A New York-bound Virgin Atlantic flight was canceled just moments before takeoff last week when an alarmed passenger said he spotted several screws missing from the plane’s wing.
Removed by mod
They do have a vested interest in the plane not ruining their whole day by falling apart at any point in the journey.
While its likely true that the wing panel was both non-critical and secure, I’d be much more worried that if they missed something like that, that they could have missed any number of other things as well. Isn’t there supposed to be some sort of check-list run?
Pilots perform an inspection of the aircraft before every flight. Missing fasteners on the top of the wing would not be visible during a walkaround from the ground.
Planes are allowed to fly with many parts missing. A few missing fasteners on a non structural part is fine, but missing fasteners that the pilots are unaware of is a big issue.
Shouldn’t that inspection include looking at the top of the wing out the windows?
There isn’t much on top of the wing that is highly critical. Some planes you can’t even see the top from anywhere in the plane too. An actual issue like leaking fluids or damaged flight control surfaces are visible from the bottom. Something like a few missing fasteners really isn’t t that alarming. I’ve flown plenty of times with some missing, sometimes speed taped and sometimes both the first few times I asked the crew chief but eventually I became familiar with where and how many missing weren’t an issue.
I’ve flown plenty of times with some kissing
How about heavy petting?
Does it lead to ducking?
Trouble. And seat wetting.
At some point, that part was taken off the plane and it was replaced, or maintenance was done on it, or maintenance was done on something underneath it. It was then replaced. There is a documentation trail that says all of this was fully completed. The documentation was signed off on by someone who was qualified in this task, and/ or by a supervisor who checked it off.
If there is no documentation, or if the documentation indicates something was done that was in fact not done, the CAA/ FAA is going to have a big problem with this. They are sort of interested in how maintenance is done and documented. If they didn’t do this right, what else are they/ have they been “pencil whipping?”
I can see a pretty thorough inspection of their maintenance practices and documentation in the near future. If they find a pattern of this, the maintenance gets decertified and the airline can’t fly until they are cleared.
There’s a massive failure in maintenance and Operations’ culture here. This isn’t the exact sort of situation where you’d use LOTO, but you need something similar. Lock the engine in the off position until the removed part is properly reinstalled.
I want to call maintenance errors like this rookie… But they really aren’t. There’s plenty of plant incidents where people either don’t have a proper procedure or don’t follow it, and a welder tries to work on a live gas line. Or someone opens a valve without realizing it needs to be closed.
I still say we fine the companies and hold the CEOs personally responsible, because the buck stops there, and these mistakes are more likely to happen in an organization that doesn’t have a robust safety culture.
TL;DR Someone dun goofed
I knew software companies were offloading QA testing onto their paying users, but who would have guessed that passengers would start playing that role too?
New York Post is a right wing shitrag like The Daily Mail.
What do you think the implications of that are for this article reporting a completely non-political incident?
They get traffic and unless someone comments otherwise, a slight boost in perceived respectability
Probably that they generally don’t care about getting a story right or corroborating sources. I agree that in this case that doesn’t matter for getting the high level facts across.
The pilot should’ve walked out onto the wing, slapped a couple lengths of duct tape on that section, then carefully and loudly exclaimed; “ YUP! That baby ain’t goin’ anywhere.” while patting the area firmly.
Don’t worry! There were 119 fasteners being used. Ignore the fact that 4 were missing. The plane was designed to use whatever number of fasteners we want. The amount is just a suggestion
/s
For what it’s worth, just about every panel like this is certified to have a specific number of fasteners missing. A lot of the time there will be some other qualifiers such as not missing the leading fastener or not missing adjacent fasteners. Having a bunch in a row like this incident would probably not be ok, but I couldn’t say without the maintenence manual.
Right, these are usually spec’d so that there’s some leeway, and I don’t believe they’re lying when they say it would’ve been safe to fly. But after the recent plane debacles I don’t blame those passengers to bringing it up.
It’s just that if you know that it would be ok to miss a few and deliberately don’t install them you’re walking a very thin ice. It must be a reserve of fasteners, not a discount in fasteners used
Planes are designed to have very high tolerances so yeah, they have more fasteners than necessary for exactly this reason. Of course you still want to fix it, but they are absolutely designed to not need them all.
Stealing catalitic converters for moneyStealing bigass phillips screws from planes
–petty theift criminals
Lol, “the Virgin Representative”
We’re going to have to start walking around the plane with the pilot before takeoff like a rental car dent check.
I sympathise with the airline because it’s always a pain when you’ve nearly completed the flatpack before you realise that one screw is missing. Hopefully it’ll hold together without it.
I would have been fine flying on that plane.
Highly unlikely that panel was critical to keeping the plane in the air even if it did come off during flight.
You don’t think it’s possible that missing bolts in a non critical part of the plane is reflective of poor inspection and maintenance and that would increase the risk of missing or loose bolts in, say, a door?
