A321 vertical fin quick removal procedure.

Car99

https://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2018/05/13/turkish-plane-tail-

billie1b

Car99 wrote: »

https://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2018/05/13/turkish-plane-tail-

Thats an A321 not an A320



sorry but I edited the thread title!

duskyjoe

moloner4 wrote: »

ATC at fault or ground crews?

The Capt of the 330.

plodder

That's a very interesting video. It's always interesting to see exactly how strong different parts of an airframe actually are. Even though the whole fin seems to just snap off, it withstood some pretty serious stress, in pivoting the whole aircraft probably with its brakes on, before it snaps. I'd say Airbus engineering will be studying it very closely to see if it performed as expected.

Car99

billie1b wrote: »

Thats an A321 not an A320

Good man billie1b

duskyjoe

That 321 is severely damaged. Surely the rear bulkhead re presurizarion will have been torqued and will require a full replacement likewise the elevator assembly. Massive damage, massive bill to repair? Economic write off? The 330 wing will also be under the microscope re severe damage

PukkaStukka

duskyjoe wrote: »

That 321 is severely damaged. Surely the rear bulkhead re presurizarion will have been torqued and will require a full replacement likewise the elevator assembly. Massive damage, massive bill to repair? Economic write off? The 330 wing will also be under the microscope re severe damage

Sure add hydraulics and possibly the APU into the mix as well

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

duskyjoe

PukkaStukka wrote: »

Sure add hydraulics and possibly the APU into the mix as well

Wouldn’t be surprised if they write the 321 off for spare parts

L1011

TK, or their insurers/lessors, have written off an extremely young plane due to an incident that might have been repairable before: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20150304-0

This is quite a bit older.

kona

duskyjoe wrote: »

Wouldn’t be surprised if they write the 321 off for spare parts

How old is the 321?

L1011

kona wrote: »

How old is the 321?

11 years. So it would have a decent life left if undamaged; but could be over the tipping point for part-out rather than repair.

kona

L1011 wrote: »

11 years. So it would have a decent life left if undamaged; but could be over the tipping point for part-out rather than repair.

Suppose it will come down to what shape its in, if theres no damage other than the obvious id say it will be fixed.

California Dreamer

duskyjoe wrote: »

The Capt of the 330.

How so? The Captain or pilot flying was following the centre line.

Tenger

California Dreamer wrote: »

How so? The Captain or pilot flying was following the centre line.

Flight should be alert for their own wing clearance. But then I assume they were following ATC instructions.
Questions need to asked about how the A321 ended up coming to a stop at that point rather than further forward, surely that is the whole point of the hammerhead?

Lapmo_Dancer

duskyjoe wrote: »

The Capt of the 330.

FO is also culpable, especially as the collision was on his/her side.

Lapmo_Dancer

Tenger wrote: »

Flight should be alert for their own wing clearance. But then I assume they were following ATC instructions.
Questions need to asked about how the A321 ended up coming to a stop at that point rather than further forward, surely that is the whole point of the hammerhead?

Happens all the time in DUB.... “ holding short, waiting for a marshaller”

billy few mates

plodder wrote: »

That's a very interesting video. It's always interesting to see exactly how strong different parts of an airframe actually are. Even though the whole fin seems to just snap off, it withstood some pretty serious stress, in pivoting the whole aircraft probably with its brakes on, before it snaps. I'd say Airbus engineering will be studying it very closely to see if it performed as expected.

The fin and it's attachment system is not really designed to take any significant side load so it's not totally unexpected it would snap off like this. The majority of its strength is along the fore and aft (longitudinal) axis. We've seen incidents in the past where fins have snapped off in flight because of excessive forces caused by side loads encountered by vigorous movement of the rudder pedals. It's the same with engines and engine pylons. I've seen an incident where an engine and pylon dropped clean off after a fairly minor side-on impact with a truck...

kona

billy few mates wrote: »

The fin and it's attachment system is not really designed to take any significant side load so it's not totally unexpected it would snap off like this. The majority of its strength is along the fore and aft (longitudinal) axis. We've seen incidents in the past where fins have snapped off in flight.

American airlines a300 in queens for example.

kona

Lapmo_Dancer wrote: »

Happens all the time in DUB.... “ holding short, waiting for a marshaller”

Or loaders have left a load of ****e all over the stand. I notice quite alot of clutter around the stand the 321 was due on. Few lads standing around with hands in pockets too.

