What happens when a 767 lands just a little bit too hard....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=S7pXjQ16f5c

 

Yikes... looks like some significant damage.

Jedi

 

Naw, as John Candy said, they can buff that out in the morning. THAT is major damage and looking into my crystal brick I see a new fuselage section in the future. All the stringers and skins will have to be replaced and that damage is in between the forward production break and the one ahead of the wing. Easier to pop a new barrel in place.

 

...little bit of bondo and some new paint and she'll be good as new.

 

I got to thinking about the damage to all the floor structure, stanchions, elect, and elex cooling heat exchangers and equipment in that lower lobe cargo area I shudder at the complexity of a repair. Same thing in the overhead because it is crammed with air conditioning, elect. equipment, and control cables. That airplane will need a whole new section 43 in my book. Affected are the stringers, frames, skins,floor beams, passenger floor, stow bins, side panels, overhead panels, and miles of wiring. One hundred gallons of Bondo will do it.

 

Imagine this happening to a carbon fibre fuselage!

 

Now I know why flight schools don't use 767's as trainers.

.

 

The type used wouldn't matter after slamming the nose gear down like that.
The 767 is tough A/P which leads me to believe it was loaded pretty good when it hit.

 

I agree and it speaks well of a strong nose gear and support structure.

 

Given the age of the 767 is it likely that it will simply be written off given so much damage?

 

This particular 767 is only 10 years old.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-ana-boeing-767-damaged-after-hard-landing-373237/
"An All Nippon Airways' Boeing 767-300 aircraft was damaged after a "rough landing" at Tokyo's Narita International airport on 20 June.

The aircraft, registration JA610A, was on a Beijing-Narita service when the incident happened at 13:28 local time. Flightglobal data show that the airframe was manufactured in 2002.

It can go another 20 years after repair..
**************************************
With that said. This could very well be a write-off
I imagine the nose gear "doghouse" and surrounding structure is trashed as well.
A clean fix would be to find a 767 that's been rear-ended and pull the entire forward section off.
If nothing else this could make a good package freighter for DHL

 

As we say in sportsball, walk it off.

 

Thanks - I'm used to flying 767s that are much older than that so didn't imagine it to be that new.

 

What does an incident like this do for the pilot ?

M

 

out looking for a new job...especially with a video of the landing...a lot of thiings done wrong, especially pushing the nose down after the bounce...

 

Just curious...

Can carriers obtain insurance for damage like this? Or, is are the cost of repairs an absorbed loss?

CW

 

the aircraft are financed or leased, there will be insurance protecting the equity

 

I figured they are leased, but I'm sure they need to return the AC in some sort of a defined operable condition. A bent fuselage probably won't cut it.

And, we're talking about a big dollar fix (not just a bird strike or a taxiway incident) which was the result of, arguably, pilot error. But, that's just my own speculation.

CW

 

aircraft are not any different from a car... depends on relative values, whether to repair or total... the aircraft is definitely out of service... any further flight ( to repair station )would need an ferry permit and perhaps some prior repair ( where situated ) to make it airworthy

 

I'm still trying to figure out just what happened, because the first touchdown on the mains looks fairly normal. All I can think is that the pilot pushed the stick forward too aggressively to get the nosewheel down. It reminds me a bit of the X-15 that broke its back upon landing.

 

Does anyone else think the rear main brakes were locked for some reason? I'm thinking when the left main touched, the brake was locked, the force of stopping too quickly pushed the pilot forward because he wasn't expecting it and caused him to throw the yoke forward violently. That could be completely wrong, but I'm fishing trying to think of why the initial touchdown looked so normal, but the landing ended up so bad.


Mark

 

The airplane hit hard on the left main gear and bounced. It appears to me that the pilot pushed forward to get the airplane "planted" and drove the nose into the runway after the bounce. Then there was a series of rebounds that didn't help matters. Not likely that the brakes were applied or locked and even if they were , the airplane would not be affected enough to throw the pilot forward, it would skid while the anti-lock system did its work. This was a pilot induced incident.

 

it could be a really messed up cross wind landing...

not enough aileron on the upwind ( left ) wing ... upwind wing rises causing landing on the down wind main first...plane bounces, over correction onto nose gear...clean underwear time for the oh shat moment

tire smoke is caused by a non rotating tire and any sideways motion / skidding... nothing to do with brakes, much too early to have any brakes in play

 

So would this incident have been a "tarmac emergency" with evacuation where
the plane stopped rolling? Or would they have proceeded on to a gate or other
holding area?

Just curious... not that it matters.

Jedi