Air India Express 737-800 crashed at Mangalore International Airport in southern India after it overshot the runway.

American 777 loses door at D/FW

Deplaning didn't go smoothly Tuesday morning for an American 777.

Apparently, an American Airlines flight arriving at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport lost its door in a Terminal D jetbridge.

The aircraft pulled up to the terminal around 6:20 a.m. and docked with the jetbridge.

Flight attendants opened the door to start letting passengers off the plane.

However, it appears that the brakes either failed or were not set and ground crews did not put blocks around the wheels as the plane rolled backwards about 200 feet, ripping the door off the Boeing 777.

I'm still waiting for a callback from American Airlines about the incident. But the photos, which the Star-Telegram received from a reader, pretty much tell the story.

UPDATE 6/17: Here are two statements from American about the 777 incident and an account from a crew chief working on Tuesday morning.

Jeannot a écrit:Visiblement quelques soucis sur les pylones des 767 d'American. Suffisemment important pour alrter Boeing

Boeing 767 engine pylon cracks raise alarm

Boeing is drafting new guidelines for inspecting the structural integrity of its 767 jetliner after cracks were discovered in the engine pylons of at least two planes operated by American Airlines, The Wall Street Journal reported late Monday. The size of the cracks surprised Boeing officials and there is concern the problems could be more widespread, the newspaper said. Under new guidelines, the manufacturer will likely recommend stepped-up inspections. In one case, cracks in the jet's pylon were so bad that regulators said it could easily have lost an engine, the Journal said. Why the cracks are appearing isn't known. American parent AMR Corp. and the Federal Aviation Administration have inspected the bulk of the operator's 767 fleet and metallurgical tests were pending

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

SEVRIEN a écrit:Merci, Jeannot ! C'est une vieille histoire qui revient !

"What goes around come around" ! [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir cette image]

Sevrien a écrit:
La bêtise est que vous ne tenez même pas compte du fait que :

-- (i) la FAA prend appui très sérieusement sur la base de données que constitue le « Directory of Ageing Aircraft », compilé par Flight International et d'autres organisations, y compris la FAA elle-même ;

-- (ii) la FAA a déjà émis un AD (en 2000 ? Voilà le sign-posting ! A vous de chercher), qui a fini, dans son application, par reconnaître la différenciation entre moteurs, [b]contrairement à ce que vous avez écrit!

Vous refusez de reconnaître les faits, et ne faites qu'avancer vos opinions, truffées de contradictions inhérentes, qui reçoivent le démenti de la FAA, qui,
-- dans le contexte des moteurs qui « tombaient des ailes des avions » (« became detached from the aircraft’s wing ») ,
-- a déterminé que ce « detachment » fut dû à des vibrations excessives, qui usaient prématurément les « broches de fixation » du combiné « moteur-nacelle » au pylône,
-- et contribuaient à une usure prématurée de l'ensemble « nacelle-broche-pylône ».
.............
Au début, dans cette affaire, la FAA n'a fait aucune différenciation entre les différents moteurs !

C'est Boeing qui a défendu RR, qui a fini par avoir un traitement équitable de souplesse, qui reconnaissait qu’il y avait bel et bien une différenciation entre moteurs. Et ceci a bien était reconnu, par la FAA, dans :

-- (a) la célérité avec laquelle elle a exempté RR des mêmes contraintes que celles imposées à GE & P&W (fréquence de remplacement des broches ne dépassant pas la moitié de celle frappant GE et P&W ; plus question de "one size must fit all" !) ;

--(b) la restauration quasi-immédiate des ETOPS 180 minutes aux avions en question à motorisation RR, alors que GE & P&W ont dû patienter bien plus longtemps, avant de récupérer d'abord ETOPS 90 minutes, avant de passer à 120, et ensuite, à 180 minutes !

Voici les extraits de mes posts (vulgarisés, nécessairement, par rapport aux texte et jargon de la FAA et de son AD !

Sevrien a écrit:
21/09/2006 (dans un post sur l'Airbus A380, .....)
............................

Quand le FAA a paniqué, et donné l'ordre de faire changer les broches de fixation (ensemble moteur, nacelle, pylône, aile ) des avions à moteurs à forte poussée (> 37, 000 à 40,000lbs, paramètre bas.... ),

-- en raison des problèmes dus à l'usure excessive & prématurée par vibrations (cela concernait les GE & P&W -- architecture 'à 2 arbres' --, pas les RR -- architecture à 3 arbres'), pendant des semaines, la BA, entre autres, ramenait les avions au bercail de LHR, selon un système de rotation,

et les ingénieurs de Boeing travaillaient nuit & jour, sur le 'tablier', non pas dans les hangars, pour remplacer toutes les pièces (saines, en fait), par celles qui arrivaient par paquets, tous les jours, jusqu'à ce que toute les flottes BA de B757 / -767 / -747 soient rééquipées et contrôlées, sans que la BA subisse une minute de retard au décollage du fait de ces opérations.