Bussywussy

Lapmo_Dancer wrote: »

Tenger wrote: »

Flight should be alert for their own wing clearance. But then I assume they were following ATC instructions.
Questions need to asked about how the A321 ended up coming to a stop at that point rather than further forward, surely that is the whole point of the hammerhead?

Happens all the time in DUB.... “ holding short, waiting for a marshaller”

"He's on the way"

FunkyDa2

Bussywussy wrote: »

"He's on the way"

When I was there, there were never enough vans, and you would have to grab a tow tractor and do a high speed run straight across the ramp...:D

plodder

billy few mates wrote: »

The fin and it's attachment system is not really designed to take any significant side load so it's not totally unexpected it would snap off like this. The majority of its strength is along the fore and aft (longitudinal) axis. We've seen incidents in the past where fins have snapped off in flight because of excessive forces caused by side loads encountered by vigorous movement of the rudder pedals. It's the same with engines and engine pylons. I've seen an incident where an engine and pylon dropped clean off after a fairly minor side-on impact with a truck...

True, though it's impressive that the whole plane could be rotated while stationary to the extent it was, before the fin did snap.

On the blame game, I'm surprised people are saying the a330 must be at fault. Obviously, the A321 isn't likely to be, but surely it depends on controller's/ground crew's instructions to some extent.

kona

plodder wrote: »

True, though it's impressive that the whole plane could be rotated while stationary to the extent it was, before the fin did snap.

On the blame game, I'm surprised people are saying the a330 must be at fault. Obviously, the A321 isn't likely to be, but surely it depends on controller's/ground crew's instructions to some extent.

The 321 is so far off the hammer head you have to question the 330, it would be very obvious your gunna hit it!
Cant just accept clearance and rock on!!!

Also the rudder and vertical stab assembly is designed to put enough force on the fuselage to turn it when commanded, the airload at that airspeed wouldnt be insignificant.

Tenger

kona wrote: »

The 321 is so far off the hammer head you have to question the 330, it would be very obvious your gunna hit it!
Cant just accept clearance and rock on!!!
......

I would be of this view. Isnt it permissible for the A330 to query the instruction to continue to "possible obstruction of taxiway by TK A321?"

goingnowhere

Captain is responsible regardless of what ATC say, ATC clearance doesn't remove the responsibility to keep a look out and maintain separation

HTCOne

ATC can’t see whether there’s a meter or 2 of wing/fin blocking a taxiway from potentially a few KM away up in a tower. Wing tip clearance is always commanders responsibility really.

Henry Ford III

The vertical stabiliser is immensely strong at it's mounting point. When the rudder is used it has to withstanding a lot of force.

It's not however designed to deal with an impact like that. Fault lies with the A321 for being parked where it was and also with the A330 for not watching out for clearance.

An expensive accident.

duskyjoe

California Dreamer wrote: »

duskyjoe wrote: »

The Capt of the 330.

How so? The Captain or pilot flying was following the centre line.

Blindly following the centre does not mitigate one from their responsibilities re wingspan clearance in regard to obstacles. I’d also be very keen to know what taxi speed the a330 was doing. The video was obviously speeded up but it looked like they were taxing at a rate of knots in a busy congested ramp area.
This is the reason of how so. The question will have to be asked did TK inform ground ATC that they were holding short of their stand re no marshaller / stand guidance......these are periphery inputs but getting back to my final point the book stops with the Capt of the A330. Yes other people will have fingers pointed at but the main finger will be pointed at you know who.

California Dreamer

Tenger wrote: »

Flight should be alert for their own wing clearance. But then I assume they were following ATC instructions.
Questions need to asked about how the A321 ended up coming to a stop at that point rather than further forward, surely that is the whole point of the hammerhead?

The 321 guy didn’t inform ATC that he was holding short of the hammer head so he is at fault.

duskyjoe

Your trolling or dreaming.

kona

California Dreamer wrote: »

The 321 guy didn’t inform ATC that he was holding short of the hammer head so he is at fault.

He hit a stationary object for gods sake!

duskyjoe

Pure trolling imo stating 321 at fault. Nothing more. There are certainly contributory factors to the cause of this serious incident but the biggest contributor was in the 330. The wingspan on a 330 is 60.3m. People don’t realize how bloody wide the wings are. Just because one is on the Centre of a taxi line doesn’t give them security if not whacking into something

California Dreamer

duskyjoe wrote: »

Pure trolling imo stating 321 at fault. Nothing more. There are certainly contributory factors to the cause of this serious incident but the biggest contributor was in the 330. The wingspan on a 330 is 60.3m. People don’t realize how bloody wide the wings are. Just because one is on the Centre of a taxi line doesn’t give them security if not whacking into something

I resent the comment that I am trolling. So you know better then. Well go ahead, with your years of experience tell me how the 321 is not at fault.

