I am surprised that a long term Trains reader hasn't already mentioned the Trains magazine jinx.
As I recall back in the 1950s early 1960s once Trains did a piece on a steam engine still working or a short line railroad, frequently that engine or short line would go 'belly up' within a month or two of the cover date of the magazine.
Transport of the Beoing fuselages was an article in the May issue of Trains. They derail in July. Coincidence?? I don't think so... the jinx is backkkkkkkk.
The three that slide down the bank and the fourth with the ripped off tail all had clear signs that they had been damaged and would be scrapped. I didn't see photos of the others, but it is pretty obvious they were going to be scrapped. Aircraft aren't like cars, trucks or trains, they are fragile. Cars, trucks and trains are designed with crashes in mind, they are made to withstand impacts, and they aren't really restricted by weight. Aircraft are made to be light (especially modern ones), and tiny dents, cracks, chips have major problems. Aircraft parts are repeated loaded with stress which cause metal fatigue. A small dent can make perfect conditions for a crack to form and then grow, and if not found it can, and has brought down airplanes. I would have been shocked if Boeing didn't scrap those, many other companies have suffered huge financial losses from poor decisions about safety. One of the most recent is GM and the faulty ignition switch.
Leo_Ames Sam, I'm seeing 3 and 6 at different places so I'll defer to Trains. That said, it doesn't change anything since the argument isn't about their ultimate fate despite what a few folks in this thread have chosen to interpret my posts as saying. If you reread my posts, I never said that I think these would all be resurrected and flown. The closest I might've came to that is saying that I'd be surprised if every last one was so damaged that scrap was the only viable option. The argument was about why they'd ultimately be scrapped, not if they would be. I've been arguing about the methodology that was at play in making this decision, not the decision itself. Norm48327 Gee Leo, I guess I owe you an apology for knowing, after close to forty years in the aviation industry, how thing work. My bad. I said my piece. No disrespect was intended, but obviously, I don't share your opinion on the process that went on and is still underway here. I still find it rather puzzling with your stated background in this industry that you think an airframe that suffers significant damage that's deemed repairable would be scrapped anyways just because of fear that they'd be opening themselves up to potential liability down the road. There's no shortage of evidence to the contrary of manufacturers and airlines effecting significant repairs to an airframe and returning it to safe service. As I've said several times in this thread, decisions such as what went on here are based on sound engineering science, not guesswork. If these were deemed to be able to economically be fully repaired, that's what would've happened.
Sam, I'm seeing 3 and 6 at different places so I'll defer to Trains.
That said, it doesn't change anything since the argument isn't about their ultimate fate despite what a few folks in this thread have chosen to interpret my posts as saying. If you reread my posts, I never said that I think these would all be resurrected and flown. The closest I might've came to that is saying that I'd be surprised if every last one was so damaged that scrap was the only viable option.
The argument was about why they'd ultimately be scrapped, not if they would be. I've been arguing about the methodology that was at play in making this decision, not the decision itself.
Norm48327 Gee Leo, I guess I owe you an apology for knowing, after close to forty years in the aviation industry, how thing work. My bad.
Gee Leo,
I guess I owe you an apology for knowing, after close to forty years in the aviation industry, how thing work.
My bad.
I said my piece. No disrespect was intended, but obviously, I don't share your opinion on the process that went on and is still underway here.
I still find it rather puzzling with your stated background in this industry that you think an airframe that suffers significant damage that's deemed repairable would be scrapped anyways just because of fear that they'd be opening themselves up to potential liability down the road.
There's no shortage of evidence to the contrary of manufacturers and airlines effecting significant repairs to an airframe and returning it to safe service. As I've said several times in this thread, decisions such as what went on here are based on sound engineering science, not guesswork.
If these were deemed to be able to economically be fully repaired, that's what would've happened.
Leo,
Your explanation and reasoning make perfect sense to me. If it is not what you say it is, then what is it? Where is the line drawn between repair and scrapping?
