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.
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 knew software companies were offloading QA testing onto their paying users, but who would have guessed that passengers would start playing that role too?
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.
Seeing how disorganized and chaotic airports are, I’m not surprised.
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.
Stealing catalitic converters for moneyStealing bigass phillips screws from planes
–petty theift criminals
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
We’re going to have to start walking around the plane with the pilot before takeoff like a rental car dent check.