I think the people who know how wide the wings are are the pilots. The 321 had his arse out plain and simple. Those lines on the ground are there for a reason you know!

kona

California Dreamer wrote: »

I resent the comment that I am trolling. So you know better then. Well go ahead, with your years of experience tell me how the 321 is not at fault.

I think the people who know how wide the wings are are the pilots. The 321 had his arse out plain and simple. Those lines on the ground are there for a reason you know!

Good man.

L1011

Calm down.

duskyjoe

California- it happens all the time where aircraft can be outside the safety lines. The 330 ploughed and I repeat ploughed into the TK. I said the 321 was a contributory factor but cogniscence of Wing span clearance is a a prerequisite to being in command of a heavy aircraft and the associated threats that entail on taxing. To blame the 321 is utterly wrong. I’m walking away from this thread so 321 blame game can get legs.

Lapmo_Dancer

duskyjoe wrote: »

California- it happens all the time where aircraft can be outside the safety lines. The 330 ploughed and I repeat ploughed into the TK. I said the 321 was a contributory factor but cogniscence of Wing span clearance is a a prerequisite to being in command of a heavy aircraft and the associated threats that entail on taxing. To blame the 321 is utterly wrong. I’m walking away from this thread so 321 blame game can get legs.

Well said duskyjoe.

<SNIP>
No issues posting your agreement to a informative post/opinion but we recognize the varying levels of knowledge and try to left elitism for prune.
Just a hopefully polite pointer

PukkaStukka

Ive offered no opinion as to where responsibility lies because quite frankly, I haven't a damn clue! But I'll keenly await the investigators report which I've no doubt will set out where those responsibilities lie, and importantly, why.

As unfortunate as these events are, I important lessons can be learned to help prevent far worse from happening

HTCOne

Turkey tends not to publish accident reports, although if the fault doesn’t lie with THY they might buck the trend.

kona

HTCOne wrote: »

Turkey tends not to publish accident reports, although if the fault doesn’t lie with THY they might buck the trend.

Dont really need to see one in this case to be fair!

Tenger

I’m not fully aware of the specific lines of responsibility but my thinking is that all parties are responsible for reporting threats.
In my view the A321 not being on the hammerhead should have been warned out.
ATC when given instructions should have covered traffic ahead (although I guess they assumed taxiway was clear?)
And the A330 should have been aware of their wing clearance and spot the badly stopped aircraft in front of them.

A calamity of errors in my (decidedly amateur) view.

billie1b

Tenger wrote: »

I’m not fully aware of the specific lines of responsibility but my thinking is that all parties are responsible for reporting threats.
In my view the A321 not being on the hammerhead should have been warned out. ATC when given instructions should have covered traffic ahead (although I guess they assumed taxiway was clear?) And the A330 should have been aware of their wing clearance and spot the badly stopped aircraft in front of them.

A calamity of errors in my (decidedly amateur) view.

Also to add, maybe the Asiana wasn’t on the centre line like he should have been

0lddog

Any word on the condition of the A321 ?

HTCOne

Tenger wrote: »

I’m not fully aware of the specific lines of responsibility but my thinking is that all parties are responsible for reporting threats.
In my view the A321 not being on the hammerhead should have been warned out. ATC when given instructions should have covered traffic ahead (although I guess they assumed taxiway was clear?) And the A330 should have been aware of their wing clearance and spot the badly stopped aircraft in front of them.

A calamity of errors in my (decidedly amateur) view.

I haven’t done anything tower related since my initial ATC training years ago, but Surface Movements Controller can only warn people about what he/she knows about. If Turkish didn’t warn Ground that their arse was hanging out over the taxiway then it’s very unlikely Ground will spot it. Think about the angle the tower may be at from potentially a few KM away, assuming that particular gate is even visible from the tower cab. It’s just not possible for Ground to see if there’s a wing tip clearance issue in the vast majority of cases, hence why it is always commanders responsibility.

Now in a perfect world Turkish should have told Ground they were blocking a taxiway, but the freq could have been jammers and they didn’t get the opportunity for all we know, ultimate responsibility lies with Asiana here regardless.

knucklehead6

0lddog wrote: »

Any word on the condition of the A321 ?

its got a broken tail bone