There has been talk of the company not wanting to take a chance on liability of repair. Part of this equation is that the shipping railroad damaged the parts. So in weighing the risk of liability arising from mistakes in repair, Boeing will factor in the compensation of the railroad, and weigh that against the cost/benefit of repair. I suspect that the decision has a lot to do with the fact of shipping damage during a train derailment, and the routine settlement of such a claim.
Maybe the railroad would bear some liability if the parts were repaired, and therefore insists on scrapping.
Leo_Ames If these were deemed to be able to economically be fully repaired, that's what would've happened.
Leo_Ames said:
[snipped] "...That's how the deal worked out. As I said before, they don't scrap airliners due to heebie jeebies. Every decision here was scientifically based. That it took this long to determine the fate of three of the six fuselages and that they're apparently still evaluating the other three (What I read said that three, not six, are in the process of being cut up according to the newswire) and the contents of the three parts cars rather attests to who was right here. .."
Here is a linked story from this date that was in the Morning's Wichita Eagle:
linked @http://www.kansas.com/2014/07/25/3568375/salvage-crews-dismantle-derailed.html
FTA: [SNIPPED] "...A crew from Pacific Steel and Recycling in Missoula worked Thursday morning amid cranes, trains, planes and rain to dismantle what was left of the six blue-green Boeing 737 bodies..." [SNIPPED]
Norm
schlimm Rader SidetrackStory here: http://missoulian.com/crews-dismantling-boeing-fuselages-pulled-from-river/article_d99e81e0-1386-11e4-93eb-0019bb2963f4.html And so much for Ames' predictions.
Rader SidetrackStory here: http://missoulian.com/crews-dismantling-boeing-fuselages-pulled-from-river/article_d99e81e0-1386-11e4-93eb-0019bb2963f4.html
And so much for Ames' predictions.
I never predicted anything.
I simply refuted his comment that by default they'd have to be automatically scrapped out of potential liability fears down the road and took offense at him portraying his opinions as fact when he made statements like how the insurance company has now took ownership of them (when reports in the media from Boeing were in direct contradiction and supported my comments to a tee).
As I've said all along, it was going to work out in the following manner...
1. Inspection to determine condition and evaluate the extent of the damage.
2. Decision on the engineering feasibility of repairing said damage is made.
3. If repairs are possible and it's decided that they're cost effective, repairs are initiated.
That's how the deal worked out. As I said before, they don't scrap airliners due to heebie jeebies. Every decision here was scientifically based. That it took this long to determine the fate of three of the six fuselages and that they're apparently still evaluating the other three (What I read said that three, not six, are in the process of being cut up according to the newswire) and the contents of the three parts cars rather attests to who was right here.
Norm48327 There may be some salvage of internal equipment they can determine hasn't been damaged. OTOH, liability considerations will prevent those fuselages from ever flying. Should one of them break in flight Boeing Airplane Company would likely be history. Lawyers would have a field day with them.
There may be some salvage of internal equipment they can determine hasn't been damaged. OTOH, liability considerations will prevent those fuselages from ever flying. Should one of them break in flight Boeing Airplane Company would likely be history. Lawyers would have a field day with them.
This still looks like LAWYERS and Scrappers win: Insurance Company gets the bills.
In a "Risk Adverse Business Environment", The Suits will always have the upper hand.. The linked stories on other Posts from this Thread from recent times; show that the fuselages are scrapped near the scent of the derailment.
