DC-9 Gear Collapse

[lstwhknight]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/24/2002 221 PM NWA/AMT wrote:

As an NWA technician I enjoy watching these discussions on the supposed antiquity of some of the NWA fleet. I work on old aircraft (the DC-9s) and new aircraft (A319/A320 and 757s) and am able to compare them on a daily basis. The process is quite illuminating.

One of the things I find most interesting about these discussions is that no one ever addresses the question of whether the part that failed was original equipment or not. I guess that might interfere with whichever agenda you're trying to advance. I get the feeling that most would be quite surprised at just how new some of these old aircraft are, and how old some of the parts on the new aircraft are.

Just for the record: The landing gear in question was not original equipment, nor was the gear attach fitting it's bolted to, nor, most likely, was the structure that the fitting is attached to. All were quite probably fabricated and installed AFTER some of the newer aircraft they're being compared with.

Face it folks, these things we fill with people and throw into the air multiple times a day are machines - and machines break, with total disregard for age.

I'm just glad no one was seriously injured. As with most aviation accidents/incidents we will learn from this and apply that knowledge to making sure it doesn't happen again.

----------------
[/blockquote]
I have to agree with your statement.As when our fleet was old,the parts were replaced with new ones.If a new parts couldn't be found.A new one was made from normally higher standards than the original.Every step of the process inspected for quality.The part was improved over all the years the aircraft had been in service throughtout the world.As any design flaws in the orignal had been redesigned to make the part stronger and safer than the orignal.In the end you had a part that was better than a brand new orignal design.Any major carrier isn't going to short cut bacause of costs.Its just good business to pay 5 million if that be the cost,to off set losting a aircraft and lives.Which is more costly than any part cost.

 

[lstwhknight]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/25/2002 1217 AM NWA/AMT wrote:

Hence the importance of a good inspection department with the authority to reject substandard parts.


----------------
[/blockquote]
Boy I know that one good.I used to be an inspector in the engine shop.I rejected 4 out of 5 JT8D fan cases for various short cuts the vendor tired to pass off.
At the time I was going through NDT with an FAA inspector,showing him how we test engine parts for cracks.While I was working with him I got a call that the president,engineer,and quality assurance director of the company I rejected parts from.Had flown in from flordia and wanted to discuss the fan cases.I told the supervisor of our dept I would be over as soon as I got done with the FAA inspector.I was told to go now,they don't want to wait(more or less they wanted to prove me wrong,as the repairs costs in excess of 50 thousand each to redo).So I went,along came the FAA inspector.I was wanting to talk to them privatly,and save them some additional problems and keep it on a professional level.As in general this vendor did excellent work.
So I walked them through everything that didnt meet the required repaired steps.they couldn't deny it,being in black and white in the MM and pointed out in front of them.They agreed with me and everything was solved.
The one thing that got them an extra pushing it,as the FAA asked to see all the work and sent them an audit.

 

[PlayTheOdds]

Was this on AMFA's watch? I find it strange that there is not one mention of shoddy maintenance or that a Union AMT should have caught this before it happened.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Was this on AMFA's watch? I find it strange that there is not one mention of shoddy maintenance or that a Union AMT should have caught this before it happened.

"should have caught"???

Overstress fractures, Inter/Transgranular corrosion.

Are you really that stupid???


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...925X05213&key=1

 

[PlayTheOdds]

"should have caught"???
Overstress fractures, Inter/Transgranular corrosion.
Are you really that stupid???
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...925X05213&key=1

You can spin it better than that Thirdseat, What do you think D and C checks are for?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

You can spin it better than that Thirdseat, What do you think D and C checks are for?

I don't have to spin anything you moron, read the full report, the last time the gear was overhauled was 1995.

Now when did AMFA come on board NWA???

 

[PlayTheOdds]

I don't have to spin anything you moron, read the full report, the last time the gear was overhauled was 1995.
Now when did AMFA come on board NWA???

OH, I get it the AMT's were replaced also when AMFA came in. Are you saying that it is moronic to think that attach fittings should have been atleast been looked at during a seven year span?

Wouldn't this be like a DC-9 JT8 shelling out just after the Scabs took over?

 

[TheRealSaabmeister]

OH, I get it the AMT's were replaced also when AMFA came in. Are you saying that it is moronic to think that attach fittings should have been atleast been looked at during a seven year span?

Wouldn't this be like a DC-9 JT8 shelling out just after the Scabs took over?

Looked at, yes. Checked for stress and intergranular corrosion? Not necessarily. NWA kept on (and keeps on) lengthening the time between checks.

 

[PlayTheOdds]

Looked at, yes. Checked for stress and intergranular corrosion? Not necessarily. NWA kept on (and keeps on) lengthening the time between checks.

Seven years?

 

[TheRealSaabmeister]

Seven years?

That's what the report says.

 

[PlayTheOdds]

That's what the report says.

Ahhh, you are confusing overhaul with inspection. I do not think that aircarft went seven years without its gear being inspected.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

OH, I get it the AMT's were replaced also when AMFA came in. Are you saying that it is moronic to think that attach fittings should have been atleast been looked at during a seven year span?

Wouldn't this be like a DC-9 JT8 shelling out just after the Scabs took over?

Attach fitting???

Try learning to read, it wasn't the attach fitting that failed.

As for the AMTs, I was trying to bait you, you caught it, good for you, you're not "quite" as dumb as I thought.

 

[TheRealSaabmeister]

Ahhh, you are confusing overhaul with inspection. I do not think that aircarft went seven years without its gear being inspected.

What I honestly meant to say was that the right gear went seven years without an overhaul.

I could be wrong, but I didnt think that things like stress fractures and intergranular corrosion were checked for very often.

 

[PlayTheOdds]

What I honestly meant to say was that the right gear went seven years without an overhaul.

I could be wrong, but I didnt think that things like stress fractures and intergranular corrosion were checked for very often.

I gotta get some shuteye Saab. I shall return. Don't quote me on it but I think it is every five years, maybe even lesser time span with aging aircraft.

 

[robbedagain]

I gotta get some shuteye Saab. I shall return. Don't quote me on it but I think it is every five years, maybe even lesser time span with aging aircraft.

if history repeats itself, the time for aging planes is much quicker than 7 yrs. all you got to do is look at the Aloha Airlines Flight 243 INCIDENT in which a part of the CABIN ROOF peeled away and it was due to CORROSION.