Yep, any number of reasons why it could have been left like that.
I’ve been on planes where I’ve seen duct tape on the wings, it’s really not an issue other than psychological.
You didn’t answer the question.
As in, do I think it means there are poor inspection practices?
No it isn’t indicative of this. Planes fly with things wrong with them every single day.
There is every chance that the maintenance crew notified people of this - it was signed off as still being airworthy and the whole reason this was an issue is actually because PR not a risk to safety.
Okay whatever you have to tell yourself bra. If this were not a concern they would have FLOWN THE PLANE and not grounded it out of safety concern. lol.
In the end I recognize that I am not the expert on these matters in any way. I have no idea what a properly maintained aircraft looks like and pretty much have to trust the people who are paid to know these things. If you’re uncomfortable with something, by all means mention it, but it’s folly to assume you know better or can make even decent assumptions about the maintenance of a plane unless you are an aircraft mechanic.
You didn’t really answer or address my question. If you walk into a restaurant and see a rat running by table #2, do you just assume that “the restaurant experts” know better than you and it is safe to eat the food?
Is there a ginger twink in the kitchen?
By all means, if you are concerned about something on the plane, please mention it to a member of the flight crew.
That said, you’ve used a poor analogy.
There’s a difference between understanding the significance of a rat in a restaurant and understanding the significance of some bolts missing from a piece of fuselage… which is the point of the comment you’re glibly replying to.
Most people understand the concept of rats being harbingers of illness, but most people don’t understand the finer mechanics of powered flight. We put our trust in the flight crew to have that greater understanding, that they won’t put our OR their lives in danger by cutting corners. Chances are good that if the flight crew isn’t concerned, you don’t need to be either.
No but we do know the basic function of screws: holding shit together. The absence of screws implies that shit is not held together fully. Is it still sufficient to fly? Maybe. But the presence of screw holes implies that somebody in the development process thought them necessary and now they’re not there.
Sure, it’s likely safe in the same was that the restaurant rat is likely not carrying a plague. But it’s not guaranteed and I’m not willing to be the one to test it
They why did they ground the plane if they weren’t concerned? And then replace the bolts that you claim aren’t necessary? Are they cosmetic bolts? lol.
I didn’t say anything about that plane, and I didn’t say anything about bolts being unnecessary. I was simply responding to the other guys bad analogy because he kept demanding someone answer his question.
but most people don’t understand the finer mechanics of powered flight.
Pretty sure “are all the bolts in their holes” is more of an “I can put IKEA furniture together pretty well” level and not “finer details of the mechanics of flight” level
Sure, this is why the passenger raised the issue to make sure someone responsible was aware of it and could make that safety judgement. And clearly they were right to do so if the pilot (or whoever) grounded the plane.
Panels coming off during flight is still not ideal, even if they’re not critical to flying. They can hit things that are more essential.
The chances of that panel actually coming off are vanishingly small.
Yeah, it’s like if a door would fall off a plane in the course of a flight, very unlikely
Touché, although I’m assuming this is a different model of aircraft so not plagued by the same issues.
And what’s the worst that can happen?
If we ignore the part of people dying and all.
ITT:
“We aren’t the experts in planes and how they work.”
Also
“Very unlikely this comes apart.”
The reason I think that it’s unlikely to be problematic is because the experts quoted in the article said it’s unlikely to be problematic.
I also have a very small amount of knowledge on this and know that planes fly with missing parts/broken things all the time, just like how everything in our car isn’t working 100% of the time either but we still drive it.
British traveler Phil Hardy, 41, was onboard Flight VS127 at Manchester Airport in the UK on Jan. 15 when he noticed the four missing fasteners during a safety briefing for passengers and decided to alert the cabin crew.
“I thought it was best to mention it to a flight attendant to be on the safe side.”
Neil Firth, the Airbus local chief wing engineer for A330, added that the affected panel was a secondary structure used to improve the aerodynamics of the plane.
Hardy said airline staff repeatedly reassured him there was no safety issue with the wing, but his fear was heightened given the recent ordeal in which an Alaska Airlines plane lost its door plug and a chunk of its fuselage flew off mid-flight.
“Each of these panels has 119 fasteners, so there was no impact to the structural integrity or load capability of the wing, and the aircraft was safe to operate,” he said.
“As a precautionary measure, the aircraft underwent an additional maintenance check, and the fasteners were replaced.”
Noteable comments:
The fasteners were not “replaced”…they were now properly included, as per the design. The public is not reassured if you cannot use precise or non-ambiguous language. It’s better to state that it was an oversight or be specific: i.e. the design calls for a maximum of 119 fasteners, but allows for a minimum number (x), and thus it was allowed to fly. - tyrionsBeard
Great! So not only do you have to pay extra for a seat, checked bags but you have to check the wings before take off. That man should be credited for their flaw. - Mabel
Well those comments are just silly.
Second one is, hahaha!
