The planes I fly for work have it, those are the only ones I have any control over if there were an accident
The 767 has a fuel jettison mast , verified by Spasso, in the outboard wing. Why weren't they used instead of burning off the fuel? That, among not checking everything in the flight deck,sounds a bit lame to me.
The europeans HATE dumping fuel. I remember a German in one of my Learjet recurrent courses saying that they wouldn't even dump fuel in the simulator!
Why rush to lose fuel and land on the plane's belly? They no doubt were on the radio with the company (if not Boeing) engineers troubleshooting the problem. I'm sure they tried as much as they could while aloft, and then did everything they could to prep for the wheels-up landing. Also, circling for a while gives the airport time to prepare for the emergency (that will shut down at least one runway for a while)
For 90 minutes? If they were on the radio with Boeing then they would have found the popped breaker for the Alternate Gear Extend. If they took a harder look at their ditch lists they probably would have found it as well, that's if there really was a popped breaker at all.
The Boeing AOG guys and the local airline folks had the airplane on its gear the next day and towed off to a hangar. It will be fixed.
Except for the reasons already mentioned It's always a good idea to reduce the amount of gross weight when landing, especially with the gear retracted.
Interesting development, looks like they're not going to repair it after all. Maybe somebody was afraid of tail liability? http://news.aviation-safety.net/2012/07/09/lot-boeing-767-involved-in-gear-up-landing-will-not-be-repaired/
"...the restoration of the aircraft to an operable state was not feasible." Looks like they never asked Boeing.....
I can't believe that they DON'T WANT TO repair that 767. They don't want to spend the money? They don't think that ANYBODY can do it? That airplane isn't hurt that bad and somebody should buy it and fix it back into a money maker. Unbelievable!
The value of a 767 is going to start falling precipitously in the next couple yrs. In the bigger picture an insurance payout and salvage sale may be the most economical decision. Edit: The airframe, sn28656 (ln 659), was 15+ yo. At that age a significant portion of the value resided in the engines, which were toast.
. Thanks for presenting a different view. It would still make a good freighter. It will be interesting to see what transpires.
If you read it closely, it didn't say that no one would repair it-- just that LOT wasn't going to repair it, and is planning to sell it as-is (well, engines and airframe separately). I wonder if the insurance company didn't pay out? Otherwise, you would think that the airplane would be sold by them, not by LOT.
the log books most likely determined the final disposition... the plane probably had an obscene amount of cycles, along with other wear issues, then compared with required maintainance and compliance with passenger flight standards, there was little or nothing left to work with... then there are plenty of aircraft available which could be brought up to high standards at less expense without a crash history turning it into a freighter, where standards would be less, may not make any sense as well, as the basic flight standards may not be cost effective with what is left... since initial repairs ( very costly ) would need to be done in place before it could be ferried to a proper facility it's not about being able to to rebuild the plane, it's about the time it is out of service and the cost of money while it is a pile of expensive rubble waiting to be airworthy again, with a crash history... when for the same money another aircraft can be put into service generating revenue in a matter of weeks
I suspect that my Depression Syndrome is showing. I grew up with a father and mother who made do with every little thing that they could hang on to and if something could be fixed, you fixed it and kept it going. My DNA doesn't see the insurance right-off, residual recouping, value vs. revalue,etc. That airplane has a lot of life left in it and could still be a useful vehicle. Maybe it does have high cycles. So what, the 767 is a damn tough little airplane and I agree, the major damage was to the engines, but it can still be useful with a little work.
A friend of mine used to fly a Falcon 900 which was written off after a pretty nasty landing overrun. Some investors bought the airplane, put a new wing on it, flew it for a few years, and sold it to the company my friend was flying for. As far as I know, that company is still operating it, and perfectly happy with it. Cheap when you buy it, and cheap when you sell it, though.
When the cost of repair exceeds the market value of the finished product it is usually written off, that is, unless it's only one of 39 ever built like a 250 GTO. To reiterate Cheesey, There are a few 767's languishing around the world that would take a fraction of the repair cost to put back in the air.