Just to note these Fuselages have been making pretty much this same route from Wichita to Renton, Wa. Since about 1969. Boeing started production in Wichita, Ks. and has shipped these un-wired fuselages to Washington State over the Santa Fe and then Burlington Northern and now BNSF Through all the Corporate Ownership changes along the way. Boeing has sold their Wichita Production facilities to Spirit Aero Systems ; most everyone on this Forum is familiar with the Railroad's Changes, as well
Aircraft parts move in the Specialized boxes that carry Boeing's (Photo of an enclosed car for Boeing (reporting mark TBCX)
The following linked photo shows a picture of a 737 fuselage and its attachment point on the flat car at (the Nose Strut Location, and at the Main Wing Root Attachments)
http://www.aviationbanter.com/attachment.php?s=9629fee242b14108bbb0d0a0f707454e&attachmentid=9025&d=1176142575
The container on the flat car to the aft of the fuselage contains Vertical and Horizontal Stabilizer Surfaces) The Box on the car Forward of the fuselage can carry the Flight Deck Assembly for another Aircraft; ie; 747, 777 etc)
It just how seems sort of "cool" that before they fly; All of the 737s and its variants MUST
Ride the Train.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Bundles of crushed fuselage sit next to an intact jet body that awaits the same fate Thursday morning at a temporary crushing yard at the Rivulet siding near Fish Creek. Photo: MICHAEL GALLACHER/Missoulian
A bit of a WAG on my part, but if those parts were not obviously damaged in the wreck they may go to Boeing for further evaluation. Easier to determine their viability in the shop than in the woods. Rest assured the company lawyers will have those parts gone over with a fine tooth comb. Any suspicious ones will not be used.
Well the last chapter is written. All 6 fuselages being cut up for scrap but derailed cars being recovered. What is strange is the 777 and 747 parts were sent on to Boeing.
http://missoulian.com/crews-dismantling-boeing-fuselages-pulled-from-river/article_d99e81e0-1386-11e4-93eb-0019bb2963f4.html
Did MRL have a derailment on this same route by the Clark fork last year ? If so how near and any of the crew the same ?
Looks like they have them all on dry land now ..
http://missoulian.com/news/local/last-derailed-boeing-fuselage-removed-from-clark-fork-near-alberton/article_7243fd7e-06eb-11e4-8c6b-0019bb2963f4.html
A couple more showing the damage in detail: (thanks to the photographers).
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=488740&nseq=2
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=488739&nseq=3
Photo on the NewsWire article appears to show fuselage snapped in half just ahead of the wing mountings. Also, a big crack in the same spot on the mostly submerged one in the foreground.
ccc there are some interesting photos out there of this derailment, the one that struck me as the most interesting was that of the tail being BROKEN off of the fuselage, and that all of the planes stayed attached to their cars.
there are some interesting photos out there of this derailment, the one that struck me as the most interesting was that of the tail being BROKEN off of the fuselage, and that all of the planes stayed attached to their cars.
Not repairable. Stringers and long ribs stretched and compressed. No way to know how far. maybe some parts available. Might be a good ground tester for ultimate pressurization failures for damaged planes ?
Tree --- get one for Fire department training.
Ouch
I don't think anyone will be arguing the fate of that particular fuselage.
Check Trains Newswire today. Boeing is still in the process of assessing the damage to these. It's happening as I stated rather than automatically being condemned out of some fear something could go wrong down the road and they'd be blamed by someone that decides to connect the reason to unseen/unrepaired damage dating to this delivery incident.
"Once we have completed our assessment of damages and determined our next course of action, we will decide what to do with the fuselages."
Pretty odd if the insurance company already owns them...
NorthWest Leo_AmesI'd have no more issue here than I would with flying on something like an airliner that dragged the tail during landing which was repaired as directed by Boeing or whatever the manufacturer was. Remember Japan Airlines Flight 123...hidden damage, and an incorrect repair.
Leo_AmesI'd have no more issue here than I would with flying on something like an airliner that dragged the tail during landing which was repaired as directed by Boeing or whatever the manufacturer was.
Remember Japan Airlines Flight 123...hidden damage, and an incorrect repair.
And if that's the one I'm thinking of, they didn't correctly repair the tail and didn't even come close to following Boeing directives. And they didn't catch the nicotine stains (Back when smoking was still allowed) that had developed in the years since the repair that should've clued them in that pressurized air was escaping.
