Wreckage: Part of one of the wing tips lies on the runway
Posted on 11/03/2007 5:48:45 PM PDT by Stoat
An airline crew faced a rebellion when they told passengers they were going to fly on a jet that had lost its wing tip in a runway crash.
The SriLankan Airlines customers had been on the Airbus A340 a day earlier when it sliced through a wing of a stationary British Airways 747 at Heathrow, delaying departure by 24 hours.
So they were amazed to be boarding the same plane next day for the ten-hour flight to Colombo.
Scroll down for more...
Wreckage: Part of one of the wing tips lies on the runway
When cabin crew then admitted there was still a 5ft wing tip missing, there was "a minor revolt" as seven passengers demanded to be let off the aircraft.
A further two-hour delay followed as their baggage was removed before the aircraft could take off.
Club-class passenger Ian McKie, 54, from Loughton, Essex, said: "We were put up in hotels the night of the crash and next morning we were told we would be on a different plane that day.
"We only realised that we were actually going on the same aircraft when we got to the Club lounge and saw the plane but without its wing tip."
The former policeman, who was jetting off for a two-week holiday with his partner Gill Stone, 52, added: "On board, the cabin crew admitted that it was the same one as last time and that the tip had been ripped off.
Scroll down for more...
A closer view shows the broken wing on the BA 747
"They assured us it didn't matter but a number of the passengers insisted that they would rather get on the next flight."
The collision happened shortly after 10pm two weeks ago when the BA011 flight to Singapore was waiting on a runway, followed by the SriLankan Airbus.
The SriLankan aircraft wing ripped through the BA flight's wing, tearing off a huge chunk and resulting in the BA jumbo being grounded.
SriLankan Airlines insisted there was no danger in flying without a wing tip.
It added: "They are purely for aerodynamics and to keep fuel costs to a minimum. There is no impact on safety at all. Safety is our absolute priority."
OK - I’m confused. Here are the facts that I can glean from the article as posted:
The SriLankan plane’s wing clipped the BA’s 747’s winglet.
The BA plane was grounded for 24 hours
SriLankan airlines put people up in hotel, then put them on the BA plane?
Because the story seems centered around the SriLankan passengers, but the photos are of the BA 747’s wing.
So was it BA passengers or SriLankan passengers in the story?
And I also notice that there are no photos of the plane in question the next day when the passengers supposedly revolted. Did they leave the rough wing tip in place, or did they remove that winglet?
If the wing was inspected by qualified technicians, it is possible the plane was perfectly fine. The winglet’s sole purpose is to increase fuel efficiency. It has no bearing in-and-of itself for actual flight-worthiness.
There ain’t no way I would fly on that thing.
So the airline is right, but still if the passenger is not comfortable, he should not have to fly. I dont think I would like looking out at it either.
not wing tips.
No problem, Senors and Senoritas, we held the sacrificial ceremony with the TWO goats- all is well, the Flying God is muy happy!
One wingy-thingy; 1.9 wingie-thingies...OOPS! Sorry, wrong number.
All of the Chicken Littles' around here would have loaded their drawers if they had seen this.
The way I read this, the Sri Lankan A340 continued to its destination 24 hours late, after its damaged winglet (red winglet in the photo) was removed. It looks like from the lower photo, left side, there was significant sheet metal damage to the wing leading edge. This must have been repaired, and the winglet removed. The 747 winglet was also damaged, with a piece of it apparently lying on the ground.
If the sheet metal on the A340 leading edge was repaired and the winglet removed, the aircraft was perfectly safe to fly, with a performance penalty applied.
And not only that, they were expecting it because they had the same occurrence on other B-52’s, so the pilots were ready with the throttles I am sure.
It's really the inverse of what you said. All equipment installed on an aircraft in compliance with the Airworthiness Standards and the Operating Rules must be operative. However, the Rules also permit the publication of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) where compliance with certain equipment requirements is not necessary in the interests of safety under all operating conditions.
The removed A340 wingtip would be covered under the CDL (Configuration Deviation List). The CDL is not intended for use with damaged components. Damaged components may be replaced or repaired in with the Structural Repair Manual. If time does not permit replacement, permanent or temporary repair, or if the part is not in stock, then the component may be deferred against the CDL. Damaged parts may only be deferred against the CDL by removing the component, if it is listed in the CDL, and taking appropriate CDL weight and fuel penalties.
From reading the article there is no reason to believe that proper repairs were not made to the A340. The left 24 hours late with sheet metal repairs made, and the damaged wingtip removed, with performance penalties applied.
The wing tip isn’t a lift surface. It is a device that helps shape the vortex of air that follows the plane. I guess it’s technically in the book that it doesn’t matter if it’s intact for the flight-worthiness of the aircraft.
Hey, this is why they have two wings, just in case one breaks. And that break, dang, just a little scratch...
I’m sure someone will post a picture of a b-17 with all sorts of missing parts, flying like it didn’t even need em...
Winglets or not, the darn stuff is supposed to be there! Gee whiz, to ask people to get on an airplane with obvious damage, is just crazy.
a policeman with a “partner” named Gil. They just “had” to find a homo to quote.
He actually got it back on the ground in a controlled landing.
I think the other guy in a A4 died.
Yes, and sailboat racers got along just fine without bulbs - or wings, for that matter - on their keels for hundreds of years, but if the designer thought the craft needed one, and the manufacturer was enough in agreement that they tacked one on, you won't find many skippers that'd leave the safety of the local pub to head out to sea without one, especially having just lost it in a collision, and I'd be surprised to find a pilot that'd do otherwise.
But then I've never been to Sri Lanka, and have no idea what goes on in their pubs.
You are saying they provide lift, with no drag, do not help stabilize the yaw, and do not help disperse wingtip vortices?
And I would guess that there are innumerable things that neither of us would WANT to know about, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.