Sevrien a écrit:
14/10/2006 .........
Lorsque P&W & GE sont en train de voir leur 'rétention d'efficacité' chuter vers 98.5% par rapport à leur base 100% (RR -- et je ne roule pour aucun motoriste -- toujours à, par exemple, 99, 96% par rapport à la sienne) et qu'après, ......
-- c'est l'accélération de 'dégradation' vers les 95%-96%,

-- et que RR reste au-dessus des 99%, les P&W & GE sont obligés de faire de la maintenance , y compris des pièces chères, non seulement pour la maintenance 'pur jus', mais , aussi, pour rattraper leur performance en consommation visée.

Indépendamment de l'avantage de l'architecture des 3-arbres de RR, sur celle à 2-arbres des deux autres, ......

.....RR prépare TOUS ses moteurs depuis au moins 2 décennies aux règles et normes ETOPS 180 minutes, 'out of the box'. Résultats de 'non dégradation' époustouflants, bien au-delà de ce que RR avait espéré.

Dans ma note sur le problème des changements des 'broches' (de pylone) sur "big-twins", imposés par la FAA, aux moteurs "big fan" à forte poussée (> 37, 000lbs, sur les B767 et B757, par exemple). Le FAA a reconnu que les RR RB211-535 C / et -E4, et les RB211-524 (toutes les versions) par rapport aux moteurs correspondants de PW & GE :
-- subissaient moins de 'dégradation',

-- causaient moins de vibrations, susceptibles de causer le détachement des moteurs, en vol, en raison de l'usure prématuré des 'broches' qui 'lâchent' (soit 'dégradations' hors moteur, causées par le moteur ! ),

-- et étaient quasi-automatiquement / très rapidement ré-autorisés ETOPS 180 minutes, pour toutes les flottes de toutes les Cies. concernées, ...

-- alors que, s'agissant des moteurs rivaux, il y a eu une longue période de limitation à 120 minutes de 're-proving', et, le comble ....
-- les broches, même renforcées, étaient / sont obligées d'être changées, par ordre FAA, (coût 'caché' d'entretien dont on ne parle pas ! )...après seulement deux-tiers du temps autorisé à ceux sur les mêmes types d'avions motorisés par les RR correspondants !

BROOMFIELD, Colo. -- An air tanker fighting one of several wildfires burning in Colorado has crashed outside of Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport on Saturday afternoon.

The pilot reported that the plane was having mechanical issues before attempting an emergency landing, at 12:27 p.m.

A spokesperson with the Federal Aviation Authority said the plane experienced hydraulic failure during the landing.

The plane went off the runway and crashed through a fence surrounding the airport. It came to a rest in an embankment and a trail.

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir cette image]

Mike Phau of Neptune Aviation, the company that owns the air tanker, said the plane will be removed on
Sunday afternoon.

The plane, a P2V-5 based out of Missoula, Mont., was carrying 1,100 pounds of firefighting slurry when it crashed.

Both the pilot and co-pilot walked away from the crash.

As a result of the crash, all air support was suspended on Saturday in fighting two fires in northern Colorado.

The Cow Creek Fire, located in Rocky Mountain National Park, is burning in over 800 acres.

The Round Fire, located in the foothills west of Loveland and near State Highway 34, isburning in 150 acres and near homes.Steve Segin, spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Area Coordination Center, said a U.S. Forest Service aviation safety team will investigate the crash, along with the National Transportation Safety Board.Segin said while winged-aircraft support has been suspended on Saturday, helicopters will still assist in fighting the blazes.

Un avion de la compagnie Turkish Airlines a réalisé un brusque atterrissage dimanche matin à l'aéroport de Zaventem, un des moteurs de l'appareil touchant l'asphalte de la piste d'atterrissage, annonce dimanche la vrt.
Aucun blessé n'est à déplorer mais les occupants de l'avion ont paniqué, selon plusieurs passagers.

Malgré cet atterrissage difficile, l'équipage a pu amener l'avion en toute sécurité vers la porte de débarquement où il a été constaté que le moteur qui avait touché la piste était endommagé. Le piste d'atterrissage a semble-t-il été également endommagée.

Hole found in plane that took off from Miami

MIAMI -- Authorities say a hole was found in the fuselage of a commercial airliner that suddenly lost cabin pressure shortly after taking off from Miami International Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen says oxygen masks were deployed when American Airlines Flight 1640 lost cabin pressure about 30 minutes into its flight late Tuesday. The Boeing 757 had left Miami for Boston.
The plane returned safely to Miami.
Bergen says an inspection of the plane revealed a 1-foot-by-2-foot hole in the upper part of the fuselage just behind a cabin door toward the front of the plane.
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating.

An Air India Airbus A319-100, registration VT-SCL performing flight AI-444 from Bangalore (India) to Singapore
(Singapore), lost the cowling of the right hand engine (CFM56) during takeoff from Bangalore, which initially went unnoticed until a passenger excitedly reported the engine missing to the cabin crew.

A subsequent runway inspection revealed the cowling and debris on the runway. The crew declared emergency and returned to Bangalore for a safe landing.

Bangalore Aviation reports that the airplane received substantial structural damage, which required Airbus structural specialists to perform the repairs in Bangalore. The airplane sits on the apron of Bangalore with the engine wrapped in plastics for three weeks now awaiting the repairs.