Edit: Wasn't (I was thinking of China Airlines Flight 611 it appears), but it was similar in that the repairs didn't conform to Boeing's approved repair methods which led to a weakened repair that eventually failed and led to disaster (Although this time, it was Boeing technicians that screwed up and didn't follow their own standards).
Norm48327 Leo, What do I have to say that will convince you those fuselages will never see service. Boeing would not want the potential liability should a problem arise with them and when an airline orders a new plane that is exactly what they want, not a repaired one. A retired FAA guy who was high up the ladder agrees they will not see service.
What do I have to say that will convince you those fuselages will never see service. Boeing would not want the potential liability should a problem arise with them and when an airline orders a new plane that is exactly what they want, not a repaired one.
A retired FAA guy who was high up the ladder agrees they will not see service.
Anyway, it seems that BNSF ran a Boeing Special (they have done this before when Boeing was behind schedule) in order to get more fuselages to the PNW. Looks like they used whatever power they could scrounge up, too.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=488476&nseq=2
Leo_Ames Norm48327 Leo, What do I have to say that will convince you those fuselages will never see service. Boeing would not want the potential liability should a problem arise with them and when an airline orders a new plane that is exactly what they want, not a repaired one. A retired FAA guy who was high up the ladder agrees they will not see service. I haven't argued that they would one way or another (Heck, for the two I saw pictures of partly in the water, I'm inclined to agree). What I did do was ask if you had an inside track here with some of your posts like your statement about the insurance company now owning them and then argued with the certainty of your tone and your reasons why they'd automatically be scrapped (Liability) when it became clear you were just expressing your opinion. A significant incident doesn't automatically lead to scrapping. It's a completely objective decision made upon inspection of the airframe. If it's economically repairable, it's repaired. With your pedigree and connections, you should know that. samfp1943 Would you want to fly in a plane that had been so seriously damaged, and then repaired? Any incident would be subject to scrutiny, at many levels. Sure, I would because the fact that it's in service clearly indicates that Boeing employees went through everything with a fine tooth comb and made any necessary repairs to mitigate the damage. I'd have no more issue here than I would with flying on something like an airliner that dragged the tail during landing which was repaired as directed by Boeing or whatever the manufacturer was. A decision to scrap an airframe is based on facts, not fears. Take this 747 that had a belly landing in the 80's for an example. Was fully repaired under the auspices of Boeing and returned to service. That's how this stuff works. It's inspected to determine its condition, a decision on the feasibility is undertaken, and if it's cost effective, repairs are initiated. Yet by your guys thinking, there'd be no possible decision there except to cut her up. I'd be very surprised if every airframe involved in this incident is cut up.
I haven't argued that they would one way or another (Heck, for the two I saw pictures of partly in the water, I'm inclined to agree). What I did do was ask if you had an inside track here with some of your posts like your statement about the insurance company now owning them and then argued with the certainty of your tone and your reasons why they'd automatically be scrapped (Liability) when it became clear you were just expressing your opinion.
A significant incident doesn't automatically lead to scrapping. It's a completely objective decision made upon inspection of the airframe. If it's economically repairable, it's repaired. With your pedigree and connections, you should know that.
samfp1943 Would you want to fly in a plane that had been so seriously damaged, and then repaired? Any incident would be subject to scrutiny, at many levels.
Would you want to fly in a plane that had been so seriously damaged, and then repaired? Any incident would be subject to scrutiny, at many levels.
Sure, I would because the fact that it's in service clearly indicates that Boeing employees went through everything with a fine tooth comb and made any necessary repairs to mitigate the damage.
I'd have no more issue here than I would with flying on something like an airliner that dragged the tail during landing which was repaired as directed by Boeing or whatever the manufacturer was.
A decision to scrap an airframe is based on facts, not fears. Take this 747 that had a belly landing in the 80's for an example. Was fully repaired under the auspices of Boeing and returned to service.
