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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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).
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.
Ouch
I don't think anyone will be arguing the fate of that particular fuselage.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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 ?
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
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.
Norm
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
Leo_Ames If these were deemed to be able to economically be fully repaired, that's what would've happened.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.