Cracks Found During 767 Pylon Inspection

[straitman]

This could have some interesting consequences for a few airlines we know :!:

Cracks Found During 767 Pylon Inspection

Jun 24, 2010

By Elyse Moody

Boeing is revising a service bulletin for 767 engine pylon inspections after American Airlines found cracks on some of its aircraft. The current service interval calls for repetitive pylon inspections every 1,500 flight cycles, but Boeing may decrease the interval to as few as 400 flight cycles.

A multi-operator message issued June 22 to all 767 operators asks them to assess how the adjustment would affect their maintenance operations, says Boeing spokesman Peter Conte. Boeing expects to issue a revised service bulletin in mid-July.

 

[yohy?!]

Eeeeeep....

QF Boeing 767-300ER = 29

 

[anat0l]

I'm not liking what I'm hearing

 

[kiwial]

Eeeeeep....

QF Boeing 767-300ER = 29

At least 4 of these are not affected. VH-OGS/GT/GU/GV were built after Boeing implemented a design change.

A kit was made available as a retrofit for older aircraft and one would hope QF installed them.

Of over 900 x 767's globally, approx 200 have not had the kit fitted.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Doesn't sound too encouraging...I would hope QF retrofitted the fleet...Otherwise if the media get a hold of this they might actually have a bit of evidence to back up their "no longer safest" stories.

 

[vespa]

Oh.

I know relative who is due to fly from Melbourne to sydney in a Qantas 767.

I am worried, this problem sounds serious do you think its safe or should they fly another plane ??

 

[samh004]

Oh.

I know relative who is due to fly from Melbourne to sydney in a Qantas 767.

I am worried, this problem sounds serious do you think its safe or should they fly another plane ??

I’m sure the plane would be as safe tomorrow as it was yesterday.

 

[mannej]

Oh.

I know relative who is due to fly from Melbourne to sydney in a Qantas 767.

I am worried, this problem sounds serious do you think its safe or should they fly another plane ??

I wouldn't be worried about flying on a QF767.

I would much rather be on a QF plane then some other certain airlines out there...

 

[vespa]

I’m sure the plane would be as safe tomorrow as it was yesterday, before the press release.

Probably true. I did google the 767 and it looks pretty drab inside. The youtube videos were quite encouraging.

I think if it was me flying I would prefer the 737 800 only because it is newer.

 

[straitman]

Oh.

I know relative who is due to fly from Melbourne to sydney in a Qantas 767.

I am worried, this problem sounds serious do you think its safe or should they fly another plane ??

vespa,

Remember that it is about 7 weeks since I started the thread so any required inspections would have been completed by now.

If Boeing thought there was an urgent problem they would have issued an Airworthiness Directive to inspect them immediately. Also see post #4.

Personally I would not worry.

 

[mannej]

Probably true. I did google the 767 and it looks pretty drab inside. The youtube videos were quite encouraging.

I think if it was me flying I would prefer the 737 800 only because it is newer.

It's been raised before but age is not always relevant to how safe a machine is or it's chance of breaking down. There is a name for it but it escapes me.

As for your second point, the wide body is much more comfortable than a narrow body even for the short hop

Sent from my iPhone using AustFreqFly

 

[NM]

I think if it was me flying I would prefer the 737 800 only because it is newer.

Without checking the numbers, I expect there have been more accidents involving 737-800 in recent times (say the last 3 or 4 years) than involving 767-300 aircraft. But this is more likely due to many different factors with little relationship to the actual aircraft design. More likely due to things like:

• Number of LCC and "emerging" airlines operating the type
• Routes frequented by smaller aircraft types

For my next trip I specifically selected a BNS-SYD flight operated by 767-300 aircraft rather than a 737-800 as I find them more comfortable and prefer the twin aisles and 2+3+2 seating configuration, especially when travelling with Mrs NM as I will be this time.

 

[markis10]

Without checking the numbers, I expect there have been more accidents involving 737-800 in recent times (say the last 3 or 4 years) than involving 767-300 aircraft. .

18 in the last 10 years for all 767 (that includes 9/11), in the last 4 years there has only been one 767-3 accident, Royal Air Maroc, which did a very good replication of the QF 717 at DRW incident (hard landing, fuselage trying to look like a crinkle cut chip).

By comparison there has been 18 737-800 incidents, and three 737-700, the one overnight was the first hull loss ( that is an assumption at this stage that it will be a hull loss)!

To put the numbers in some sort of perspective:

737-800 1207 made so far
737-700 847 so far
767-300 697 made so far.

 

[NM]

By comparison there has been 18 737-800 incidents, and three 737-700, the one overnight was the first hull loss ( that is an assumption at this stage that it will be a hull loss)!

Well, assuming they don't use the same insurers as another airline that repaired after a golfing excursion

 

[browski]

Oh.

I know relative who is due to fly from Melbourne to sydney in a Qantas 767.

I am worried, this problem sounds serious do you think its safe or should they fly another plane ??

Hell Yes, of course they must change! Godspeed my child, let's all pray that you are not too late.

 

[albatross710]

Oh.

I know relative who is due to fly from Melbourne to sydney in a Qantas 767.

I am worried, this problem sounds serious do you think its safe or should they fly another plane ??

Aircraft operators are expecting cracks which is why the maintenance schedules exist. The 767 does have 2 engines so you'd have to be really unlucky! (lol)

I wonder if NDI is still a ticket to financial freedom? The 2 NDI techs that I know moved onto testing of mining equipment. Based on their growing fleet of private assets they have done very well.

 

[markis10]

Aircraft operators are expecting cracks which is why the maintenance schedules exist. The 767 does have 2 engines so you'd have to be really unlucky! (lol)
.

Especially since Ansett had an issue 10 years ago, its hardly news to be frank.

MEDIA RELEASE : 15 November 2002 - ATSB releases final Ansett 767 safety investigation report

 

[simongr]

Hell Yes, of course they must change! Godspeed my child, let's all pray that you are not too late.

Now that's just mean

 

[tuppaware]

It's been raised before but age is not always relevant to how safe a machine is or it's chance of breaking down. There is a name for it but it escapes me.

Something like fail-safe design.... Safe in the event of Failure ?

 

[mannej]

Something like fail-safe design.... Safe in the event of Failure ?

Not quite, there is a name to the actual model that describes this, and one of our engineering friends has alluded to it in the past on here.