That's how this stuff works. It's inspected to determine its condition, a decision on the feasibility is undertaken, and if it's cost effective, repairs are initiated. Yet by your guys thinking, there'd be no possible decision there except to cut her up.
I'd be very surprised if every airframe involved in this incident is cut up.
The same thought process applies to locomotives involved in derailments/collisions. A full assessment of the damage is made and a decision to repair or not is based upon the economic repairability of that damage. In a number of cases, locomotives that on cursory examination appear damaged beyond repair are repairable, in a similar vein sometimes engine that 'appear' to have only incurred 'slight' damage may not be economically repairable account unseen damage. In every case it takes experts to make the assessments.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Leo_Ames Phoebe Vet Leo: Here in Charlotte we have the Airbus that landed in the Hudson River. I stood beside it in the museum and asked the docent why it was taken out of service. It doesn't seem to be hurt that bad. He replied that it had been in the water and therefor was no longer serviceable. I didn't ask him whether Airbus, USAirways or the FAA made that decision. That doesn't surprise me. It was taking on water upon landing, had structural damage due to the airframe partly breaking up, etc. But just being involved in an incident doesn't make it an automatic write off. But there is a definite point where a repair is uneconomical to effect just like with a locomotive. But an incident prior to delivery doesn't equate to an automatic scrapping like suggested out of liability fears. It's scrapped simply because it's too expensive to justify repairing the damage. If they're confident it can fully be repaired at a reasonable cost, it's going to be repaired. It's not like a $40,000 automobile in an autorack that left the rails where they just write the cargo off even if it's abundantly clear that there's nothing wrong with most of the cargo and just minor issues with the rest. It's more expeditious and financially attractive to just scrap it rather than mess with it. But a ~$75 million dollar Boeing 737 is a whole other animal.
Phoebe Vet Leo: Here in Charlotte we have the Airbus that landed in the Hudson River. I stood beside it in the museum and asked the docent why it was taken out of service. It doesn't seem to be hurt that bad. He replied that it had been in the water and therefor was no longer serviceable. I didn't ask him whether Airbus, USAirways or the FAA made that decision.
Leo:
Here in Charlotte we have the Airbus that landed in the Hudson River. I stood beside it in the museum and asked the docent why it was taken out of service. It doesn't seem to be hurt that bad. He replied that it had been in the water and therefor was no longer serviceable. I didn't ask him whether Airbus, USAirways or the FAA made that decision.
That doesn't surprise me. It was taking on water upon landing, had structural damage due to the airframe partly breaking up, etc. But just being involved in an incident doesn't make it an automatic write off. But there is a definite point where a repair is uneconomical to effect just like with a locomotive.
But an incident prior to delivery doesn't equate to an automatic scrapping like suggested out of liability fears. It's scrapped simply because it's too expensive to justify repairing the damage. If they're confident it can fully be repaired at a reasonable cost, it's going to be repaired. It's not like a $40,000 automobile in an autorack that left the rails where they just write the cargo off even if it's abundantly clear that there's nothing wrong with most of the cargo and just minor issues with the rest. It's more expeditious and financially attractive to just scrap it rather than mess with it.
But a ~$75 million dollar Boeing 737 is a whole other animal.
There was a shipment of 6 737 variants that were involved in the MRL Derailment.
Each of those aircraft fuselages was designated for a specific carriers order.[ Light damages en route could be repaired and not effect the service of the aircraft,] but when you have an accident of the magnitude that these 6 aircraft suffered, AND The three that ended up in the Clark Fork River [add to the immersion in water factor, and then you have the factor of 'legal risk management' entering into the equation. That damage can be traced to each airframe serial number.
The exposure to 'Risks' is too much to place on those planes end users. They[ the fuselages] might be salvaged for some parts, but the whole fuselage has been exposed to potential for corrosion by water.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.